Thank you so much man...really appreciate it. I think I'm gonna publish the new footage as video clips, not make full episodes like I did because those episodes took way too much time and energy. This way I can create more and frequently.
I just want to say thank you @fulltimegeek for resteeming this accounts posts! I am now looking into this series as I too am very interested in this work! Is there a curve to be found? From my research I have found that there is not, but to continue to grow and learn more is my mission. Thanks! :)
Well, I can see there were some gaps in your science learning. But let's go through it point by point, as best I can.
CLAIM: The horizon is not curved, no matter how high up you are.
REBUTTAL: It does not appear curved, because the Earth is so large. Even at the height of the ISS (about 250 miles above the surface), the horizon still looks kind of straight (setting aside distortion from camera lenses). But we have photos of the earth taken from further away, where the curvature is undeniable.
CLAIM: No clouds are visible in the time lapse photo of nighttime Earth.
REBUTTAL: I have not checked my first guess, but I am assuming either they chose footage of a cloudless sky to show the pretty lights below or chose a specific frequency of light to capture the scenes to "edit out" the clouds.
CLAIM: There are no airplanes in the ISS videos.
REBUTTAL: You can't see them, because they are too small. The ISS is 250 miles up. By comparison, airliners fly at most about 5 miles up. Can you see those airliners from the ground? Probably not, until they have just taken off or are getting ready to land, and are now only a mile or two up.
Also, planes do not always leave contrails. It depends on atmospheric conditions, and if they're five miles or further away from you, you won't be able to see the contrails unless the sunlight hits them just right anyway.
CLAIM: No satellites are visible in the ISS photos.
REBUTTAL: See answer above. They are often quite small and also very far away. For safety reasons, the ISS orbit gives other orbiting objects a wide berth. Watch the movie Gravity for an example why. Geosynchronous satellites -- used for GPS and telecommunications -- are 23,000 miles above the surface, too far away to be seen with the naked eye.
By the way, have you examined every photo taken from orbit by NASA, the ESA, and other space agencies? I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find what you're looking for.
CLAIM: You can't see the Earth spinning from the ISS viewpoint.
REBUTTAL: The ISS orbits at 17,500 mph. The Earth spins about 1,100 mph (using the equator as the reference). Big difference. But there is enough of a difference that the ISS appears over a different point on the Earth at the same time each day. If the Earth were stationary, the ISS would appear above the same point on the ground every day. It doesn't.
CLAIM: Astronauts are not really weightless, and everything is done with wires.
REBUTTAL: Seriously? I watch SF movies and I can tell the actors and stunt people are hanging from wires, because they don't move the same way as astronauts in space do. When they shot the movie Apollo 13, Ron Howard deliberately used the NASA "vomit comet" airplane to shoot some scenes to make them realistic, because he knew wire work could not replicate the real thing. So, the actors shot their scenes in a diving airplane.
If you don't understand how zero-g (microgravity) works, I suggest finding a good physics book to read.
CLAIM: Astronauts use "augmented contact lenses" to interact with VR objects.
REBUTTAL: HAHAHAHAHA! You're joking, right? We've had people in space since the 1960s, and movies of their motion on Skylab since the 1970s. How long has VR been around?
CLAIM: You can see distant oil drilling platforms with a telescope, so the Earth cannot be round.
REBUTTAL: This explanation gets complicated, because of the different resolution abilities of the human eye and a telescope. Resolution measures how well a lens can separate details. Generally speaking, it increases with a larger lens (and with magnification, but not always). So, when looking at the horizon with your naked eyes, probably you can't see an oil rig or a ship off in the distance, because your eye can't separate that tiny speck from the haze just above the water. But the telescope can, because it has better resolving power.
When Galileo perfected his telescope, he was able to sell it to eager merchants, who understood it gave them the ability to spot arriving ships much sooner than their competitors could.
In fact, ancient navigators knew the surface of the ocean was curved, because the first part of the distant ship you see is its top. That's why there's a crow's nest on sailing ships, so the seaman can see land sooner than his mates on deck.
CLAIM: The Earth does not look like a spheroid in NASA photos, so it can't be round.
