As a physicist, let me tell you how "positive proof" or "positive evidence" actually works in scientific hypothesis-testing: 1. You need a theoretical prediction. "If Earth is flat, then we should measure this angle and that distance and that time." 2. You need an experimentally measured value *INCLUDING THE ERROR OF YOUR MEASUREMENT*. 3. You need to define *BEFORE THE MEASUREMENT* (in order to prevent bias) a confidence-level: Basically (in very simple terms) how closely the experimental result and the theoretical result need to be to each other in order to regard them as being identical. 4. You need to do a statistical hypothesis-test to find out whether your experimental results fulfill the standard of evidence that you have defined in the 3rd step, using the error of your measurement as a reference . (The most common and one of the most simple hypothesis-tests is the Pearson-Chi-Square-Test.) And *THEN AND ONLY THEN* can you say that your experimental measurement is proof-positive of some theoretical claim. It is downright PAINFUL to watch people discussing experimental results without ever taking things like instrumental resolution and statistical standard-deviation into account.
@@scott_meyer And then we need to analyze the photos for spherical distortion, barrel distortion, chromatic aberration... To make sure that the photo is credible. Photos are not as clear-cut as you want to believe. You know what is clear-cut? A model of the Earth that has been in use for navigation professionally(!) since at least the 1600s and out of millions of trials has never failed to bring people to exactly to where they want to go.
@@scott_meyer the reality is that proposing a flat earth or a globe immediately results in some predictions. The most basic of which is the setting of the sun, moon, and stars. This would simply not be possible on a flat earth. Perspective and refraction can’t explain it away. No measurements needed.
ปีที่แล้ว +17
Yeah... I saw that "debate", strange how the rules isn't the same for flat earthers as for those of us who show reality 🤔
I've been checked out of the Flat Earth debate non-sense for years other than watching the occasional MC Toon. I like to check in once in a while and see if the Flatties have any new claims or evidence. Flatties even after years haven't brought anything new to the table. I just can't with these guys anymore. Keep up the good fight Sky, Reds and MC Toon!
I think what you are actually tired of is the chicken and the egg. FEers want globe proof zero offered, globe devotees want FE proof, again zero offered. This is why I would describe myself as a Globe sceptic rather than a FEer. I hold the position that even though Moose you want the chicken or egg to come first and therefore want proof, so does a sceptic too. Any debate on any topic is a waste of time unless, of course, you get hard for mass debates then hey, but in terms of the chicken and egg it is just stalemate. So I will continue to have doubts, reasonable doubts of the Earth being a globe and you can either go fcuk your chicken or lay your egg. No one on either side has the high ground on this, and you should at the very least take the sceptical position, otherwise one of your religious doctrines is the Earth is a Globe based on faith. It might also help your case by not using Ad Homs like Flatties. But I feel you are being disingenuous here and actually like these debates and the feeling of superiority it brings you. Terms like keep up the good fight betray you. Is it good? And why a fight? I thought you guys just had to turn up to win. Well, when you have me on my back stating I recant my scepticism and believe the ball, then and only then have you won your fight, but we all know that is never going to happen. Final thoughts, I just noticed your continuing bias by calling it a Flat Earth debate.
"One minute, one minute, one minute." That "moderator" Lovvveddd to hear his own annoying voice. And hell no, that sure wasn't even remotely like impartial moderation. And he calls himself an honest truth seeker, HA! The hell he was.
Flat Earthers don't even understand what "flat" means in that document. It means an Earth with zero surface features, literally... no mountains or hills. Nothing for the aircraft to fly over or around.
If it's the document I remember, it's part of a thing about flight simulation software and they not only assume that the Earth isn't curved or moving but also assume that the aircraft's mass doesn't change, that its centre of mass doesn't move and that it doesn't bend at all while manoeuvring, all to keep the calculations simple for the benefit of the computer that had to run the simulation. If you want to experience for yourself the reasons for skipping the Earth curvature and rotation, try writing software to simulate a thrown stone arcing through the air, a) with constant acceleration of 9.81 metres per second per second in a fixed "down" direction perpendicular to a flat plane and air resistance proportional to the square of its velocity; b) with inward acceleration of ( 3.9860e14 m³ / s² ) divided by the square of its distance from the centre of an oblate spheroid of radii 6356752 m and 6378137 m rotating at 2 PI / 86164.0905 radians per second and air resistance proportional to the square of its velocity and to the density of the air at its altitude over the surface. If you're going to try to write them in BBC BASIC, use the Archimedes emulator, not the BBC Micro emulator, partly because "Safe Mode" graphics beat the BBC's display capabilities and mostly because 32 kB of RAM is *not* enough for that second one.
I listened this debate afterwards while doing other stuff, and in my attempt to tune out the omnipresent attention wh00re seem to have missed how much of a poorly moderated sh1tshow this really was. Right on the money as always, Sly.
