Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/ScimandanHelloFreshJanuaryYT and use code POGDANJAN21 for 21 free meals plus free shipping!
I'm glad Hello Fresh works for you, Dan. I tried it, and it is not disabled-friendly in the slightest. It took me hours to make each meal. Get that sponsorship money, tho!
@MurdocsMinionGirl its a meal service that sends you raw ingredients you have to cook yourself... they aren't sending microwaveable food, so if you struggle to cook for yourself for any reason, of course its going to be challenging.
And this is the difference between SciManDan and the majority of the people he debunks. He isn't ashamed to admit when he is wrong. And then goes the extra mile to explain why he was and then corrects the mistake. Love your stuff and your humility, SciManDan!
Dan what I appreciate about your channel is the intellectual honesty. If you are wrong even slightly you always issue a correction. The guys you cover almost never do the same
most of the ones that are wrong try to double down on their wrongness, then try gaslighting everyone into believing that they are right. The Nathans are three great examples of this.
Not always, he does make other small errors and incorrect assumptions and generalisations but I expect my comments pointing them out would be too deeply buried in the comments to be seen without a deep dive. Remember a few years back when a damn-fool thought he's captured a video proof of a "black sun" at an Antarctic base? Dan dismissed it as a photographic artifact but if one slowed down the video the two frames either side clearly showed it to be what it really was - a black (because they're the most visible against different sky conditions) balloon used to check the low level winds before the release of a high altitude balloon.
@@gordowg1wg145 100% agree with this. He always seems to be in the right ballpark with his responses, but they usually feel kind of underdeveloped. Like the blue balls of conspiracy debunks
Well if he was called out by another youtuber or upvoted commenter.... If not, then the mistake prevails. Also don't make a statement what the guys he covers do without watching their channel. It is just an assumption. (Forget this part, if you are a regular pseudoscience and FE channel watcher).
@@gordowg1wg145 "black sun"? Please tell Me where I can look to find this black sun and why no telescope who've had in space or satellite in space looking down at the earth hasn't seen it?
I stream on twitch and one day a person asked me, what I thought of flat earth. I said "I follow SciManDan, That should explain everything.'' A few months later, Someone confronted me thinking I was a Flat Earther. I quickly corrected the missunderstanding of course. Turned out some people assumed I was FE simply because they assumed SciManDan was also FE It just shows how some people don't bother looking up information at all.. I learned to be more specific from then on.. 🤷♂
As a seller, you see the same effect on eBay: People just look at the pictures and don't bother to read the description. They ask questions clearly answered in the description. Take away generalised point: People are generally lazy.
17:43 "I can't access a satellite" Much of JWST data are available soon after capture, the rest will be released after a certain period to give the institution requesting that data time to work on it before making it public. Hubble data is also downloadable. Pointing in the other direction, Landsat and Sentinel data are available.
JWST and Hubble are not survey telescopes. You need the Gaia data, also public available. Gaia is monotoring every lightsource with the best possible instruments during a years long mission. A far more important telescope and it cost only a fraction of the JWST. But it doesn't has NASA on it sides, so it doesn't has the marketing budget JWST has.
Technically, anyone can submit a proposal to use Hubble, JWST, etc. but you have to justify your use... and something tells me that the ones in charge of these scientific instruments are not interested in rehashing old established facts that have been in textbooks for centuries. The point of science is to shed light on the dark areas of our current collective knowledge... _"To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!"_ 🎶🎶🎶 Sorry, got a little carried away at the end.
But in this case you don't need a satellite at all. You can buy a decent telescope, mount and camera for yourself for under $2000 that would allow you to solve these issues yourself.
There was a fair handful of us who pointed out the day/night cycle issue in detail on his response video. He responded quite disgustingly and deleted every single response ultimately disabling comments all together. He has no interest in honest discourse.
"I'm not smart enough to figure this out on my own, someone else figured it out and I'm explaining it to you". Surely he should also understand that if he's not smart enough to figure this out on his own, then he's not smart enough to spot the flaws in the explanation that he found?
Also if he's not smart enough to figure it out, and is hell bent on using someone else's ideas, he could at least use the correct people's ideas for his own appropriation.
This is one of your best responses, you really did show evidence for your side and quickly but thoroughly explained your points with respect to the other side. Would like to see you get into more direct discussions with people who are crafting these skewed theories. Well done
Well, this guy was head and shoulders above most flerfs, which is what made it so entertaining to watch him spewing absolute nonsense and gave Dan something substantive to bounce off of. great featured guest
So the only REAL science is the science we can do ourselves? Well I've got to get busy building my particle accelerator, chemistry lab, deep sea sub and a couple of other projects to catch up. Especially since they have to be made of stone blocks.
My main issue with Dan is that he does tend to say something true and then not explain it. Yeah, it's often obvious to me, but clearly not to those he is debunking. I like when he goes a little more in-depth to explain things, such as using universe sandbox.
Yes. He should really go a bit more into the details. I don't watch him for gaining knowledge, just for the fun, but whoever sees his videos and is not a backyard astronomer will not gain much from the videos. They will just see a guy calling other guys stupid.
His videos feel a bit lazy to me in that sense. He is debunking stuff without a proper explanation a lot of the times. His videos fell more like a reaction video than anything else. I mean, it's light entertainment not educational, but still...a bit more effort would not hurt anyone.
Yeah I don't expect a full hour long video on explanations sort of like what professor Dave but scimandan does sort of glance over things a little to fast sometimes
Yeah... Saying "Dear oh dear," doesn't really qualify as "debunking." Then again, I'm also educated enough to get why a simple "dear oh dear," is an understandable reaction to some of the stupidity he's engaging with 🤣
Well, something that you have to take in mind is that they are objectively incorrect. He isn't seeking to have a dialog or debate with them, as the outcome of such things wouldn't change the facts. Clearly he is making fun of them, some of the educational aspect comes from bringing the videos to the viewers attention. Acting like most of the pseudo scientific channels and videos are worthy of such a response is missing the mark by a bit. You don't necessarily want go give them credibility, I mean this one is a bit of an outlier, simply because it's sort of parallel to the accepted science, so of course he needs to be a little bit more thorough and less incendiary.
If there are two people having wildly different opinions, I always tend to believe the person who corrects his/her own mistakes. You just spent multiple minutes to correct a few seconds of mistakes, kudos to you!
the problem is... would dan have corrected himself if he was not called out for it... in all likelihood he would not have and that means there would be incorrect information out there by himself and if that is the case it damages his reputation because you then have to wonder what else is out there from him that is incorrect but simply never been called out? i follow dan and not the other guy but for me the other guy did right by us here and unfortunately dan dropped the ball, yes he corrected himself and then went on to show why the other guy is wrong but it should never take a call out to discover you are wrong, thats admitting that sometimes you do get it wrong and maybe it gets missed.
In defense of discount Santa Claus, I always wished SciManDan would expand a bit more on some of his debunkings. He is guilty (on occasion) of breezing by some of the concepts really quick, sometimes without even a single sentence on why is wrong. That does not mean Dan wrong of course, that's just the style of his channel. One of the nice things about debunking videos for those of us who have not used some our highschool science muscles in a long is that it refreshes our memories (as well as gives us a good laughs). So Dan, as always, A+++ on the laughs for sure, but a few more minutes expanding on the science would actually be a good thing I think.
I agree. I'd enjoy more substance in SciManDan's videos. I like what he does. I just wish he'd go a little deeper. I try to do that in my videos but I don't have his humor.
I do wonder how much of that is trying to keep the videos short and how much it is that it's just so obviously wrong to him that he forgets some people need it explained
I also imagine most of these are the kinds of things he has explained dozens of times in his videos. I agree that occasionally I’m like “ah I might have appreciated one extra moment with that,” but the guy has released multiple videos a week for years. I’m sure he has covered the basic topics that these people bring up MULTIPLE times.. at some point you just say nah I’ve already addressed this so many times, that’s not true. Perhaps when he does breeze over a concept, it would be cool if he shared a link to something that explains the concept well, so he doesn’t have to explain it again but people who are curious to understand it better can know exactly where to go. But then again, that might just wind up being more time consuming than explaining the concept for the hundredth time anyways. Dan is great for spending so much time explaining the same elementary concepts over and over again, but I’m sure at some point, even for him, he would just be like “I’m not google. You can look it up and easily find reputable sources that explain this better than I can.”
I love messing around in Universe Sandbox it makes you appreciate how fragile the planet really is. Would love to see you use it to debunk more videos.
And also, that it completely debunks flat earth theory or else they could make a similar simulator, but of course that's impossible without magic forces at work! 😂 😂
I work at a conservation organization which is required to keep and maintain maps of their lands. Many of the images they use are from satellites, so pictures from satellites are available to the public, some for a fee, and other pictures are free.
17:01 One of my favorite photos! I used in a video or two. Yes, the rocks provide reasonably accurate data. BUT ... the data was misunderstood, misinterpreted, and faulty conclusions were therefore made.
Dan, I'm with you on this one. Watching his original video he certain did not make it clear that the position of Polaris in the quadrant was only at a specific time of each day and so left me with the impression that he was claiming that Polaris remained in that quadrant all the time for that season.
Person 1 makes a claim Person 2 debunks the claim Person 1 tells Person 2 is wrong Person 2 uses data and observations to prove the claim is false. Welcome to science!
As an amateur astronomer this guy rankles me. He wears a shirt that says Warning Spontaneously Talks About Astronomy and doesn't understand basic astronomy. As you mentioned there's the ecliptic, which I believe is where he's getting his 23 degree angle idea, from this definition: "A great circle inscribed on a terrestrial globe inclined at an approximate angle of 23°27′ to the equator and representing the apparent motion of the sun in relation to the earth during a year." He's mistaking the ecliptic line as our inclination and/or orbital plane and ignoring the words apparent and globe. And again, do these people understand that science isn't a debate? No matter how long he spouts wrong data it will never be right.
At least Sci Man Dan, Conspiracy Cats, and many other flat earth debunking, theology debunking, pseudoscience debunking, and all the other nonsense debunking channels will put out videos either with corrections for their mistakes, apologies for mistakes, or videos that may help others understand a bit, about something that may be confusing to others. And I appreciate that! Only time will tell if this guy will at least acknowledge Sci Man's response and apologies. But having that type of attitude, when he's got alot more mistakes to correct. That's something that makes he and other woo peddlers such as him, look extremely bad. Sci Man did the right thing and that's why I respect people that do that.
I predict that RL Poole will only make another video filled with insults and gas lighting and then claim that he "destroyed" Dan like the pigeon that thinks it won the chess game.