REBUTTAL: A sphere is a geometric shape, and can be considered perfect or ideal. Real life objects are not perfect or ideal, even ball bearings, because there will always be imperfections - no matter how small. The Earth is also not a perfect sphere, mostly because it rotates. It's fatter around the equator than around the poles. The equatorial radius is 3,963.2 miles, and the polar radius is 3,949.9 miles -- only a 13.3 mile difference. You won't be able to detect that tiny difference in a photograph of the Earth with your naked eyes.
CLAIM: You can't feel the Earth moving, so it isn't.
REBUTTAL: Again, your physics classes should have covered this in the chapter about inertia. It was a key part of both Galileo's and Newton's analyses of motion.
You don't feel the motion of the Earth because everything around you, even the air, is moving at the same speed. (We'll ignore the wind, which is caused by other means.) Inertia means your body will still have that velocity caused by the Earth's rotation even when you jump off the diving board or over the pole vault bar.
Secondly, you can only detect steady motion if you have a reference point that is not moving with you to view. (This leads into relativity, btw.) So, if everything around you is moving with the same speed , what objects can you use for reference? Easy -- the Sun, the Moon and the stars. For many, many years, people assumed the Earth was stationary and everything went around it. That notion was disproved in the 1500s by Copernicus, both by careful measurement and calculation, and further disproved later by Kepler and Galileo. Newton added the theory of gravity to explain all these revolving objects, and the stationary Earth notion was abandoned. Why? because of undeniable mathematical and physical proof.
CLAIM: Flight routes are straight on a polar projection, but curved on a Mercator projection, so the Earth must be flat.
REBUTTAL: I've noticed that many flat earth proponents use a polar projection of the Earth, with the North Pole at the center.
What is a polar projection? It's a way to map the curved surface of the Earth onto a flat plane. IOW, Flat Earthers are using a map created from a round Earth! Seems rather counter-productive, if you ask me.
A polar projection map allows us to plot flight paths near the North Pole as straight lines to approximate the real paths. All projections distort distances or angles. The Mercator projection maps the spheroidal Earth onto a cylinder centered on the Equator (or some other reference line), and flight paths will have a different shape than on some other projection.
But the routes shown in airline magazines are only ideal routes. Pilots have to adjust their flight paths according to ambient wind and weather conditions. In particular, they often take advantage of the jet stream to save on both fuel and time.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
So, it's quite possible that Alaska was "closer" in the sense that it was not too far from the ideal flight path, and diverting to Alaska would not use as much fuel or take as much time as turning around, or continuing to the original destination.
CLAIM: Gravity does not exist. We fall because of relative density.
REBUTTAL: Seriously? Any decent high school physics textbook could explain this. I'd be willing to give it a go, but this comment is already too long. If you want, I'll do that in a separate comment.
I can, however, rebut one point you said about there being no experiment to show different masses attracting each other on Earth. That's incorrect. You can look it up at Wikipedia: The Cavendish Experiment. Cavendish used heavy metal balls inside a glass cabinet (so air currents wouldn't affect the experiment) to measure the very, very weak attraction between them. He not only verified Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, but was also able to calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant. Most college physics labs have this apparatus available for students to replicate the experiment Cavendish did.
once upon a time there was a masonic lie called gravity,
they thought it made water curve and stick to a spinning ball, but it was only a fallacy.
with the dimensions given a 21000 circumf ball the math doesnt add up.
people are zooming in on object further then 100 miles away which with the globe maths it should be at 666ft below your horizon...
further objects have also repeatedly been filmed.
the coriolis effect is a stupid hoax that with critical thhinking is easily disproven,
same for gravity because it doesnt hold up when second put to the question...
density and relative buyoyancy explain objects falling or rising... there is no gravity neccesary for it.... nothing is pulling anything down...
now. instead of repeating the lies that all flat earthers once also used to believe ....open your mind and really compare the heliocentric model with the geocentric one . and wake the fuck up.....
heliocentrisme is biggest most dogmatic believe system ever.... you need alot of faiith to believe any of it....
