I have been working with large ring laser for more than 20 years and we always measure earth rotation. I have done testing of a fiber gyro and you can do a neat experiment with one. If you measure earth rotation and you turn the gyro over 180 degrees you see the display showing the rotation going in the other direction proving its really earth rotation and not some artifact.
@@PhDTony_original Yes impossible to tip them over. The fiber Gyro we have is the size of a computer hard drive very neat piece of kit. I haven't been to ROMY but I have been to the G Laser in Wettzell Germany. I have worked on all of the Canterbury Large Ring Lasers. Before the earth quake we had a 17X21M rectangular ring. If you ever get across the ditch happy to show you our rings.
A fifteen degrees per hour drift? As a fun fact, I was using mechanical gyroscope to detect rotational axis for military artillery as military service in Sweden during the 1980:th. We used an instrument that looks like _Wild Heerbrugg MIL-ABLE Gyro T2_ The accuracy was 1/1000 of a radiant, if we used linear average of the direction of the first three swings around the rotational axis of the globe (when it was settling), taking 11 minutes, sufficient for peace time firing at artillery range. The only "nuh-hu" I have got from flerfs are "a gyrscope is difficult to use so it must be fake"
its a pity I can't post a "body of evidence" meme here. But to have so many ways that consistently show something is happening that matches reality. Once again Tony has delivered a mining dumper size load of evidence,that obliterates stupidity, worrd salads and running away from the question.
Where is this quality you are so enamoured with, the first 2 minutes ,the rotating earth he claims is a satelite images taken on May 29 2016 showing just short of 5 complete rotations with absolutely no movement or change Then he claimswhatsoever in the clouds ha ha ha ha. Then he claims old Ferdy Reich measured a drift on falling objects hmm so the earth rotates beneath you whilst your falliing but not on a moving airplane hmm very interesting. Then every other so called proof defies the same logic as east west flight times being the same. I make no claims on where we live but I can't stand bullshit either from sycophants or scientists.
@@peat11 The Earth did not in fact rotate 5 times in one day, nor did I claim that it did. I replayed the loop of images back to back several times thinking that my audience would be able to take my meaning. I apologise for over-estimating you. What precision of photographic analysis did you use to demonstrate "absolutely no movement or change"? Or did you just eyeball it? What magnitude of motion would be required to produce clearly visible motion in a 12 hour period on an image of that scale? There are Coriolis effects on planes but their effect is identical to that of a cross-wind. If you adjust heading once every five minutes then Coriolis has the same effect as an 11km/h cross wind. That you do not understand why east-west flight times are approximately equal is simple ignorance of physics.
@@peat11 More concerning is your apparent inability to perform a meta-analysis. Are there smarter people on Earth than you? I would argue there certainly are. Have they seen that east-west flight times are roughly equal? If they had not noticed this, they would have to be stupider than you are. So I would argue that by definition, anyone smarter than you must have noticed this. Have they concluded that therefore Earth does not rotate? No they have not. We are thus lead to one of two conclusions: Either you are one of the smartest people in the world, or, you're mistaken. Guess which one is more likely to be correct.
@@PhDTony_original There is none so blind as they that cannot see, where did I say the earth is flat, I called out bullshit and 100% contradictory evidence, so the rotation of the earth affects lasers, falling objects, pendulums, gyroscopes, bullets and missiles but not planes. We could all have Phds everybody on the planet if they had sufficient memory and recall, gigo gigo gigo!!!. As to where we live now that is a real mystery because nothing geometrically works "I repeat nothing".
@peat11 as I literally *JUST* explained, Coriolis does affect planes, they compensate for it before its effects can accumulate. No, PhDs are not awarded for memorisation - they require that active novel independent research be undertaken. We have abundant evidence regarding where we live, your complete ignorance of that evidence does not make it magically cease to exist.
Great job Tony. It almost pains me that your level of intelligence is wasted trying to explain things to people as willfully ignorant and stubborn as FLERFs.
Brilliant video Tony. Concise and easy enough for a Flerf to understand. I assume you will have no rebuttal from any Flerfs in your comments unless they come out with a complete non-sequitur to your video. As someone who lives in SE Australia and does long exposure astrophotography, just the fact that I need to align my tracking mount with the south celestial pole so that it and the earth move on the same axis is proof enough of what we live on. I suppose most of them don't believe in space either though.....
so good. this series is going to be the gold standard for flerf debunks. one thing they always say is "no curvature has ever been measured on the surface of water" or words to that effect. i think "displays convexity upon it's surface" is the catchphrase. level earth observer is always quoting it. i hope you do a debunk of that one.
Fun fact: our techniques for measuring Earth's rotation are accurate enough to measure the impact of Three Gorges Reservoir in China being filled with water in 2008, after the dam was finished.
Clever science on TH-cam, who knew 🎉🎉🎉. Joking apart, it’s not just flat Earth fans who prefer simple bite-sized proofs. Since we all believe our eyes, why not explain the practical limits of diffraction so, in a long distance observation, when we clearly see a boat or an island disappear into the sea, it would be good to tell a flat Earth fan that diffraction can’t distort that much?
Having learnt about Foucault's Pendulum at school and spending much of my working life designing test equipment aerospace industry, I had never heard of Foucault's gyroscope experiments. Just goes to show there's always something new to learn even when you're getting well into your seventies.