This is why I don't think this type of debate is useful at all. Either they spout claim after claim without presenting any evidence at all, or they start there evidence with a false statement, and the resto of the 10 minutes is a waste time since their whole argument rests on that false premise.
Sounded like he was nervous to my ear, but as a bully, you of course would appreciate him crying. Stating that you are name-calling does not negate that you are name-calling. Judge, I told him I was stabbing him to death, defence.
Insults are not Ad Homs. Ad Homs are attacking the person not the argument eg: You've presented evidence the earth's flat but you're an idiot so you're wrong. And he sounded like he was going to cry through most of the debate, probably because he had no evidence and had no rebuttal to Reds evidence.
@@ConspiracyPundit Quite happy to name call flerfs. Flerfs fall into three categories: Religious nutters who think the bible says the earth's flat, (therefore it is flat, no matter what other evidence there is); idiots who believe the rubbish provided by religious nutters and conmen; conmen who make money from the first two categories. Some of the conmen can be quite convincing when you're an idiot. (eg Peter Popoff). Some people still fall for the con after it's been explained to them. Some people are so stupid I wonder how they manager to remember how to breathe. These people are the ones falling for the flat earth conspiracy lie.
@@colins1435 I think you might find insults are indeed a form of Ad Hom, just in the same way implying he was crying definitely is. Now I have my brief moment of superiority over you. Back to you, if you want to continue this circle jerk.
A dishonest flat-earther? Say it isn't so, Sly! (End of sarcasm. Dishonesty is exactly what I've come to expect from flat-earth proponents, whether they're debate moderators or not.)
With regards to "ideology or belief system", I don't think it was changed, at least in their minds. They think that science is an ideology or belief system, and that is why they are wrong in pretty much anything they believe.
I've been watching these debates for years I don't think I've ever seen a flat earther understand or stick to the format of a debate even if they are the ones who set it up.
Yeah, except it was absolutely spot on. Your bias and dishonesty are showing, genius. If you couldn't tell from RED's clear presentation and PROOF, the earth is clearly a GLOBE!!!
Nobody is looking for flatties to jump ship from a debate. But good lord, y’all do not have to defend a terrible performance just because he’s on your “team.” The flattie did absolutely nothing worth noting, and I’m not even assessing this from a reasonable standpoint (to do so would be the equivalent of debating spontaneous generation vs germ theory). All the points that sly brought up reds complained about in the debate. The moderation was demonstrably biased and clearly does not understand what an ad hominem is. Though to be fair, most flatties don’t seem to know either so that’s just par for the course I guess.
the earth is not flat, but no one landed on the moon 50 years ago. the cost per kg of payload to low earth orbit is now a small fraction of what it was 50 years ago, it just does not stand to reason that there has been no "return" despite 50 years of technological advances.
@@greypoweroz they were bouncing lasers off the moon in 1962, there are no reflectors needed. Also there is no difference in the amount of light reflected when a laser is pointed at the supposed reflectors and any other part of the moon's surface.
@@greypoweroz Samples? oh you mean the fake "moon rocks" that NASA had to get back before more of them were analysed? also samples could have been taken by unmanned mission, and the reflectors could also have been placed in the same way. What else you got?
@@greypoweroz i cited a source, but youtube deletes links so maybe you can't see it. It's a study that shows no difference in the amount of light reflected. also variations can be accounted for by differences in the albedo of the surface where the laser strikes and coincidental alignment of crystal faces in rocks.
What? A flat earther asking for something and then not doing that same thing?
Say it isn’t so.
As a physicist, let me tell you how "positive proof" or "positive evidence" actually works in scientific hypothesis-testing:
1. You need a theoretical prediction. "If Earth is flat, then we should measure this angle and that distance and that time."
2. You need an experimentally measured value *INCLUDING THE ERROR OF YOUR MEASUREMENT*.
3. You need to define *BEFORE THE MEASUREMENT* (in order to prevent bias) a confidence-level: Basically (in very simple terms) how closely the experimental result and the theoretical result need to be to each other in order to regard them as being identical.
4. You need to do a statistical hypothesis-test to find out whether your experimental results fulfill the standard of evidence that you have defined in the 3rd step, using the error of your measurement as a reference . (The most common and one of the most simple hypothesis-tests is the Pearson-Chi-Square-Test.)
And *THEN AND ONLY THEN* can you say that your experimental measurement is proof-positive of some theoretical claim. It is downright PAINFUL to watch people discussing experimental results without ever taking things like instrumental resolution and statistical standard-deviation into account.
Or we can look at photos from orbit.