By the way, you can't explain density and buoyancy without relying on gravity. Why do denser objects always move down, while less dense objects always move up? Why not diagonally, or the other way around? In other words, what pulls the denser objects downward every single time?
I trust science and math more than I trust conspiracy theories. If the earth were really flat, how has this been kept a secret for so many centuries? What is the possible benefit to the conspirators to keep such a thing secret?
Why would the world's space agencies waste money to create videos and photos of round planets and moons in space?
Why is it winter in the southern hemisphere while it is summer in the northern? Are all those people conspiring together to report different temperatures?
How do eclipses work if the Earth is flat?
If the solar system is geocentric and the earth flat, what keeps the Sun and Moon in their orbits?
Why do the planets occasionally have retrograde motion?
Why do all the stars in the northern hemisphere appear to rotate around the North Star?
Why do people in the Southern Hemisphere see different stars than those in the Northern?
Why does the North Star sink toward the north horizon as you sail to the south, and disappear once you pass the equator?
The easiest, most direct, simplest explanation to all of these observed facts is the Earth is round, and it orbits the sun. The physics and the math all work out consistently.
If you can explain the phenomena I mentioned here with a flat earth, geocentric model, please enlighten me.
Sorry, but the world is round, like a coconut. There is undeniable mathematical and physical proof for that as well, dating back thousands of years. But i will watch your video and try to rebut its claims.
Hope you can upload it on dtube, great compilation work, i was on research of flat earth for almost a year now, and i can say, without a dough that we don't live in a spinning ball. keep doing this good work! following you now!
How much of a curve do you expect to see, at an altitude of 33km above a sphere of radius 6,371km?
The timelapse video where the skies are all clear is probably intentionally edited together that way from different days with clear skies.
Probably that "shadow" is just something on the lens in that footage?
The airplanes, and their contrails, are mostly too small to see from space - they can turn into larger clouds in the right circumstances, but you can't accidentally, and probably if they are visible then that looks ugly and
Other satellites are, similarly, too small to see, and most of them are over the horizon. One could probably intentionally capture footage of a satellite flyby from the ISS, but it wouldn't happen accidentally.
The external cameras on the ISS are as much for filming bits of the ISS and the astronauts maintaining those bits (which the crew has to keep an eye on) as they are for watching the Earth underneath. Of course the view from the cameras is often obstructed.
I'm going to say "video artifact" or "some debris floating off into space".
Yeah duh they use harnesses a lot, moving around in zero-g relies 100% on grabbing onto stuff.
You really should be able to tell the difference between something dipping below the horizon and something that's just very scaled-down due to distance.
Did you consider looking up why the Blue Marble "has to be" photoshopped before acting as if it was damning? Look, satellites fly really high relative to, like, planes and mountains and stuff, but 100km altitude vs 6,371km radius is still way too low to get the whole Earth in-shot. High orbit is much more expensive. No-one's going to pay that kind of money just to get the real thing instead of the photoshop, you need to put a camera on some other big space mission, like the Apollo program that the original 1978 Blue Marble (which the modern photoshopped one is a remake of) was taken from.
Okay, again with the finding the curve, I guess that was the title of the video - have you tried, like, building a 3d model Earth and looking around on the surface? Are you sure you're not just convincing yourself you should expect more visible curvature than the models actually predict?
Well, yeah the curved paths turn flat when you change the projection, the fact that they're straight lines across the surface of a sphere was the point in the first place. But the thing about a circular map centred on the North Pole is, flights between two destinations in the Southern hemisphere are curved in opposite directions - there's not many big cities south of the equator, but look at e.g. Buenos Aires - Melbourne or something.
Alternate explanation for why the Bali-los Angeles flight was suspiciously close to Alaska: the Air China flight connected through China instead of flying direct. Oh, look, it says right there in the news article you screencapped that the Bali-Los Angeles flight took off from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport.
Some of that balloon footage actually has some very visible curvature. Like the bit at 21:26 - put something flat under where the horizon meets the edges of the screen. It's curved.
The relationship between density and buoyancy and gravity is well-studied in physics, your "density" explanation doesn't replace anything or add anything that's missing or even explain anything it just turns everything we already knew about density and buoyancy into nonsense by removing gravity from the equations.