@@Mandelbrot_Set There is a comment from him up above where he says he will be doing exactly that. Well, he doesn't call it a video filled with insults and gaslighting, but that is what he actually means.
@@mikebronicki8264 am I missing something ? I didn't understand this guys point or Dans need to use Sandbox. Its bleedin' obvious that the orbital inclination is irrelevant to the seasons - the Sun emits light equally in all directions. The Suns equator is even tilted to the ecliptic by 7 deg and also irrelevant.
Dan wasn't wrong though. Polaris DOES make a circle around true north in just under 24 hours every day. The original video claimed "if you look through the polaris telescope at any point during the night" which is patently false. You have to look at a very specific moment every day to track the seasonal shift, because a few hours earlier or later, and Polaris will be in a different quadrant altogether. I think Dan let him off too easy.
I don’t know how specific a moment it would need to be as it would stay in the same quadrant for a while at least. I’d have thought you could possibly take a sight at 1am then a few months later at say 12.35am followed by another a few months later at say 1.12am and still see Polaris in a different quarter. I would have thought keeping your head in same same position for each sighting would be more of a problem but maybe there is something in place to help with this? I see late on in his video it’s mentioned that there are two sights you have to line up so I guess keeping your head in the same position for each sighting would be less problematic. I don’t think it’s either person’s fault and both of them could have explained it more clearly but we’re all human. We tend to explain things incompletely because we can’t quite comprehend that everyone else doesn’t have the same knowledge and viewpoint as we do.
@@murph8411 "I don’t know how specific a moment it would need to be as it would stay in the same quadrant for a while at least." 6 hours, that's how long it takes to shift 90 degrees (Remember Bob?) Meaning on average it takes less than 3 hours sooner or later to get the "wrong" answer entirely. In fact, 6 hours is enough time that even specific moments like "sunset" or "sunrise" are far enough apart between the seasons to give incorrect results (because due to our axial tilt that moment changes daily, which is the entire point of the rebuttal).
To be nit picky, the Polaris telescope is neither a telescope, nor a sextant. A telescope implies using lenses, mirrors, or a combination thereof, to obtain an image. A sextant is, by definition, an instrument to measure the altitude of an object over the horizon. It’s called a sextant because the little telescope and mirrors used to measure that altitude are all bolted on a (generally) metal plate that is 60° wide. An octant, on the other hand, was a precursor of a sextant, using an 80° sector as support for all the mirrors and telescope. It was later discarded by navigators because it was too bulky. Fun fact, due to the placement of the mirrors, and the way reflections work, a sextant can measure up to 120° from the horizon, while an octant can do 160°
Yeah, if I recall correctly, tele- means distant. So if it doesn't let your see anything more distant than what your eyes can do it's not a telescope. Doesn't necessarily need lenses or mirrors though.
To get more picky: Octant refers to one-eighth of a circle, which is 45 degrees. . . "Etymology: The name octant derives from the Latin octans meaning eighth part of a circle, because the instrument's arc is one eighth of a circle." So an octant actually has a smaller included angle than a sextant, A standard octant meausres up to 90 degress, with modifications can sometimes measure up to 100 degrees, whereas a sextant can measure up to 120 degrees without modifications. The original octants were bulky because of the optics, not because of the arc the could measure. From a cursory reading, it appears the octant was limited in that it could not read angles between two objects such as the moon/sun, whereas a sextant was designed to do just that.
@@Erkle64 correct. I imagine he meant it’s not an optical telescope, since things like radio telescopes don’t capture signals using mirrors and lenses and are still telescopes.
my favourite part was at 6:06 when he said "back with a rebuttal to SciManDans tin foil tuesday debunking "video" of my work". was he implying that it wasnt a real video you made? 😂
Love it, Dan! It's not reasonable to expect anyone to never be wrong. What is important is how it's handled when they are. Your handling of this minor mistake shows quite well how to do it right in this circumstance.
Ah the classic. "There was one tiny thing which wasn't 100% to the letter accurate, I'm going to latch on to this one tiny thing and use it as a proof of literally everything!" Are we sure he's not a flerf?
"that's the value of rocks" ....i'm so using that.. any time i go on at length about something utterly ridiculous, i'm going to finish it off with: "that's the value of rocks" 🤣
A small tip to make better videos in the future: If you're making a capture of software on your computer, temporally set the scale option on the OS to 200%, this will make the video a lot easier to view as video compression makes text almost unreadable, and also so small-screen viewers (like smartphone users) can actually see something. If you're using Windows, this settings is on the settings app, system -> display -> scale.
The application would need to have been designed to accept the scaling factor. In this case, Universe Sandbox is designed similar to a video game and has it's own video settings and the correct method to scale it up would be to choose a smaller resolution. Edit: or if the application has it's own scaling features.
If you get a chance you should definitely tour the Coral Castle - it's amazing, and yes, Ed built it by hand, most likely with a ton of pulleys and levers, etc. But here's the thing - when you're there and you read what Ed said about the various aspects of his house you realize that he was a very smart man who had a wry sense of humor -many of his quotes were meant to be tongue-in-cheek funny, and frankly, once you get what he was doing, it'll make you smile and chuckle a bit. I particularly like the huge heart sculpture he carved for his girlfriend - it has a hole in the center, to which he said, "it's just big enough for her head to stick through it and it holds her - because when she's been bad I'll have to give her a spanking"! The entire place is like that, and it's very, very cool - but while his quotes etc are humorous, the fact that he built that place alone is truly a testament to his engineering and mechanical skill. If you get the chance go and see it - it's in South Miami near the Everglades, the entrance to the Keys, an awesome fruit stand called, "Robert is Here", and fields of potato, tomato, sugar beets, sugar cane, and strawberries (and the u-pik places are awesome; I don't think any use pesticides etc on their plants). There are some awesome little Cuban cafes where the farm workers go to eat, and a lot of orchid nurseries, where you can get a great deal on a flower that is so stubborn it'll only bloom probably the day after you die - but they're still fun to keep and watch grow!
Best response video you've done. Actual scientific based evidence via excellent software. Well done. Let's see a flat earther with the same eviden...hahaha, sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence!
Hello Sci Man Dan , watching this video reminded me of a great book that I bought which I think you might like . It is called "Practical Astronomy With your Calculator . " It is a real eye opener and I learned a lot about astronomy from it which is relevant to this video . I picked up a second hand copy for a very reasonable sum .
@@floryda4281 Another really cool book is called Powers of Ten: A Book About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe and the Effect of Adding Another Zero
Their reasoning is valid only if you're preparing one single meal with family size packages of groceries and then junk all leftovers, because you don't know what else to do with them...
Yeah it works out if you are buying the same amount of groceries just to make that meal for yourself, because some of this stuff you can’t just buy a small amount for a single meal. But if you then use what you’ve bought and make other meals with it, that immediately goes away lol.
@@gwendyp125 I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam. It's just an expensive way to go shopping, with a foolproof easy recipe attached. It's still way cheaper than paying someone else to do it for you, and perhaps leads some people to experience the fun of cooking and the taste of fresh food with quality ingredients. For everyone with basic cooking skills it's a pointless waste of money, but not a scam.
@@Sleeping_Insomiac In my experience, their recipes are so-so; we tried them and also Gusto and the quality of the Gusto recipes was far better. We also felt that Gusto's packaging was better in that they included ice packs instead of just wrapping cheap insulation around the 'chilled' items.
I really love it when a person is big enough to admit when they made a mistake. I know a few who could learn a big lesson from you, Dan; some personally & one of those, especially. And I have seen a very few on here (you, Anton, Hank Green, Kyle Hill, and some that aren't directly science-related, too) who will publicly explain what their mistake is (and sometimes, even why). Those rare ones, like you, give me hope for the species. Perhaps we can still yet save ourselves. 🤞🏼🙏 ❤❤
SciManDan was a bit wrong and corrected himself. The Beard was almost completely wrong and did not correct himself. Probably he don't understand the difference between sideral day and synodic day. And we are rotating exactly around the equator of the sun for obvious reasons (preservation of momentum). For the bearded guy to be right, Newton must be wrong.
A really easy way to show the change in daylight at different times of year: Get a globe, a light source, two equal lengths of string. With the pole towards the "sun" make a loop with one of the pieces of string at, for example the 45° North latitude. This circumference represents a day. Looking down from above, mark the two day/night points on the string. Colour the night section. Open the string and you basically have a line divided into night and day. Do the same with the pole pointed away. Compare the two strings. One has far more light, the other far more dark.
I will give the guy credit, he didn't resort to name calling and handled his responses in an adult way. Far from what most of the people that Dan debunks.
And on Dan's monthly comments video this morning, he posted a diatribe which included "you're a gaslighting piece of monkey spunk that couldn't science his way out of a cardboard laboratory with a beaker in each hand". What a lovely individual.
As others noted, he was actively condescending and implying Dan is stupid. He is much better behaved than most of Dan's detractors, I'll admit that, but claiming he acted in an "adult way" is generous.
I mean, claiming that Dan's counterargument was nothing more than an active attempt to disgrace the reputation of a dead man seems less like direct engagement and more like casting aspersions to me...
There's a lot to unpack with that guy. "Oh you misquoted this one small thing, let me derail your entire argument because I've already had so many failures in life that I am unable to admit when I am wrong about literally everything else you said. Nope, that one small thing means I am right". The world is full of guys like that and I can't even begin to count how many times we've probably all come across them. Being intelligent doesn't mean critical thinking skills are still present and the knee jerk reaction is a palpable cover for a lot of other encounters I am guessing this guy has had in his life. SciManDan has way more patience than myself for these people. Funny part is, if the dude even remotely tried to communicate with out being in the defense, he may actually learn, and be a valuable resource to educating people on his simple mistake. People grow from failures and being wrong - well some people. Looks like he's made a career out of not admitting that.
The best one yet. I love how they try to convince someone their model is correct just like a magician tries to convince kids that magic is real. Love your work Dan.
Ah! Last week I knew there was a problem with the Polaris Telescope and that it only had one wire cross-hair. The problem with that is that is that you can't line things up properly. Even if there was an X clearly marked on the ground, a six year old child and an NBA player standing on that X would see two different parts of the sky when looking at that cross-hair. Revealed in the video is that there is a second cross-hair, which makes the Polaris Telescope actually function for monitoring part of the sky 24/7/365.
i actually had to research this myself...in Leedskalin's "castle" there is a hole in a wall a few feet away from the "polaris tower". If you peep thru that hole, you are lined up to see polaris in the crosshair. However, I do not think Leedskalin actually used this to prove anything about the orbit of earth. The crosshair and the tower is way too small for this to work. The little info there is about the "castle" implies that Leedskalin wanted to determine North with this construction to correctly align the rest of the buildings...a great feat, no less, but not actual proof of anything astronomical.