@@scott_meyer And then we need to analyze the photos for spherical distortion, barrel distortion, chromatic aberration... To make sure that the photo is credible. Photos are not as clear-cut as you want to believe. You know what is clear-cut? A model of the Earth that has been in use for navigation professionally(!) since at least the 1600s and out of millions of trials has never failed to bring people to exactly to where they want to go.
@@scott_meyer the reality is that proposing a flat earth or a globe immediately results in some predictions. The most basic of which is the setting of the sun, moon, and stars. This would simply not be possible on a flat earth. Perspective and refraction can’t explain it away. No measurements needed.
Yeah... I saw that "debate", strange how the rules isn't the same for flat earthers as for those of us who show reality 🤔
Rules for the GE but none for the FE.
Yeah, keyword " debate ". On point there Tommy. You can't fix stupid. Stupid is forevah!
It is tough being a flat earther when anything you have to offer, is ridiculously easy to debunk.
Sacred is as dishonest as ban notice. There's no hiding the fact as a moderator he's as useful as a cup of cold sea water to a drowning sailor.
I've been checked out of the Flat Earth debate non-sense for years other than watching the occasional MC Toon. I like to check in once in a while and see if the Flatties have any new claims or evidence. Flatties even after years haven't brought anything new to the table. I just can't with these guys anymore. Keep up the good fight Sky, Reds and MC Toon!
I think what you are actually tired of is the chicken and the egg. FEers want globe proof zero offered, globe devotees want FE proof, again zero offered. This is why I would describe myself as a Globe sceptic rather than a FEer. I hold the position that even though Moose you want the chicken or egg to come first and therefore want proof, so does a sceptic too. Any debate on any topic is a waste of time unless, of course, you get hard for mass debates then hey, but in terms of the chicken and egg it is just stalemate. So I will continue to have doubts, reasonable doubts of the Earth being a globe and you can either go fcuk your chicken or lay your egg. No one on either side has the high ground on this, and you should at the very least take the sceptical position, otherwise one of your religious doctrines is the Earth is a Globe based on faith. It might also help your case by not using Ad Homs like Flatties. But I feel you are being disingenuous here and actually like these debates and the feeling of superiority it brings you. Terms like keep up the good fight betray you. Is it good? And why a fight? I thought you guys just had to turn up to win. Well, when you have me on my back stating I recant my scepticism and believe the ball, then and only then have you won your fight, but we all know that is never going to happen. Final thoughts, I just noticed your continuing bias by calling it a Flat Earth debate.
@@ConspiracyPundit
Pick a weather satellite.
There's your direct proof.
@@scott_meyer Can that be hung off a balloon? There is my direct scepticism
@conspiracypundit8347
Thats your direct stupidity.
@@ConspiracyPundit No it cannot. More than direct skepticism yours is deep ignorance.
That was no debate moderation, that was rehearsal to announce a wrestler for one of these fake "championship" fights.
"One minute, one minute, one minute." That "moderator" Lovvveddd to hear his own annoying voice. And hell no, that sure wasn't even remotely like impartial moderation. And he calls himself an honest truth seeker, HA! The hell he was.
That's not a fair comparison, practising & performing fight-choreography is really hard work.
Flat Earthers don't even understand what "flat" means in that document. It means an Earth with zero surface features, literally... no mountains or hills. Nothing for the aircraft to fly over or around.
If it's the document I remember, it's part of a thing about flight simulation software and they not only assume that the Earth isn't curved or moving but also assume that the aircraft's mass doesn't change, that its centre of mass doesn't move and that it doesn't bend at all while manoeuvring, all to keep the calculations simple for the benefit of the computer that had to run the simulation.
If you want to experience for yourself the reasons for skipping the Earth curvature and rotation, try writing software to simulate a thrown stone arcing through the air,
a) with constant acceleration of 9.81 metres per second per second in a fixed "down" direction perpendicular to a flat plane and air resistance proportional to the square of its velocity;
b) with inward acceleration of ( 3.9860e14 m³ / s² ) divided by the square of its distance from the centre of an oblate spheroid of radii 6356752 m and 6378137 m rotating at 2 PI / 86164.0905 radians per second and air resistance proportional to the square of its velocity and to the density of the air at its altitude over the surface.
If you're going to try to write them in BBC BASIC, use the Archimedes emulator, not the BBC Micro emulator, partly because "Safe Mode" graphics beat the BBC's display capabilities and mostly because 32 kB of RAM is *not* enough for that second one.
I listened this debate afterwards while doing other stuff, and in my attempt to tune out the omnipresent attention wh00re seem to have missed how much of a poorly moderated sh1tshow this really was. Right on the money as always, Sly.
This is why I don't think this type of debate is useful at all. Either they spout claim after claim without presenting any evidence at all, or they start there evidence with a false statement, and the resto of the 10 minutes is a waste time since their whole argument rests on that false premise.