The four fundamental forces of the universe are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Those second two mainly effect the nuclei of atoms (hence the name), so to "show me something that's not a magnet that does this" is literally impossible. Asking for a kind of evidence that the theory you're arguing with says can't exist is a bit underhanded.
A force that acts on things in proportion to their mass can be counteracted by a small force when it's acting on a small mass? Who would have guessed?
The fact that a force that's supposed to be very weak except at large scales doesn't have any effects small-scale enough to be visible in everyday life or in experiments with everyday items is not much of an argument against that force being real.
Okay, since you're making a big deal out of it I'll try to explain in more depth to wrap this up: The buoyancy in a helium balloon comes from the heavier air being pulled under the balloon by the influence of gravity, which pushes the balloon out of the way. That effect of gravity is the reason denser things sink and lighter things float. If you remove gravity from the explanation, density and buoyancy isn't a separate thing that you can use to explain why things fall, it's another of the things that just became mysteries because you destroyed the explanation for them.
I would add another curious fact about buoyancy. Inside an accelerating car, a helium balloon will move toward the front of the car, because the acceleration forward pushes the air toward the rear of the car, making it more dense on that side of the balloon. So the balloon "floats" on top of that denser air mass. Likewise, if you hit the brakes, the balloon moves to the back of the car, because now the air in the front is denser.
Incidentally, the similar effects of gravity and acceleration are what led Einstein to develop the General Theory of Relativity.
One of the best flat earth documentaries -- hands down. You did an awesome job.
I'm ready for the next episode -- hey hey hey hey ...... smoke weed everyday.
I just noticed that you purposely filmed Britt's ink blobs at ~ 1:02 , LOL
Thank you so much man...really appreciate it. I think I'm gonna publish the new footage as video clips, not make full episodes like I did because those episodes took way too much time and energy. This way I can create more and frequently.
That'll probably be best anyway because it'll help you build a following on here.
Dude, I'm still euphoric that you are on steemit. Thanks again for joining. I'll definitely continue to support your work.
I just want to say thank you @fulltimegeek for resteeming this accounts posts! I am now looking into this series as I too am very interested in this work! Is there a curve to be found? From my research I have found that there is not, but to continue to grow and learn more is my mission. Thanks! :)
You raise some very good points, especially in regards to natural science.
Great job Einar! :)
Well, I can see there were some gaps in your science learning. But let's go through it point by point, as best I can.
CLAIM: The horizon is not curved, no matter how high up you are.
REBUTTAL: It does not appear curved, because the Earth is so large. Even at the height of the ISS (about 250 miles above the surface), the horizon still looks kind of straight (setting aside distortion from camera lenses). But we have photos of the earth taken from further away, where the curvature is undeniable.
CLAIM: No clouds are visible in the time lapse photo of nighttime Earth.
REBUTTAL: I have not checked my first guess, but I am assuming either they chose footage of a cloudless sky to show the pretty lights below or chose a specific frequency of light to capture the scenes to "edit out" the clouds.
CLAIM: There are no airplanes in the ISS videos.
REBUTTAL: You can't see them, because they are too small. The ISS is 250 miles up. By comparison, airliners fly at most about 5 miles up. Can you see those airliners from the ground? Probably not, until they have just taken off or are getting ready to land, and are now only a mile or two up.
Also, planes do not always leave contrails. It depends on atmospheric conditions, and if they're five miles or further away from you, you won't be able to see the contrails unless the sunlight hits them just right anyway.
CLAIM: No satellites are visible in the ISS photos.
REBUTTAL: See answer above. They are often quite small and also very far away. For safety reasons, the ISS orbit gives other orbiting objects a wide berth. Watch the movie Gravity for an example why. Geosynchronous satellites -- used for GPS and telecommunications -- are 23,000 miles above the surface, too far away to be seen with the naked eye.
By the way, have you examined every photo taken from orbit by NASA, the ESA, and other space agencies? I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find what you're looking for.
CLAIM: You can't see the Earth spinning from the ISS viewpoint.