In the video he said there is a second crosshair in that hole, but from other videos I have seen on the subject, there is no second crosshair. Though it is possible that there used to be one, but it got removed.
He does raise a good point, I'm sorry to admit. I realize it's more work but, if you're going to say something like, "That's wrong, it would play havoc with [thing]," it's probably a good idea to explain *how* it would play havoc with [thing] in your original response, if for no other reason than to prevent the back-and-forth name calling. "Oooh, he says I'm wrong but he doesn't say how" is a fair statement. I realize some of these guys are hard to take seriously but, if you're going to play chess with pigeons, don't supply them with bird feed they can use to shit on the board with.
Hello Dan. " Use the tools at our disposal right now to get things right ". In fact, for what this gentleman tries to understand, that is the relative motion of the earth, sun and moon, we don’t need modern instruments. I was reading the Amalgest by Ptolemy the other day (translated, I admit). This fantastic book was written almost 19 centuries ago. It contains findings by Ptolemy himsef but is also a compilation of the astronomical knowledge of his time. And those ancient astronomers had very rudimentary instruments at their disposal. No telescope and no way to magnify anything, just pieces of wood to mesure angles and water clocks to evaluate time. Nevertheless, Ptolemy describes pretty accuratly the motion of the moon and of the sun (he’s very wrong regarding planets though). He’s able to explain the seasons, the precession of the equinoxes, the equation of time, the difference between the solar day and the celestial day, the time difference between locations on earth etc. etc. I’m very surprised by the fact that this gentleman, and other flatearthers on your channel, are struggling to understand what was already commonly known by astronomers 1875 years ago.
"Can you access a satellite?" Probably not legally in most countries, but yes, you can definitely build weather satellite receivers at home, in fact, i've been wanting to try doing that. For everyone else, there's Himawari 8, a geostationary japanese weather satellite that takes images of Japan, Australia, Asia, and the Pacific every 10 minutes and uploads them to the internet. Since it does this 24/7 and its archives go back years, you can go ahead and verify that the terminator line behaves the way that physics dictate it should. Also, the thing captures cool stuff all the time. One time an asteroid entered the Earth's atmosphere over the Barent's sea, and Himawari 8 snapped a photo of it. You can see the smoke from Australian forest fires, too. It also captures lunar eclipses when they happen in Asia. You can even see the Tonga eruption.
@@Mandelbrot_Set Yeah, i know that, problem is that i'm still in vocational school and 200€ is a lot of money for me to spend on something like that. Also, it might be illegal where i live, not sure (though, honestly, it's an unenforcable law, like, how's anyone gonna prove i received a satellite signal i wasn't allowed to receive?)
17:42 "I can't access a satellite can you? You're just gonna be like, oh that's what they say. That's not science! Science is being able to prove it to yourself," WRONG! Science is a COMMUNITY effort, not an "on your own" thing. There are huge amounts of science that NOBODY can do on their own. Satellite science involves 1000's of people working together, not just one privileged guy. Any big enough endeavour has always been a community effort. The farmers, blacksmiths and carpenters have always been key suppliers for any big enterprise. Even Galileo would have sourced his leather rather than raising his own cows.
The fact that the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the orbital plane in Ed's model seems to have no significance for neither Ed nor this sheeple. You don't need stellarium to see that every day would be an Equinox and in Florida even Coral Castle days vary by 2 hours over the year.
I did a project explaining sundials when I was 11 or 12. I bet my understanding of them then exceeds that guys. We shall see! Looking forward to the next instalment Dan!
You know they are a genius when they do the 2 finger " " bit in a totally random place Dans Debunking "video" I would have thought would be Dan's "debunking" video But what do I know - I'm not a genius
To be fair he shouldn't have had to. If the earth's orbit to the sun is at the same degree as the earth's axial tilt, it's essentially the same thing as if the earth had no axial tilt at all in our current orbit.. we'd end up with equal day/night hours all year long.
The basic issue seems to be a lack of appreciation of what the ecliptic represents and the axial tilt of the Earth. With the exception of oddities like Pluto, all the major planets lie, within a few degrees, in the same plane, which is the plane of the equator of the Sun. That makes sense given that the best model we have says that the planets formed out of the primitive solar nebula as it condensed and contracted. You would expect the planets to be in the same plane and observation says that they are. The variation in the length of the day is down to the axial tilt of the Earth.
All he’s going to do is say something to the effect of, “he uses a video game to prove me wrong?! No. My guy built telescopes and used math to prove him wrong!” All the while not realizing what tech went into that “video game”.
If Earth was in a different plane of orbit around the Sun, ALL observed orbits of the other planets would be different as well. 16:08 I love this argument. "I don't understand this, so I found an explanation I like that agrees with my opinion and now I'm regurgitating it." 17:51 Two minutes ago he said that he didn't understand it so he found what someone else said. He can't prove it to himself because he said he's not smart enough. He's quite the flip-flopper.
Oh, yeah, you were totally right in the original video. It was just lacking that extra bit with the sidereal day. I'll be honest, though, I still am not quite sure what he (the other guy) is on about. I mean... okay, we could sort of "zero" things out for his postulation and say, instead, that the Earth rotates on the flat plane with _not_ axial tilt... but the Sun is tilted 23.5 degrees. It's just about a reference frame, right? So from that frame of reference, everything matches up between the two models -- the agreed upon one, and his -- with the exception that 1. The Earth has no tilt in his and 2. the Sun instead has a tilt in his model. Right? And so if I've got his bit right, then it would mean he's clearly wrong because that would mean Earth wouldn't have any seasons -- certainly we wouldn't have any change in the lengths of night and day throughout the year unless he wants to explain how the Earth's spin changes speeds (and does so very differently between the North and South hemispheres) depending on the time of year. Oh, and that the North or South Poles are in full sun or full night for a portion of the year because of the tilt he thinks doesn't exist. The "tilt" of Earth's Orbit in relation to the Sun's equator is meaningless (and also demonstrably not what we observe, right?). He's just going a round-a-bout means of saying the Earth has no axial tilt. And maybe he just badly misunderstands some things, including how meaningless a "tilted" orbit is when you're basing it off spheres (or nearly-spheres, anyway). Does he understand that he's suggesting there's no tilt? Is he confused about that part of the model he's suggesting? ............. With some things like this, I just think the person wants to believe that they are special in some way, they have some special and unique insight that no one else could possibly have and that's why they are _better_ than everyone else. So they glom on to some weird perspective, convince themselves it's correct, and then start trying to convince others that their incorrect idea is the "real truth". It's gotta come down to ego and a need for attention, right? That it entails some sort of required ignorance is, I suspect, secondary or tertiary because it's all about their identity, their sense of self.
If I understand what he has done correctly, he seems to have taken the correct model, got rid of the axial tilt and the drawn the sun and Earth at a peculiar angle on the diagram (which happens to coincide with the angular tilt of the Earth relative to an arbitrary equator on the sun - he certainly has looked closely at the sun to determine an equator defined by its intrinsic rotation). So it is no wonder he does not get the varying length of day/night for the seasons.
Now THIS GUY is awesome content fodder. He's absolutely bat sh* crazy, but he's obviously not incapacitated or developmentally delayed in any way like many flerfs. This doesn't feel like punching down at all, it just feels like good natured laughing at a clown lmao. please more of this guy I hope he never goes away or turns reformed and realizes how stupid these "sovereign citizens" of the science world are.
I feel like the guy is salvageable. I assume he got emotionally into this stuff out of similar reasons as flat earthers but wasn't stupid enough to go all in. Some success in life might bring him back.
@@sirphantoon6731 no question but I really hope it doesn't happen, for purely selfish reasons. I mean how unlikely is he to matter to the greater society either way? I'm sure his immediate family and friends would still like him the same, so I think on the balance, he's a greater benefit to the world as a jester than as a regular schmoe. I hope he never changes lol
I am looking forward to Dan's rebuttal of the fool's idea seasons are caused by the Sun's magnetic field. Especially since it reverses every 11 years, something he denies.
To be fair, many flerfs are also Evangelical which makes them believe the claim of the globe earth is apparently Satan's attempt to control the masses or to lead people astray. Literally ridiculous as either way you can't go to space yourself. If the Bible didn't use the term "circle" when describing the earth in one segment, these people probably wouldn't exist. I mean hey it's not like the books can be translated or just generally written with flaws. Like how Genesis 1 and 2 literally contradict each other, and that's the literal beginning of the book.
@@Skylancer727 that’s a really good point, superstition is a very common trait among flerfs and and such it's uncommon to see anyone who is a "true believer" that doesn't also trade directly in Abrahamic faith based ideologies. Indeed like you said they usually couch their entire understanding of physics on that rather than the other way round, which is exceptionally odd to witness when they accidentally put themselves in a position where they need to use the argument of a creator to support every anti-scientific argument they try to formulate when challenged.
I hope you start using Universe Sandbox more often in your videos. It really blows Flat Earth Theory out of the water! 😂 😂And helps people to understand things, for those who can't visualize these massive scales.
It does but the geoflatniks will just concoct some outlandish conspiracy fantasy to discredit the app so they can maintain their Jenga tower of beliefs. ✌️
It sure does! I use it quite often to explain the motion of planets and the scale of things to my kids. I also bought Space Engine - which is also a great piece of software!! highly recommended.
Great argument with the Saturn picture! When the star was forming it had an accretion disk where all the planets were formed and that’s why they are all on the same plane apart Pluto. I’m not sure why Pluto differs from the rest if I’m honest.
Yes, I received abuse from Leedskalnin, which disinclined me to enter into discussion. But I also did some more thinking about the subject, and concluded that due to the sidereal day length, Polaris actually makes 366 rotations around a fixed point in a 365 day year. That's one rotation every day, and another, much slower one over the course of a year.
*ring ring, ring ring* "can l speak to Mr Kruger please?" "yep sure, who's calling?". "Mr Dunning...... " He's made the classic error of saying one thing but meaning another, then expecting his audience to unpick it. As Alice said "l always say what l mean, well l mean what l say, it's the same thing isn't it?" eerrrr, nope.
@@stevecampbell9670 It's very simple to control, but has a lot of data you need to learn if you want to do more complex things, such as creating a realistic solar system from scratch.