Yeah, I saw this. I loved at the end there, and several other times where the flattard (YES! an adhom) totally sounded like he was about to cry!
Sounded like he was nervous to my ear, but as a bully, you of course would appreciate him crying. Stating that you are name-calling does not negate that you are name-calling. Judge, I told him I was stabbing him to death, defence.
Insults are not Ad Homs. Ad Homs are attacking the person not the argument eg: You've presented evidence the earth's flat but you're an idiot so you're wrong.
And he sounded like he was going to cry through most of the debate, probably because he had no evidence and had no rebuttal to Reds evidence.
@@ConspiracyPundit Quite happy to name call flerfs. Flerfs fall into three categories: Religious nutters who think the bible says the earth's flat, (therefore it is flat, no matter what other evidence there is); idiots who believe the rubbish provided by religious nutters and conmen; conmen who make money from the first two categories.
Some of the conmen can be quite convincing when you're an idiot. (eg Peter Popoff). Some people still fall for the con after it's been explained to them. Some people are so stupid I wonder how they manager to remember how to breathe. These people are the ones falling for the flat earth conspiracy lie.
@@colins1435 I think you might find insults are indeed a form of Ad Hom, just in the same way implying he was crying definitely is. Now I have my brief moment of superiority over you. Back to you, if you want to continue this circle jerk.
@@ConspiracyPundit There is absolutely nothing to support the flat Earth hypothesis. The demeanour of the protagonists is utterly irrelevant.
A dishonest flat-earther? Say it isn't so, Sly!
(End of sarcasm. Dishonesty is exactly what I've come to expect from flat-earth proponents, whether they're debate moderators or not.)
Dishonest flat Earthers… they're as rare as leaping frogs.
@11:34 Ban sounds like he's about to cry.
As with all things flerf: You Gotta Lie To Flerf --- which is precisely what this "sacred" clown is all about.
With regards to "ideology or belief system", I don't think it was changed, at least in their minds. They think that science is an ideology or belief system, and that is why they are wrong in pretty much anything they believe.
He’s given positive proof of being an eejit.
I've been watching these debates for years I don't think I've ever seen a flat earther understand or stick to the format of a debate even if they are the ones who set it up.
These flat Earth "debates" are all one and the same.
Agree
I miss Reds stuff, I thought he was going to stick with filming Rocket launches.
Reds blows these guys away every time
What have we learned here? That in the end it will come down to War.
How so? Because flerfs won't accept evidence? Because flerfs have no power of critical thinking? Because flerfs sulk when shown to be wrong?
WTF???
warning: Drugs am bad kids, mkay.
@@lorditsprobingtime6668 Which drugs 666? I have a pad and a pencil handy.
@@ConspiracyPundit The ones you’re on.
@@ConspiracyPundit I was hoping you'd tell me.
Gave up after 10 minutes because just about everything you said was either dead wrong or deliberately poisoning the well.
Or me being rcorrect frustrates you
Yeah, except it was absolutely spot on. Your bias and dishonesty are showing, genius. If you couldn't tell from RED's clear presentation and PROOF, the earth is clearly a GLOBE!!!
Nobody is looking for flatties to jump ship from a debate. But good lord, y’all do not have to defend a terrible performance just because he’s on your “team.”
The flattie did absolutely nothing worth noting, and I’m not even assessing this from a reasonable standpoint (to do so would be the equivalent of debating spontaneous generation vs germ theory). All the points that sly brought up reds complained about in the debate. The moderation was demonstrably biased and clearly does not understand what an ad hominem is. Though to be fair, most flatties don’t seem to know either so that’s just par for the course I guess.
the earth is not flat, but no one landed on the moon 50 years ago.
the cost per kg of payload to low earth orbit is now a small fraction of what it was 50 years ago, it just does not stand to reason that there has been no "return" despite 50 years of technological advances.
@@greypoweroz they were bouncing lasers off the moon in 1962, there are no reflectors needed. Also there is no difference in the amount of light reflected when a laser is pointed at the supposed reflectors and any other part of the moon's surface.
@@greypoweroz Samples? oh you mean the fake "moon rocks" that NASA had to get back before more of them were analysed?
also samples could have been taken by unmanned mission, and the reflectors could also have been placed in the same way.
What else you got?
@@axeman2638 where is your evidence?
@@mrxmry3264 youtube will probably delete it but i can try
www.aulis.com/PDF/lunar_ranging2.pdf
@@greypoweroz i cited a source, but youtube deletes links so maybe you can't see it.
It's a study that shows no difference in the amount of light reflected.
also variations can be accounted for by differences in the albedo of the surface where the laser strikes and coincidental alignment of crystal faces in rocks.
As with all things flerf: You Gotta Lie To Flerf --- which is precisely what this "sacred" clown is all about.