REBUTTAL: The ISS orbits at 17,500 mph. The Earth spins about 1,100 mph (using the equator as the reference). Big difference. But there is enough of a difference that the ISS appears over a different point on the Earth at the same time each day. If the Earth were stationary, the ISS would appear above the same point on the ground every day. It doesn't.
CLAIM: Astronauts are not really weightless, and everything is done with wires.
REBUTTAL: Seriously? I watch SF movies and I can tell the actors and stunt people are hanging from wires, because they don't move the same way as astronauts in space do. When they shot the movie Apollo 13, Ron Howard deliberately used the NASA "vomit comet" airplane to shoot some scenes to make them realistic, because he knew wire work could not replicate the real thing. So, the actors shot their scenes in a diving airplane.
If you don't understand how zero-g (microgravity) works, I suggest finding a good physics book to read.
CLAIM: Astronauts use "augmented contact lenses" to interact with VR objects.
REBUTTAL: HAHAHAHAHA! You're joking, right? We've had people in space since the 1960s, and movies of their motion on Skylab since the 1970s. How long has VR been around?
CLAIM: You can see distant oil drilling platforms with a telescope, so the Earth cannot be round.
REBUTTAL: This explanation gets complicated, because of the different resolution abilities of the human eye and a telescope. Resolution measures how well a lens can separate details. Generally speaking, it increases with a larger lens (and with magnification, but not always). So, when looking at the horizon with your naked eyes, probably you can't see an oil rig or a ship off in the distance, because your eye can't separate that tiny speck from the haze just above the water. But the telescope can, because it has better resolving power.
When Galileo perfected his telescope, he was able to sell it to eager merchants, who understood it gave them the ability to spot arriving ships much sooner than their competitors could.
In fact, ancient navigators knew the surface of the ocean was curved, because the first part of the distant ship you see is its top. That's why there's a crow's nest on sailing ships, so the seaman can see land sooner than his mates on deck.
CLAIM: The Earth does not look like a spheroid in NASA photos, so it can't be round.
REBUTTAL: A sphere is a geometric shape, and can be considered perfect or ideal. Real life objects are not perfect or ideal, even ball bearings, because there will always be imperfections - no matter how small. The Earth is also not a perfect sphere, mostly because it rotates. It's fatter around the equator than around the poles. The equatorial radius is 3,963.2 miles, and the polar radius is 3,949.9 miles -- only a 13.3 mile difference. You won't be able to detect that tiny difference in a photograph of the Earth with your naked eyes.
Technically, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid
CLAIM: You can't feel the Earth moving, so it isn't.
REBUTTAL: Again, your physics classes should have covered this in the chapter about inertia. It was a key part of both Galileo's and Newton's analyses of motion.
You don't feel the motion of the Earth because everything around you, even the air, is moving at the same speed. (We'll ignore the wind, which is caused by other means.) Inertia means your body will still have that velocity caused by the Earth's rotation even when you jump off the diving board or over the pole vault bar.
Secondly, you can only detect steady motion if you have a reference point that is not moving with you to view. (This leads into relativity, btw.) So, if everything around you is moving with the same speed , what objects can you use for reference? Easy -- the Sun, the Moon and the stars. For many, many years, people assumed the Earth was stationary and everything went around it. That notion was disproved in the 1500s by Copernicus, both by careful measurement and calculation, and further disproved later by Kepler and Galileo. Newton added the theory of gravity to explain all these revolving objects, and the stationary Earth notion was abandoned. Why? because of undeniable mathematical and physical proof.
CLAIM: Flight routes are straight on a polar projection, but curved on a Mercator projection, so the Earth must be flat.
REBUTTAL: I've noticed that many flat earth proponents use a polar projection of the Earth, with the North Pole at the center.
What is a polar projection? It's a way to map the curved surface of the Earth onto a flat plane. IOW, Flat Earthers are using a map created from a round Earth! Seems rather counter-productive, if you ask me.
A polar projection map allows us to plot flight paths near the North Pole as straight lines to approximate the real paths. All projections distort distances or angles. The Mercator projection maps the spheroidal Earth onto a cylinder centered on the Equator (or some other reference line), and flight paths will have a different shape than on some other projection.