@@stevecampbell9670 It has a very very steep learning curve its best to take what we have and play around a bit to see how it changes things, Then go for broke and see what madness you create. My 1st attempt in creating my own solar system resulted in utter catastrophe. It was beautiful.
you should have a look at space engine (not space engineers), space engine is a more beautiful universe sandbox that trades being able to interact with the planets for sheer scope, with universe sandbox you can only have so many bodies on screen you can visit, the background is a static image, with space engine the entire universe is on screen and you can click on any star, planet, nebula, black hole, galaxy and visit it and even land on the objects to see what the atmosphere and ground might be like. its really something... requires a beast pc.
This guy reminds me of The Cinema Snob aka Stoned Gremlin Productions so much, it's like his fat older dumber brother with similar mannerisms and all. Anyway, Good Morning or Day to you! Thanks for the videos you post before I go to bed!
Re Polaris's seasonal position: As a NZer for whom the Southern Cross is always above my horizon, I can work out roughly where in the sky it is at any time day or night, with just a little mental arithmetic. Because I know it appears to rotate not just the 360º a day due to earth's axial rotation but about 361º a day, the extra degree being due to earth's orbit around the sun. So about mid-April it's due south high in the sky and the 'right' way up at midnight, and in each 24 hours it will go all the way round, clockwise, plus a little bit more. The midnight position goes all the way round over the course of a year. It's exactly the same with Polaris (and all the other circumpolar stars for you northern hemisphere types). But anticlockwise, because globe.
I didn’t finish the first video you did because I could tell you didn’t quite understand the solar/sidereal cycle. But I knew you’d come back and correct yourself. That’s what is important. I have my doubts that this guy will admit his misunderstandings.
Greetings Scimandan. I am a huge fan of your channel. I really enjoy watching people like you and professor Dave destroy idiots. Although I am not smart enough to understand a lot of the stuff that you and professor Dave talk about, I still enjoy watching you guys pick these people apart piece by piece. Keep up the great work. 👍👍👍
You know you've lost the debate when you go and turn comments off. I guess he was tired of people correcting him and offering him the actual truth and facts.
The way he started by being so snark about his position and saying dan was "too scared to respond" and then taking it personally, and saying that dan is "disrespecting dead people" shows that the problem here is not evidence or science. It's that he's too emotionally attached to it to actually stop and consider it
I will say that this guy has some good points, that you do say things, and even though we can trust you to be correct most of the time, you do explain things as if your whole audience understands it. Some clarifications and explanations would be nice sometimes. And as far as I've seen, this guy isn't your typical "No you're wrong, and I'm right" guy. He does accept that he is wrong on some things, as he stated, and in the portion of the video that I've seen so far, he seems civilized, arguing against your ARGUMENTS and not YOU as a person. This is one of the first instances of a proper (or close to proper) debate that I've seen on your channel, where both parties have proven that they can reason, and listen to arguments. I commend you both for correcting past mistakes, and listening to the other person. EDIT: I will say though, that my praise for him started to fail at 15:52, and that Dan's use of Universe Sandbox to finally show what he meant in the previous video was good.
It is a fair point, but you have to understand that SciManDan videos are entertainment for most people. I personally like the length, I can have about ten minutes of relaxation. Adding deeper explanations to everything most people understand would break the rhythm most videos are in which draws most of the audience. Also, I am pretty sure Dan has his work cut out with the videos as they are. It would take much longer to edit and record, which would mean less and less frequent content.
@@ronik24 that is true. All I was saying was that the person in this video had a valid point when he said Dan doesn't always explain what he says properly
@@ThePhoenixSlayer Dan is light years ahead of that guy. Don't pretend they're on near-equal footing! And you're free to research/Google anything that you don't fully understand.
@@ThePhoenixSlayer You need to look at TalkingToLeedskalnin's childish insults under his community tab. He has rarely said anything about what Dan actually said. It is all taunts and gas lighting and boasts about how he "destroyed" Dan.
@@Slicerwizard I never said that he was near dan's level. I was trying to say that HE was lightyears ahead of every other nutcase on the internet. And as I said in the edit, my respect for him didn't last very long.
Ftfe is a dumbass! He thinks the shots were a good idea even though they were the fastest made and most dangerous in history. Did I get any of that wrong?
It being the difference between a solar and a sidereal day... this is basically like an anime. Really??? It was the super small yet oh-so-significant difference between a perceptual revolution of the sun and the actual 360° rotation of the earth! Stunning...
I don't know. His claims are poorly stated. He evades all questions, so I usually have to take my best guess. 99% of his claims are made up whole cloth.
@@Mandelbrot_Set The bar for "eloquence" is pretty low when it comes to FE/conspiracy people. :) I mostly meant he doesn't sound like a complete loon, unlike some that SMD has visited over the years.
I think it's pretty rich that he claims in his response that *Dan* doesn't want to address the tilt. This guy was all over the comment section of the last video and everyone who replied to him asked him about the tilt and he didn't address it even once.
Another great video, Dan. But what I want to address is your acceptance of HelloFresh as a sponsor. I urge you to do some digging into the immoral practices of this company. They treat their employees like garbage, putting them to work in unsafe conditions and engaging in union-busting practices when those workers tried to organize to improve their situation. This is not even getting into my family's own various issues with the quality of their produce -- my family received spoiled meat on no less than four occasions while using the service, and sometimes entire ingredients were missing. This happening once or twice is understandable human error. But it was a constant problem. Food quality is a lesser issue (and likely a symptom) of the great problem, though: HelloFresh's abhorrent treatment of their employees. Please reconsider your support of this unethical and undeserving company.
The only reason we say our orbit has 0° inclination is because we're looking at it from our perspective. One COULD say we're at 23.4°. One could say we're at 90°. But it would have no effect on the seasons as Dan showed in Universe Sandbox.
The ecliptic plane we are on is about 1° from the invariable (planetary) plane. The invariable plane is a kind of average of all the planets and they're all (apart from Pluto) within 3° of the ecliptic.
Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/ScimandanHelloFreshJanuaryYT and use code POGDANJAN21 for 21 free meals plus free shipping!
I'm glad Hello Fresh works for you, Dan. I tried it, and it is not disabled-friendly in the slightest. It took me hours to make each meal.
Get that sponsorship money, tho!
At least Hello Fresh is a good honest sponsor. Not like Established titles and Kamikoto knives. Can you adress those in one of your videos?
@MurdocsMinionGirl its a meal service that sends you raw ingredients you have to cook yourself... they aren't sending microwaveable food, so if you struggle to cook for yourself for any reason, of course its going to be challenging.
this is why I listen to scientists, not amateurs like both these clowns
@@Robnoble206 Kamikoto knives and Established titles were from the same company btw.
And this is the difference between SciManDan and the majority of the people he debunks. He isn't ashamed to admit when he is wrong. And then goes the extra mile to explain why he was and then corrects the mistake. Love your stuff and your humility, SciManDan!
Though wrong about some detail, still debunking the whole nonsense being told
He wasn't wrong, just partially right. ;)
I wouldn't even say he's wrong, the guy he's debunking just came out with a "oh but I actually meant under these conditions" to move the goal posts
To be honest, this time he found someone who can admit when it's wrong. At least on some part.
@@luckyleafgaming3062 Not exactly, but I understand.
Dan what I appreciate about your channel is the intellectual honesty. If you are wrong even slightly you always issue a correction. The guys you cover almost never do the same
most of the ones that are wrong try to double down on their wrongness, then try gaslighting everyone into believing that they are right. The Nathans are three great examples of this.
Not always, he does make other small errors and incorrect assumptions and generalisations but I expect my comments pointing them out would be too deeply buried in the comments to be seen without a deep dive.
Remember a few years back when a damn-fool thought he's captured a video proof of a "black sun" at an Antarctic base? Dan dismissed it as a photographic artifact but if one slowed down the video the two frames either side clearly showed it to be what it really was - a black (because they're the most visible against different sky conditions) balloon used to check the low level winds before the release of a high altitude balloon.
@@gordowg1wg145 100% agree with this. He always seems to be in the right ballpark with his responses, but they usually feel kind of underdeveloped. Like the blue balls of conspiracy debunks
Well if he was called out by another youtuber or upvoted commenter.... If not, then the mistake prevails.
Also don't make a statement what the guys he covers do without watching their channel. It is just an assumption. (Forget this part, if you are a regular pseudoscience and FE channel watcher).
@@gordowg1wg145 "black sun"? Please tell Me where I can look to find this black sun and why no telescope who've had in space or satellite in space looking down at the earth hasn't seen it?
I stream on twitch and one day a person asked me, what I thought of flat earth. I said "I follow SciManDan, That should explain everything.''
A few months later, Someone confronted me thinking I was a Flat Earther. I quickly corrected the missunderstanding of course.
Turned out some people assumed I was FE simply because they assumed SciManDan was also FE
It just shows how some people don't bother looking up information at all.. I learned to be more specific from then on.. 🤷♂
As a seller, you see the same effect on eBay: People just look at the pictures and don't bother to read the description. They ask questions clearly answered in the description.
Take away generalised point: People are generally lazy.
So, if you already follow SciManDan, then you should stop believing the earth is flat. SMH
They make things up ... dont speak to those lol Thats a real lost of time xD
Bumb are like that they say shit and they know they are wrong or being secretly sarcastic And just play with you or they are really dumb
17:43 "I can't access a satellite"
Much of JWST data are available soon after capture, the rest will be released after a certain period to give the institution requesting that data time to work on it before making it public.
Hubble data is also downloadable.
Pointing in the other direction, Landsat and Sentinel data are available.
JWST and Hubble are not survey telescopes. You need the Gaia data, also public available. Gaia is monotoring every lightsource with the best possible instruments during a years long mission. A far more important telescope and it cost only a fraction of the JWST. But it doesn't has NASA on it sides, so it doesn't has the marketing budget JWST has.
@@dirkvandaele4466 Absolutely right. Gaia is a fantastic mission. But I was simply illustrating the point that satellites are publicly available.
Technically, anyone can submit a proposal to use Hubble, JWST, etc. but you have to justify your use... and something tells me that the ones in charge of these scientific instruments are not interested in rehashing old established facts that have been in textbooks for centuries. The point of science is to shed light on the dark areas of our current collective knowledge... _"To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!"_ 🎶🎶🎶
Sorry, got a little carried away at the end.
But in this case you don't need a satellite at all. You can buy a decent telescope, mount and camera for yourself for under $2000 that would allow you to solve these issues yourself.
There was a fair handful of us who pointed out the day/night cycle issue in detail on his response video. He responded quite disgustingly and deleted every single response ultimately disabling comments all together.
He has no interest in honest discourse.
Oh, you’re the “trolls” he’s referring to. Well done 👍🏼
I always think it's weak to remove comments - unless (1) You break the law; (2) Are not on topic; (3) Rude or ad hominem; (4) Spam.
He's switched comments off on his rebuttal video as well.
Tells you everything you need to know about him then really.
Shame really. He seems a lot smarter than most people on this channel. I thought he might actually concede a few things but now I really doubt it.
Someone once said to me: "Only when you understand something, you will be able to explain it to others."
Leedskalnin fails on both parts.
Completely agree, the best test of how well you understand something is being able to explain it to someone else.
"I'm not smart enough to figure this out on my own, someone else figured it out and I'm explaining it to you". Surely he should also understand that if he's not smart enough to figure this out on his own, then he's not smart enough to spot the flaws in the explanation that he found?
Unfortunately not my friend
Good point James.
Also if he's not smart enough to figure it out, and is hell bent on using someone else's ideas, he could at least use the correct people's ideas for his own appropriation.
Yep,Practically the definition of dunning Kruger.
RL Poole is not actually using the the work of the deceased Edward Leedskalnin, though. Everything that he says is made up whole cloth by Poole.
This is one of your best responses, you really did show evidence for your side and quickly but thoroughly explained your points with respect to the other side. Would like to see you get into more direct discussions with people who are crafting these skewed theories. Well done
Well, this guy was head and shoulders above most flerfs, which is what made it so entertaining to watch him spewing absolute nonsense and gave Dan something substantive to bounce off of. great featured guest
Yes but it should be in the first video.
So the only REAL science is the science we can do ourselves? Well I've got to get busy building my particle accelerator, chemistry lab, deep sea sub and a couple of other projects to catch up. Especially since they have to be made of stone blocks.
...wonder if the guy made his shirt with berry colours and potatoes print to not be exposed to fake science
My main issue with Dan is that he does tend to say something true and then not explain it. Yeah, it's often obvious to me, but clearly not to those he is debunking. I like when he goes a little more in-depth to explain things, such as using universe sandbox.
Yes. He should really go a bit more into the details. I don't watch him for gaining knowledge, just for the fun, but whoever sees his videos and is not a backyard astronomer will not gain much from the videos. They will just see a guy calling other guys stupid.
His videos feel a bit lazy to me in that sense. He is debunking stuff without a proper explanation a lot of the times. His videos fell more like a reaction video than anything else. I mean, it's light entertainment not educational, but still...a bit more effort would not hurt anyone.
Yeah I don't expect a full hour long video on explanations sort of like what professor Dave but scimandan does sort of glance over things a little to fast sometimes
Yeah... Saying "Dear oh dear," doesn't really qualify as "debunking."
Then again, I'm also educated enough to get why a simple "dear oh dear," is an understandable reaction to some of the stupidity he's engaging with 🤣
Well, something that you have to take in mind is that they are objectively incorrect. He isn't seeking to have a dialog or debate with them, as the outcome of such things wouldn't change the facts. Clearly he is making fun of them, some of the educational aspect comes from bringing the videos to the viewers attention. Acting like most of the pseudo scientific channels and videos are worthy of such a response is missing the mark by a bit. You don't necessarily want go give them credibility, I mean this one is a bit of an outlier, simply because it's sort of parallel to the accepted science, so of course he needs to be a little bit more thorough and less incendiary.
If there are two people having wildly different opinions, I always tend to believe the person who corrects his/her own mistakes.
You just spent multiple minutes to correct a few seconds of mistakes, kudos to you!
to
his/her
spent
to
Physics is not a matter of opinion. Physics doesn't care what you believe.
And to admit the mistake when it wasn't really even a mistake. It was a bit of an issue regarding missing some unstated context.
the problem is... would dan have corrected himself if he was not called out for it... in all likelihood he would not have and that means there would be incorrect information out there by himself and if that is the case it damages his reputation because you then have to wonder what else is out there from him that is incorrect but simply never been called out?
i follow dan and not the other guy but for me the other guy did right by us here and unfortunately dan dropped the ball, yes he corrected himself and then went on to show why the other guy is wrong but it should never take a call out to discover you are wrong, thats admitting that sometimes you do get it wrong and maybe it gets missed.
In defense of discount Santa Claus, I always wished SciManDan would expand a bit more on some of his debunkings. He is guilty (on occasion) of breezing by some of the concepts really quick, sometimes without even a single sentence on why is wrong. That does not mean Dan wrong of course, that's just the style of his channel. One of the nice things about debunking videos for those of us who have not used some our highschool science muscles in a long is that it refreshes our memories (as well as gives us a good laughs). So Dan, as always, A+++ on the laughs for sure, but a few more minutes expanding on the science would actually be a good thing I think.
I agree. I'd enjoy more substance in SciManDan's videos. I like what he does. I just wish he'd go a little deeper. I try to do that in my videos but I don't have his humor.
lol Discount Santa
I do wonder how much of that is trying to keep the videos short and how much it is that it's just so obviously wrong to him that he forgets some people need it explained
I also imagine most of these are the kinds of things he has explained dozens of times in his videos. I agree that occasionally I’m like “ah I might have appreciated one extra moment with that,” but the guy has released multiple videos a week for years. I’m sure he has covered the basic topics that these people bring up MULTIPLE times.. at some point you just say nah I’ve already addressed this so many times, that’s not true. Perhaps when he does breeze over a concept, it would be cool if he shared a link to something that explains the concept well, so he doesn’t have to explain it again but people who are curious to understand it better can know exactly where to go. But then again, that might just wind up being more time consuming than explaining the concept for the hundredth time anyways. Dan is great for spending so much time explaining the same elementary concepts over and over again, but I’m sure at some point, even for him, he would just be like “I’m not google. You can look it up and easily find reputable sources that explain this better than I can.”
I love messing around in Universe Sandbox it makes you appreciate how fragile the planet really is. Would love to see you use it to debunk more videos.
And also, that it completely debunks flat earth theory or else they could make a similar simulator, but of course that's impossible without magic forces at work! 😂 😂
@@leadgindairy3709 I ruled out flat earth because they would claim it was (insert creeky) C.G.I . But I never thought about using it that way.
I have a flat planet realism mod. You can squish any down to make it more realistic that way. :D.
@@Sankey84Gaming Ceee Geee Eyyyyeeee 😂
@@dustinclouse6888 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Flerfs still can't tell me why I can't see Polaris from 42° south.
Come on, play fair!
@@casperthefriendlycookingapple you're right, maybe I should ask why I can't see Antarctica through a telescope form 42° south. Still too complicated?
@@Sheesha87 they'll just deny Australia exists. Or something.
And they never will.
@@mrp6870
Yes .. and refractive occular resolution ... it's basically ..just too far away ...
Duh.....
I work at a conservation organization which is required to keep and maintain maps of their lands. Many of the images they use are from satellites, so pictures from satellites are available to the public, some for a fee, and other pictures are free.
17:01 One of my favorite photos! I used in a video or two. Yes, the rocks provide reasonably accurate data. BUT ... the data was misunderstood, misinterpreted, and faulty conclusions were therefore made.
Dan, I'm with you on this one. Watching his original video he certain did not make it clear that the position of Polaris in the quadrant was only at a specific time of each day and so left me with the impression that he was claiming that Polaris remained in that quadrant all the time for that season.
Person 1 makes a claim
Person 2 debunks the claim
Person 1 tells Person 2 is wrong
Person 2 uses data and observations to prove the claim is false.
Welcome to science!
As an amateur astronomer this guy rankles me. He wears a shirt that says Warning Spontaneously Talks About Astronomy and doesn't understand basic astronomy. As you mentioned there's the ecliptic, which I believe is where he's getting his 23 degree angle idea, from this definition: "A great circle inscribed on a terrestrial globe inclined at an approximate angle of 23°27′ to the equator and representing the apparent motion of the sun in relation to the earth during a year." He's mistaking the ecliptic line as our inclination and/or orbital plane and ignoring the words apparent and globe.
And again, do these people understand that science isn't a debate? No matter how long he spouts wrong data it will never be right.
At least Sci Man Dan, Conspiracy Cats, and many other flat earth debunking, theology debunking, pseudoscience debunking, and all the other nonsense debunking channels will put out videos either with corrections for their mistakes, apologies for mistakes, or videos that may help others understand a bit, about something that may be confusing to others. And I appreciate that! Only time will tell if this guy will at least acknowledge Sci Man's response and apologies. But having that type of attitude, when he's got alot more mistakes to correct. That's something that makes he and other woo peddlers such as him, look extremely bad. Sci Man did the right thing and that's why I respect people that do that.
I predict that RL Poole will only make another video filled with insults and gas lighting and then claim that he "destroyed" Dan like the pigeon that thinks it won the chess game.
@@Mandelbrot_Set I totally agree. It would surprise me if he even slightly corrects anything at all.
Maybe he will make a slight correction bringing Earth's orbit down to that of the other planets and increase the tilt by 23⁰.
@@Mandelbrot_Set
There is a comment from him up above where he says he will be doing exactly that.
Well, he doesn't call it a video filled with insults and gaslighting, but that is what he actually means.
@@mikebronicki8264 am I missing something ? I didn't understand this guys point or Dans need to use Sandbox. Its bleedin' obvious that the orbital inclination is irrelevant to the seasons - the Sun emits light equally in all directions. The Suns equator is even tilted to the ecliptic by 7 deg and also irrelevant.
Dan wasn't wrong though.
Polaris DOES make a circle around true north in just under 24 hours every day.
The original video claimed "if you look through the polaris telescope at any point during the night" which is patently false. You have to look at a very specific moment every day to track the seasonal shift, because a few hours earlier or later, and Polaris will be in a different quadrant altogether.
I think Dan let him off too easy.
I don’t know how specific a moment it would need to be as it would stay in the same quadrant for a while at least. I’d have thought you could possibly take a sight at 1am then a few months later at say 12.35am followed by another a few months later at say 1.12am and still see Polaris in a different quarter.
I would have thought keeping your head in same same position for each sighting would be more of a problem but maybe there is something in place to help with this? I see late on in his video it’s mentioned that there are two sights you have to line up so I guess keeping your head in the same position for each sighting would be less problematic.
I don’t think it’s either person’s fault and both of them could have explained it more clearly but we’re all human. We tend to explain things incompletely because we can’t quite comprehend that everyone else doesn’t have the same knowledge and viewpoint as we do.
@@murph8411 "I don’t know how specific a moment it would need to be as it would stay in the same quadrant for a while at least."
6 hours, that's how long it takes to shift 90 degrees (Remember Bob?)
Meaning on average it takes less than 3 hours sooner or later to get the "wrong" answer entirely.