But the routes shown in airline magazines are only ideal routes. Pilots have to adjust their flight paths according to ambient wind and weather conditions. In particular, they often take advantage of the jet stream to save on both fuel and time.
Source: Wikimedia Commons
So, it's quite possible that Alaska was "closer" in the sense that it was not too far from the ideal flight path, and diverting to Alaska would not use as much fuel or take as much time as turning around, or continuing to the original destination.
CLAIM: Gravity does not exist. We fall because of relative density.
REBUTTAL: Seriously? Any decent high school physics textbook could explain this. I'd be willing to give it a go, but this comment is already too long. If you want, I'll do that in a separate comment.
I can, however, rebut one point you said about there being no experiment to show different masses attracting each other on Earth. That's incorrect. You can look it up at Wikipedia: The Cavendish Experiment. Cavendish used heavy metal balls inside a glass cabinet (so air currents wouldn't affect the experiment) to measure the very, very weak attraction between them. He not only verified Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, but was also able to calculate the Universal Gravitational Constant. Most college physics labs have this apparatus available for students to replicate the experiment Cavendish did.
the brainwash in deep within you @wheatsdogg...
once upon a time there was a masonic lie called gravity,
they thought it made water curve and stick to a spinning ball, but it was only a fallacy.
with the dimensions given a 21000 circumf ball the math doesnt add up.
people are zooming in on object further then 100 miles away which with the globe maths it should be at 666ft below your horizon...
further objects have also repeatedly been filmed.
the coriolis effect is a stupid hoax that with critical thhinking is easily disproven,
same for gravity because it doesnt hold up when second put to the question...
density and relative buyoyancy explain objects falling or rising... there is no gravity neccesary for it.... nothing is pulling anything down...
now. instead of repeating the lies that all flat earthers once also used to believe ....open your mind and really compare the heliocentric model with the geocentric one . and wake the fuck up.....
heliocentrisme is biggest most dogmatic believe system ever.... you need alot of faiith to believe any of it....
By the way, you can't explain density and buoyancy without relying on gravity. Why do denser objects always move down, while less dense objects always move up? Why not diagonally, or the other way around? In other words, what pulls the denser objects downward every single time?
I trust science and math more than I trust conspiracy theories. If the earth were really flat, how has this been kept a secret for so many centuries? What is the possible benefit to the conspirators to keep such a thing secret?
Why would the world's space agencies waste money to create videos and photos of round planets and moons in space?
Why is it winter in the southern hemisphere while it is summer in the northern? Are all those people conspiring together to report different temperatures?
How do eclipses work if the Earth is flat?
If the solar system is geocentric and the earth flat, what keeps the Sun and Moon in their orbits?
Why do the planets occasionally have retrograde motion?
Why do all the stars in the northern hemisphere appear to rotate around the North Star?
Why do people in the Southern Hemisphere see different stars than those in the Northern?
Why does the North Star sink toward the north horizon as you sail to the south, and disappear once you pass the equator?
The easiest, most direct, simplest explanation to all of these observed facts is the Earth is round, and it orbits the sun. The physics and the math all work out consistently.
If you can explain the phenomena I mentioned here with a flat earth, geocentric model, please enlighten me.
Sorry, but the world is round, like a coconut. There is undeniable mathematical and physical proof for that as well, dating back thousands of years. But i will watch your video and try to rebut its claims.
It really fascinates your post
Glad your on Steemit bro love your work!!
Hope you can upload it on dtube, great compilation work, i was on research of flat earth for almost a year now, and i can say, without a dough that we don't live in a spinning ball. keep doing this good work! following you now!
I would add another curious fact about buoyancy. Inside an accelerating car, a helium balloon will move toward the front of the car, because the acceleration forward pushes the air toward the rear of the car, making it more dense on that side of the balloon. So the balloon "floats" on top of that denser air mass. Likewise, if you hit the brakes, the balloon moves to the back of the car, because now the air in the front is denser.
Incidentally, the similar effects of gravity and acceleration are what led Einstein to develop the General Theory of Relativity.
The earth, she is a round like a cantaloupe.