In fact, 6 hours is enough time that even specific moments like "sunset" or "sunrise" are far enough apart between the seasons to give incorrect results (because due to our axial tilt that moment changes daily, which is the entire point of the rebuttal).
To be nit picky, the Polaris telescope is neither a telescope, nor a sextant.
A telescope implies using lenses, mirrors, or a combination thereof, to obtain an image.
A sextant is, by definition, an instrument to measure the altitude of an object over the horizon. It’s called a sextant because the little telescope and mirrors used to measure that altitude are all bolted on a (generally) metal plate that is 60° wide.
An octant, on the other hand, was a precursor of a sextant, using an 80° sector as support for all the mirrors and telescope.
It was later discarded by navigators because it was too bulky.
Fun fact, due to the placement of the mirrors, and the way reflections work, a sextant can measure up to 120° from the horizon, while an octant can do 160°
Nice!
Thank you. That explains the origins of the sextant very nicely!
Yeah, if I recall correctly, tele- means distant. So if it doesn't let your see anything more distant than what your eyes can do it's not a telescope. Doesn't necessarily need lenses or mirrors though.
To get more picky: Octant refers to one-eighth of a circle, which is 45 degrees. . . "Etymology: The name octant derives from the Latin octans meaning eighth part of a circle, because the instrument's arc is one eighth of a circle." So an octant actually has a smaller included angle than a sextant, A standard octant meausres up to 90 degress, with modifications can sometimes measure up to 100 degrees, whereas a sextant can measure up to 120 degrees without modifications. The original octants were bulky because of the optics, not because of the arc the could measure. From a cursory reading, it appears the octant was limited in that it could not read angles between two objects such as the moon/sun, whereas a sextant was designed to do just that.
@@Erkle64 correct. I imagine he meant it’s not an optical telescope, since things like radio telescopes don’t capture signals using mirrors and lenses and are still telescopes.
my favourite part was at 6:06 when he said "back with a rebuttal to SciManDans tin foil tuesday debunking "video" of my work". was he implying that it wasnt a real video you made? 😂
I think he mean his work not real? Maybe?
A horrible misplacement of quotes. They should have been around "work"
It eas obviously a hologram faked by nasa
I personally would put the quotes around Tuesday
Nah. That wasn't no video. Look back. Its actually a 12 minute stillframe of a diorama of a stegosaurus. I shit you not.
Love it, Dan! It's not reasonable to expect anyone to never be wrong. What is important is how it's handled when they are. Your handling of this minor mistake shows quite well how to do it right in this circumstance.
I’m sure his rebuttal will be “you used a video game.”
Totally wouldn't put it past him. But it would be funny if he did given he asked his community for recommendations on software like universe sandbox.
@@jmjw00 reminds me of a video where someone used the game Kerbal Space Program to demonstrate horizons and orbits.
Ah the classic.
"There was one tiny thing which wasn't 100% to the letter accurate, I'm going to latch on to this one tiny thing and use it as a proof of literally everything!"
Are we sure he's not a flerf?
No. But he is flerf adjacent.
@@CD_Character haha like it 👍
He thinks that it is okay to just make stuff up and declare that it is science, so, yeah, flerf adjacent.
"that's the value of rocks" ....i'm so using that.. any time i go on at length about something utterly ridiculous, i'm going to finish it off with: "that's the value of rocks" 🤣
Leeds: "That's the value of rocks..."
Geologist convention erupts in mocking laughter.
A small tip to make better videos in the future: If you're making a capture of software on your computer, temporally set the scale option on the OS to 200%, this will make the video a lot easier to view as video compression makes text almost unreadable, and also so small-screen viewers (like smartphone users) can actually see something. If you're using Windows, this settings is on the settings app, system -> display -> scale.
The application would need to have been designed to accept the scaling factor. In this case, Universe Sandbox is designed similar to a video game and has it's own video settings and the correct method to scale it up would be to choose a smaller resolution. Edit: or if the application has it's own scaling features.
UI scaling has been in the game since alpha 20, and would be the recommended way to increase the font size. Reducing resolution also reduces quality
@@biigsmokee Fair enough, but Windows scaling feature would still not work.
@@Isaacrl67 *its ("it's" is a contraction for "it is")
@@JohnDlugosz you get bothered by random grammar stuff too, huh?
If you get a chance you should definitely tour the Coral Castle - it's amazing, and yes, Ed built it by hand, most likely with a ton of pulleys and levers, etc. But here's the thing - when you're there and you read what Ed said about the various aspects of his house you realize that he was a very smart man who had a wry sense of humor -many of his quotes were meant to be tongue-in-cheek funny, and frankly, once you get what he was doing, it'll make you smile and chuckle a bit. I particularly like the huge heart sculpture he carved for his girlfriend - it has a hole in the center, to which he said, "it's just big enough for her head to stick through it and it holds her - because when she's been bad I'll have to give her a spanking"! The entire place is like that, and it's very, very cool - but while his quotes etc are humorous, the fact that he built that place alone is truly a testament to his engineering and mechanical skill. If you get the chance go and see it - it's in South Miami near the Everglades, the entrance to the Keys, an awesome fruit stand called, "Robert is Here", and fields of potato, tomato, sugar beets, sugar cane, and strawberries (and the u-pik places are awesome; I don't think any use pesticides etc on their plants). There are some awesome little Cuban cafes where the farm workers go to eat, and a lot of orchid nurseries, where you can get a great deal on a flower that is so stubborn it'll only bloom probably the day after you die - but they're still fun to keep and watch grow!
Best response video you've done. Actual scientific based evidence via excellent software. Well done. Let's see a flat earther with the same eviden...hahaha, sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence!
Ya know FE’ers wouldn't use Sandbox, they would off stating it is nothing more than a made up program designed to keep the "lie” going,..
Hello Sci Man Dan , watching this video reminded me of a great book that I bought which I think you might like . It is called "Practical Astronomy With your Calculator . "
It is a real eye opener and I learned a lot about astronomy from it which is relevant to this video .
I picked up a second hand copy for a very reasonable sum .
I ordered it! Thank you for the tip, it sounds like a fascinating book...
@@floryda4281 Another really cool book is called Powers of Ten: A Book About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe and the Effect of Adding Another Zero
@@Pete_R63 I know the movie ;-)
@@floryda4281Bo Derek taught me a lot during my teen years.
Thanks for your honesty you don't usually get that pretty much anywhere 👍I knew when Dan makes a mistake he'd rectify it and he still debunked you
"Hello fresh is cheaper than grocery shopping." I would like to see a source for this claim.
Their reasoning is valid only if you're preparing one single meal with family size packages of groceries and then junk all leftovers, because you don't know what else to do with them...
Yeah it works out if you are buying the same amount of groceries just to make that meal for yourself, because some of this stuff you can’t just buy a small amount for a single meal. But if you then use what you’ve bought and make other meals with it, that immediately goes away lol.
Hello Fresh is just another scam. But this scam is going to be harder to expose
@@gwendyp125
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a scam.
It's just an expensive way to go shopping, with a foolproof easy recipe attached.
It's still way cheaper than paying someone else to do it for you, and perhaps leads some people to experience the fun of cooking and the taste of fresh food with quality ingredients.
For everyone with basic cooking skills it's a pointless waste of money, but not a scam.
@@Sleeping_Insomiac In my experience, their recipes are so-so; we tried them and also Gusto and the quality of the Gusto recipes was far better. We also felt that Gusto's packaging was better in that they included ice packs instead of just wrapping cheap insulation around the 'chilled' items.
I really love it when a person is big enough to admit when they made a mistake. I know a few who could learn a big lesson from you, Dan; some personally & one of those, especially. And I have seen a very few on here (you, Anton, Hank Green, Kyle Hill, and some that aren't directly science-related, too) who will publicly explain what their mistake is (and sometimes, even why).
Those rare ones, like you, give me hope for the species. Perhaps we can still yet save ourselves. 🤞🏼🙏
❤❤
SciManDan was a bit wrong and corrected himself. The Beard was almost completely wrong and did not correct himself. Probably he don't understand the difference between sideral day and synodic day. And we are rotating exactly around the equator of the sun for obvious reasons (preservation of momentum). For the bearded guy to be right, Newton must be wrong.
AHH, the day just got a bit better!
Thank you Dan for coping with all these individuals
Well done owning up to a mistake and then providing a really concise explanation afterwards.
A really easy way to show the change in daylight at different times of year:
Get a globe, a light source, two equal lengths of string.
With the pole towards the "sun" make a loop with one of the pieces of string at, for example the 45° North latitude. This circumference represents a day.
Looking down from above, mark the two day/night points on the string. Colour the night section.
Open the string and you basically have a line divided into night and day.
Do the same with the pole pointed away.
Compare the two strings. One has far more light, the other far more dark.
Simple experiments like this are fantastic!
I will give the guy credit, he didn't resort to name calling and handled his responses in an adult way. Far from what most of the people that Dan debunks.
I don't think he responded in an adult way. His condescension was quite thorough.
He just posted a short mocking Dan.
And on Dan's monthly comments video this morning, he posted a diatribe which included "you're a gaslighting piece of monkey spunk that couldn't science his way out of a cardboard laboratory with a beaker in each hand".
What a lovely individual.
As others noted, he was actively condescending and implying Dan is stupid. He is much better behaved than most of Dan's detractors, I'll admit that, but claiming he acted in an "adult way" is generous.
I mean, claiming that Dan's counterargument was nothing more than an active attempt to disgrace the reputation of a dead man seems less like direct engagement and more like casting aspersions to me...
There's a lot to unpack with that guy. "Oh you misquoted this one small thing, let me derail your entire argument because I've already had so many failures in life that I am unable to admit when I am wrong about literally everything else you said. Nope, that one small thing means I am right". The world is full of guys like that and I can't even begin to count how many times we've probably all come across them. Being intelligent doesn't mean critical thinking skills are still present and the knee jerk reaction is a palpable cover for a lot of other encounters I am guessing this guy has had in his life. SciManDan has way more patience than myself for these people. Funny part is, if the dude even remotely tried to communicate with out being in the defense, he may actually learn, and be a valuable resource to educating people on his simple mistake. People grow from failures and being wrong - well some people. Looks like he's made a career out of not admitting that.
I love his appeal to authority. “It’s not me! You’re arguing against astronomy!”
The best one yet. I love how they try to convince someone their model is correct just like a magician tries to convince kids that magic is real. Love your work Dan.
Ah! Last week I knew there was a problem with the Polaris Telescope and that it only had one wire cross-hair. The problem with that is that is that you can't line things up properly. Even if there was an X clearly marked on the ground, a six year old child and an NBA player standing on that X would see two different parts of the sky when looking at that cross-hair. Revealed in the video is that there is a second cross-hair, which makes the Polaris Telescope actually function for monitoring part of the sky 24/7/365.
i actually had to research this myself...in Leedskalin's "castle" there is a hole in a wall a few feet away from the "polaris tower". If you peep thru that hole, you are lined up to see polaris in the crosshair.
However, I do not think Leedskalin actually used this to prove anything about the orbit of earth. The crosshair and the tower is way too small for this to work.
The little info there is about the "castle" implies that Leedskalin wanted to determine North with this construction to correctly align the rest of the buildings...a great feat, no less, but not actual proof of anything astronomical.
There is a smaller hole in another rock that you look through.
@@floryda4281is that hole in the wall glorious?
@@randomuser6378 its limestone, so it is probably an abrasive gloryhole ;-)
In the video he said there is a second crosshair in that hole, but from other videos I have seen on the subject, there is no second crosshair. Though it is possible that there used to be one, but it got removed.
He does raise a good point, I'm sorry to admit. I realize it's more work but, if you're going to say something like, "That's wrong, it would play havoc with [thing]," it's probably a good idea to explain *how* it would play havoc with [thing] in your original response, if for no other reason than to prevent the back-and-forth name calling. "Oooh, he says I'm wrong but he doesn't say how" is a fair statement.
I realize some of these guys are hard to take seriously but, if you're going to play chess with pigeons, don't supply them with bird feed they can use to shit on the board with.
He needs to change his t-shirt to "Warning Spontaneously Talks Bollocks"
Hello Dan. " Use the tools at our disposal right now to get things right ". In fact, for what this gentleman tries to understand, that is the relative motion of the earth, sun and moon, we don’t need modern instruments. I was reading the Amalgest by Ptolemy the other day (translated, I admit). This fantastic book was written almost 19 centuries ago. It contains findings by Ptolemy himsef but is also a compilation of the astronomical knowledge of his time. And those ancient astronomers had very rudimentary instruments at their disposal. No telescope and no way to magnify anything, just pieces of wood to mesure angles and water clocks to evaluate time. Nevertheless, Ptolemy describes pretty accuratly the motion of the moon and of the sun (he’s very wrong regarding planets though). He’s able to explain the seasons, the precession of the equinoxes, the equation of time, the difference between the solar day and the celestial day, the time difference between locations on earth etc. etc.
I’m very surprised by the fact that this gentleman, and other flatearthers on your channel, are struggling to understand what was already commonly known by astronomers 1875 years ago.
Dan: everyone is thinking about eating better at this time of year
Me: *takes Goodfellas Deep Pan Pepperoni out the oven at 10am 💀
"Can you access a satellite?"
Probably not legally in most countries, but yes, you can definitely build weather satellite receivers at home, in fact, i've been wanting to try doing that. For everyone else, there's Himawari 8, a geostationary japanese weather satellite that takes images of Japan, Australia, Asia, and the Pacific every 10 minutes and uploads them to the internet. Since it does this 24/7 and its archives go back years, you can go ahead and verify that the terminator line behaves the way that physics dictate it should.
Also, the thing captures cool stuff all the time. One time an asteroid entered the Earth's atmosphere over the Barent's sea, and Himawari 8 snapped a photo of it. You can see the smoke from Australian forest fires, too. It also captures lunar eclipses when they happen in Asia. You can even see the Tonga eruption.
There is an antenna & Software Defined Radio bundle on Amazon for $200.
@@Mandelbrot_Set Yeah, i know that, problem is that i'm still in vocational school and 200€ is a lot of money for me to spend on something like that.
Also, it might be illegal where i live, not sure (though, honestly, it's an unenforcable law, like, how's anyone gonna prove i received a satellite signal i wasn't allowed to receive?)
"He really does not give evidence, other than the 1600 years of admitted sciences, it's shameful!"
17:42 "I can't access a satellite can you? You're just gonna be like, oh that's what they say. That's not science! Science is being able to prove it to yourself," WRONG! Science is a COMMUNITY effort, not an "on your own" thing. There are huge amounts of science that NOBODY can do on their own. Satellite science involves 1000's of people working together, not just one privileged guy. Any big enough endeavour has always been a community effort. The farmers, blacksmiths and carpenters have always been key suppliers for any big enterprise. Even Galileo would have sourced his leather rather than raising his own cows.
The fact that the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the orbital plane in Ed's model seems to have no significance for neither Ed nor this sheeple. You don't need stellarium to see that every day would be an Equinox and in Florida even Coral Castle days vary by 2 hours over the year.
Good luck with Hello Fresh. Personally, I had a disaster with them and will never use them again. But I’m sure lots of people love them.
12:11 i think its pretty funny we can hear scimansdans dryer going round and round with the earth spinning at the same time 🤣🤣
When someone says "in response to a debunking video of my work" you know we're all in for another great ride on the crazy train.
1:54 “Complicated, I know, but stick with me”
Yes, yes, we’ve all seen Friends.
With the amount of ad times they've cost me there is no way HelloFresh is a good thing that respects my time
I did a project explaining sundials when I was 11 or 12. I bet my understanding of them then exceeds that guys. We shall see! Looking forward to the next instalment Dan!
You know they are a genius when they do the 2 finger " " bit in a totally random place
Dans Debunking "video"
I would have thought would be Dan's "debunking" video
But what do I know - I'm not a genius
lol ;)
I really appreciate the visuals to go along with your comments. As a visual learner it really helps. Great video!!!!
I mean Kudos to the other guy, you needed to use Universe Sandbox to visually prove he was wrong, no other theory made it this far yet!
To be fair he shouldn't have had to. If the earth's orbit to the sun is at the same degree as the earth's axial tilt, it's essentially the same thing as if the earth had no axial tilt at all in our current orbit.. we'd end up with equal day/night hours all year long.
The basic issue seems to be a lack of appreciation of what the ecliptic represents and the axial tilt of the Earth. With the exception of oddities like Pluto, all the major planets lie, within a few degrees, in the same plane, which is the plane of the equator of the Sun. That makes sense given that the best model we have says that the planets formed out of the primitive solar nebula as it condensed and contracted. You would expect the planets to be in the same plane and observation says that they are. The variation in the length of the day is down to the axial tilt of the Earth.
Thanks for the upload SciManDan! Love your videos. Keep spreading knowledge/truth!
He could learn a lot from you about dropping his pride and admitting when he's wrong. Thanks for the great explanation as always.
It's really hard to follow that guy. Kudos to you SMD for teasing out what the hell he was talking about.
All he’s going to do is say something to the effect of, “he uses a video game to prove me wrong?! No. My guy built telescopes and used math to prove him wrong!” All the while not realizing what tech went into that “video game”.
Sorry the only thing I'm thinking when that guy is on is "Tribal armband, Tribal armband, Tribal armband!"
A little hard to discern what tribe he's from though.
I bet he used to drink a lot of Mountain Dew back in the day when he still could walk a mile without keeling over.
The way he reacted you'd think Scimandan insulted his lover
If Earth was in a different plane of orbit around the Sun, ALL observed orbits of the other planets would be different as well. 16:08 I love this argument. "I don't understand this, so I found an explanation I like that agrees with my opinion and now I'm regurgitating it." 17:51 Two minutes ago he said that he didn't understand it so he found what someone else said. He can't prove it to himself because he said he's not smart enough. He's quite the flip-flopper.
so um.. I live in Australia.. I cant see Polaris... how does he explain that?
Australia is fake google it
He's not a flerf!
Oh, yeah, you were totally right in the original video. It was just lacking that extra bit with the sidereal day.
I'll be honest, though, I still am not quite sure what he (the other guy) is on about. I mean... okay, we could sort of "zero" things out for his postulation and say, instead, that the Earth rotates on the flat plane with _not_ axial tilt... but the Sun is tilted 23.5 degrees. It's just about a reference frame, right? So from that frame of reference, everything matches up between the two models -- the agreed upon one, and his -- with the exception that 1. The Earth has no tilt in his and 2. the Sun instead has a tilt in his model. Right? And so if I've got his bit right, then it would mean he's clearly wrong because that would mean Earth wouldn't have any seasons -- certainly we wouldn't have any change in the lengths of night and day throughout the year unless he wants to explain how the Earth's spin changes speeds (and does so very differently between the North and South hemispheres) depending on the time of year. Oh, and that the North or South Poles are in full sun or full night for a portion of the year because of the tilt he thinks doesn't exist.
The "tilt" of Earth's Orbit in relation to the Sun's equator is meaningless (and also demonstrably not what we observe, right?). He's just going a round-a-bout means of saying the Earth has no axial tilt. And maybe he just badly misunderstands some things, including how meaningless a "tilted" orbit is when you're basing it off spheres (or nearly-spheres, anyway). Does he understand that he's suggesting there's no tilt? Is he confused about that part of the model he's suggesting?
.............
With some things like this, I just think the person wants to believe that they are special in some way, they have some special and unique insight that no one else could possibly have and that's why they are _better_ than everyone else. So they glom on to some weird perspective, convince themselves it's correct, and then start trying to convince others that their incorrect idea is the "real truth". It's gotta come down to ego and a need for attention, right? That it entails some sort of required ignorance is, I suspect, secondary or tertiary because it's all about their identity, their sense of self.
Dang it almost made it to bed then I saw this. Guess I'm staying up a bit longer lmao.
same
Same 😅
It’s 9:05AM
@@johnfehsenfeld3261 smashing 😃
@@TransitionedToAShark yeah, got of work 0600 am.. 😅
If I understand what he has done correctly, he seems to have taken the correct model, got rid of the axial tilt and the drawn the sun and Earth at a peculiar angle on the diagram (which happens to coincide with the angular tilt of the Earth relative to an arbitrary equator on the sun - he certainly has looked closely at the sun to determine an equator defined by its intrinsic rotation). So it is no wonder he does not get the varying length of day/night for the seasons.
Now THIS GUY is awesome content fodder. He's absolutely bat sh* crazy, but he's obviously not incapacitated or developmentally delayed in any way like many flerfs. This doesn't feel like punching down at all, it just feels like good natured laughing at a clown lmao. please more of this guy I hope he never goes away or turns reformed and realizes how stupid these "sovereign citizens" of the science world are.
I feel like the guy is salvageable. I assume he got emotionally into this stuff out of similar reasons as flat earthers but wasn't stupid enough to go all in. Some success in life might bring him back.
@@sirphantoon6731 no question but I really hope it doesn't happen, for purely selfish reasons. I mean how unlikely is he to matter to the greater society either way? I'm sure his immediate family and friends would still like him the same, so I think on the balance, he's a greater benefit to the world as a jester than as a regular schmoe. I hope he never changes lol
I am looking forward to Dan's rebuttal of the fool's idea seasons are caused by the Sun's magnetic field. Especially since it reverses every 11 years, something he denies.
To be fair, many flerfs are also Evangelical which makes them believe the claim of the globe earth is apparently Satan's attempt to control the masses or to lead people astray. Literally ridiculous as either way you can't go to space yourself. If the Bible didn't use the term "circle" when describing the earth in one segment, these people probably wouldn't exist.
I mean hey it's not like the books can be translated or just generally written with flaws. Like how Genesis 1 and 2 literally contradict each other, and that's the literal beginning of the book.
@@Skylancer727 that’s a really good point, superstition is a very common trait among flerfs and and such it's uncommon to see anyone who is a "true believer" that doesn't also trade directly in Abrahamic faith based ideologies. Indeed like you said they usually couch their entire understanding of physics on that rather than the other way round, which is exceptionally odd to witness when they accidentally put themselves in a position where they need to use the argument of a creator to support every anti-scientific argument they try to formulate when challenged.
I hope you start using Universe Sandbox more often in your videos. It really blows Flat Earth Theory out of the water! 😂 😂And helps people to understand things, for those who can't visualize these massive scales.
It does but the geoflatniks will just concoct some outlandish conspiracy fantasy to discredit the app so they can maintain their Jenga tower of beliefs. ✌️
It sure does! I use it quite often to explain the motion of planets and the scale of things to my kids.
I also bought Space Engine - which is also a great piece of software!! highly recommended.
Great argument with the Saturn picture! When the star was forming it had an accretion disk where all the planets were formed and that’s why they are all on the same plane apart Pluto. I’m not sure why Pluto differs from the rest if I’m honest.
Never been this early to a SciManDan video before
Yes, I received abuse from Leedskalnin, which disinclined me to enter into discussion. But I also did some more thinking about the subject, and concluded that due to the sidereal day length, Polaris actually makes 366 rotations around a fixed point in a 365 day year. That's one rotation every day, and another, much slower one over the course of a year.
Did you work this out for yourself?
@@hellofromdavid Did you?
Some people's minds (not Dan's) will never be changed regardless of the information presented to them.
*ring ring, ring ring* "can l speak to Mr Kruger please?"
"yep sure, who's calling?".
"Mr Dunning...... "
He's made the classic error of saying one thing but meaning another, then expecting his audience to unpick it. As Alice said "l always say what l mean, well l mean what l say, it's the same thing isn't it?" eerrrr, nope.
I've been using Universe Sandbox for almost a year, it's such a useful bit of software. (and a lot of fun)
Seems pretty complex. Is it very user friendly?
@@stevecampbell9670 It's very simple to control, but has a lot of data you need to learn if you want to do more complex things, such as creating a realistic solar system from scratch.
@@stevecampbell9670 It can get very complicated and involved, but there are quite a few good tutorials for it.
@@stevecampbell9670 It has a very very steep learning curve its best to take what we have and play around a bit to see how it changes things, Then go for broke and see what madness you create. My 1st attempt in creating my own solar system resulted in utter catastrophe. It was beautiful.
you should have a look at space engine (not space engineers), space engine is a more beautiful universe sandbox that trades being able to interact with the planets for sheer scope, with universe sandbox you can only have so many bodies on screen you can visit, the background is a static image, with space engine the entire universe is on screen and you can click on any star, planet, nebula, black hole, galaxy and visit it and even land on the objects to see what the atmosphere and ground might be like. its really something... requires a beast pc.
Excellent video. What you said was strictly correct and to address the special case in this video is also correct. Good work!
This guy reminds me of The Cinema Snob aka Stoned Gremlin Productions so much, it's like his fat older dumber brother with similar mannerisms and all. Anyway, Good Morning or Day to you! Thanks for the videos you post before I go to bed!
Re Polaris's seasonal position: As a NZer for whom the Southern Cross is always above my horizon, I can work out roughly where in the sky it is at any time day or night, with just a little mental arithmetic. Because I know it appears to rotate not just the 360º a day due to earth's axial rotation but about 361º a day, the extra degree being due to earth's orbit around the sun.
So about mid-April it's due south high in the sky and the 'right' way up at midnight, and in each 24 hours it will go all the way round, clockwise, plus a little bit more. The midnight position goes all the way round over the course of a year.
It's exactly the same with Polaris (and all the other circumpolar stars for you northern hemisphere types). But anticlockwise, because globe.
I didn’t finish the first video you did because I could tell you didn’t quite understand the solar/sidereal cycle. But I knew you’d come back and correct yourself. That’s what is important. I have my doubts that this guy will admit his misunderstandings.
I'm just a figment of all you imaginations, because I live in a non-existent landmass called Australia
Huh! I thought I saw someone named Mark D from "Australia", but it's just my imagination. Probably got confused with Austria
Greetings Scimandan. I am a huge fan of your channel. I really enjoy watching people like you and professor Dave destroy idiots. Although I am not smart enough to understand a lot of the stuff that you and professor Dave talk about, I still enjoy watching you guys pick these people apart piece by piece. Keep up the great work. 👍👍👍
You know you've lost the debate when you go and turn comments off. I guess he was tired of people correcting him and offering him the actual truth and facts.
And he doesn't want to clarify what exactly it is that he is claiming. Watch him make a video accusing Dan of misrepresenting his claims.
@@Mandelbrot_Set - 100% he will. Just a shame he turned off the comments, most people I saw were being respectful and simply correcting him.
@@mynameisray Or they were asking him to clarify what his claims are.
The way he started by being so snark about his position and saying dan was "too scared to respond" and then taking it personally, and saying that dan is "disrespecting dead people" shows that the problem here is not evidence or science. It's that he's too emotionally attached to it to actually stop and consider it
I will say that this guy has some good points, that you do say things, and even though we can trust you to be correct most of the time, you do explain things as if your whole audience understands it. Some clarifications and explanations would be nice sometimes. And as far as I've seen, this guy isn't your typical "No you're wrong, and I'm right" guy. He does accept that he is wrong on some things, as he stated, and in the portion of the video that I've seen so far, he seems civilized, arguing against your ARGUMENTS and not YOU as a person. This is one of the first instances of a proper (or close to proper) debate that I've seen on your channel, where both parties have proven that they can reason, and listen to arguments. I commend you both for correcting past mistakes, and listening to the other person.
EDIT: I will say though, that my praise for him started to fail at 15:52, and that Dan's use of Universe Sandbox to finally show what he meant in the previous video was good.
It is a fair point, but you have to understand that SciManDan videos are entertainment for most people. I personally like the length, I can have about ten minutes of relaxation. Adding deeper explanations to everything most people understand would break the rhythm most videos are in which draws most of the audience. Also, I am pretty sure Dan has his work cut out with the videos as they are. It would take much longer to edit and record, which would mean less and less frequent content.
@@ronik24 that is true. All I was saying was that the person in this video had a valid point when he said Dan doesn't always explain what he says properly
@@ThePhoenixSlayer Dan is light years ahead of that guy. Don't pretend they're on near-equal footing! And you're free to research/Google anything that you don't fully understand.
@@ThePhoenixSlayer You need to look at TalkingToLeedskalnin's childish insults under his community tab. He has rarely said anything about what Dan actually said. It is all taunts and gas lighting and boasts about how he "destroyed" Dan.
@@Slicerwizard I never said that he was near dan's level. I was trying to say that HE was lightyears ahead of every other nutcase on the internet. And as I said in the edit, my respect for him didn't last very long.
His t-shirt should say :
"Warning, spontaneously lies about Astronomy"....
MC Toon, FTFE and yourself are all I watch on the tube of yous.
These dumba$$€$ really make me feel better about myself
Ftfe is a dumbass! He thinks the shots were a good idea even though they were the fastest made and most dangerous in history. Did I get any of that wrong?
May I suggest Professor Dave Explain's debunking series.
@@freddan6fly I've seen them all, great viewing
It being the difference between a solar and a sidereal day... this is basically like an anime. Really??? It was the super small yet oh-so-significant difference between a perceptual revolution of the sun and the actual 360° rotation of the earth! Stunning...
I’m 13 minutes late….thanks Bob…
"Ask our megalithic ancestors the value of rocks"
Less than metal, I can tell ya that.
Tough I have to admit, this guy is a fair bit more eloquent than most other FE/conspiracy people.
Still wrong, of course, but still.
I just wish you could be less whiny.
I don't know. His claims are poorly stated. He evades all questions, so I usually have to take my best guess. 99% of his claims are made up whole cloth.
@@Mandelbrot_Set The bar for "eloquence" is pretty low when it comes to FE/conspiracy people. :)
I mostly meant he doesn't sound like a complete loon, unlike some that SMD has visited over the years.
I think it's pretty rich that he claims in his response that *Dan* doesn't want to address the tilt. This guy was all over the comment section of the last video and everyone who replied to him asked him about the tilt and he didn't address it even once.
Another great video, Dan. But what I want to address is your acceptance of HelloFresh as a sponsor. I urge you to do some digging into the immoral practices of this company. They treat their employees like garbage, putting them to work in unsafe conditions and engaging in union-busting practices when those workers tried to organize to improve their situation. This is not even getting into my family's own various issues with the quality of their produce -- my family received spoiled meat on no less than four occasions while using the service, and sometimes entire ingredients were missing. This happening once or twice is understandable human error. But it was a constant problem. Food quality is a lesser issue (and likely a symptom) of the great problem, though: HelloFresh's abhorrent treatment of their employees. Please reconsider your support of this unethical and undeserving company.
Wow dude, you bought off meat, not once, not twice, not three times, & still didn't learn?
Good for you.
The only reason we say our orbit has 0° inclination is because we're looking at it from our perspective. One COULD say we're at 23.4°. One could say we're at 90°. But it would have no effect on the seasons as Dan showed in Universe Sandbox.
He says that it's tilted at 23.4 degrees from the magnetic equator of the sun. Which is of course patent nonsense.
The ecliptic plane we are on is about 1° from the invariable (planetary) plane. The invariable plane is a kind of average of all the planets and they're all (apart from Pluto) within 3° of the ecliptic.
Much love SciManDan, I appreciate you.... even when you're out there committing crimes against science. 🤪😜😘🤘✌️🤙💜
I suggest using the quotation marks next Time to avoid Confusion & Misunderstandings
Only got back to this one Dan makes it so easy to understand, definitely my favorite video.