11:12 what you say here nicely matches the prediction I made some time ago, about the island of irrationality on which flat Earthers will finally gather: _Earth is flat as my holy book says so. But God the Almighty has allowed Satan to make it LOOK LIKE a sphere in all physical measurenents we humans can do, so that the true and faithfull believers can be separated from those who fell for the satanic charade._
I can already hear a 'demonstrable realist' saying these don't count because they are not direct observations of earth's rotation before pointing to a crane and asking how it can be still.
On the subject of procession along with my Wil Tirion Sky atlas 2000. I also had both volumes of the Sky catalogue 2000.0 The catalogue resembles something more akin to a phone directory. Volume 1 had stars down to magnitude 8 listing coordinates for epoch 2000 along with numerous bits of data including procession. Because stars are observed to move over time. Volume 2 had double stars, variables and non stellar objects. The atlas is epoch 2000 as it has the stars printed in the correct positions for the year 2000. I also have somewhere a copy or a Nortons star atlas which is epoch 1950. Most pole finder scopes used with equatorial mounted telescopes for the northern hemisphere. Use Polaris as a guide. You dial in the date to your local meridian time and it gives you a mark as to where Polaris is in relation to the celestial pole so you can easily set your scope up. The marking for Polaris would have some graduations that are referenced to the year. Because Polaris moves relative to the celestial pole. Enough that it’s taken into account and it’s marked there on the pole finder scope. It’s definitely moved since I first started messing with telescopes in the 80’s. I’ve used a line when some flerfs maintain that the earth and solar system cannot be moving because when they look up in the night sky. Nothing moves or has ever been observed to have moved. To which I retort, that statement is like a mayfly stating plants don’t grow as they’ve never seen any change in size over their life time
@@dickwayne7744 You can compare your observations to Hipparchos's star catalogue to see that stars have moved. If you bothered to do even simple observations, you will notice that the constellation on the horizon above the sun at any point in the year is about a full zodiacal sign ahead of what the Babylonian astronomers claimed. You would also notice that the constellation Ophiuchus is now in the Zodiacal belt, largely displacing Scorpio.
@@PhDTony_original ”Ophiuchus one of the 13 signs of the zodiac“ is a fun thing to throw into any conversation with anyone who’s preaching about astrology.
Excellent video, Tony! I was not aware that Foucault used mechanical gyroscopes to detect the rotation, so that was fascinating. Sadly, none of this will change the minds of the science deniers, but it's really interesting for the rest of us. 👍
Maybe you presented this elsewhere, but to me, the best evidence for a rotating earth is the constant "motion" of the stars. Astronomy has established stars are individual objects at varying distances from earth, so it cannot be claimed that the stars positions are in any way subjective or some kind of illusion. There is no reason for such objects to move in a circle around our lowly solar system, as motion in a circle requires a centripetal force. Furthermore, motion of all those individual objects at different distances would imply an impossible coordination to keep the relative position of all these stars and galaxies constant. Finally, nothing can go faster than the speed of light and that would mean stars and particularly galaxies would have to be going faster than the speed of light to get around such a great circumference that results from a very large distances from earth in one 24 hour period. So if the stars are not moving, then our platform for observing the stars must be rotating. Nothing else makes sense. One can then establish that the earth is a sphere by noting the changes in the angle to the celestial north or south poles with changing north-south position on earth. The mere fact that we can see stars in all directions would not be possible on a flat earth but would the easy on a rotating globe. It also explains the opposite direction of the apparent rotation of the stars around the north and south celestial poles.
I agree, however, flat earthers respond with some combination of: They're just lights in the sky You can't tell the shape of the thing you're standing on by looking up That effect is not due to motion, it's due to light bending to make it look like motion. That's why I started with earth-based observations.
Flat earthers also do not accept that celestial objects are at different distances. They claim the stars all lie on a dome. Parallax requires Earth orbit the sun - which they reject.
Everytime Foucault is mentioned now I always think of that time Anthony Riley looked up the wrong Foucault and did an entire video on it embarrassing himself.
Excellent presentation of factual technologies! I bet Witsit is already gearing up to use that 160 IQ of his to "destroy" this indoctrination of yours. & I can even hear Flatzoid from here saying that you literally just made his point for him while simultaneously debunking yourself. 🤣
When Flatzoid and Riley had that conversation awhile back, they were both speaking literal gibberish, yet nodding their respective heads as if they understood the lunatic they were speaking to.
That "160 IQ" claim really annoys me. I'm sure he found an online "IQ test" that clearly says it's for "entertainment purposes" and pretends to believe the results are genuine. If he "did his own research," he'd know just how rare such a score would be and would go with a more believable number that would still put him in the 90+ percentile. Ironically, claiming an IQ of 160 makes him appear _less_ intelligent, to informed intelligent people. Then again, it's only the people gullible enough to think Earth could be flat who would take this claim seriously, so maybe it's intentional after all? Sort of the way the "Nigerian prince" email scams used to use horrible grammar and spelling, ostensibly as an intentional means to select the least-intelligent people who'd be more likely to fall for the scam.
Interesting video. Thanks for making it.From a top level perspective just looking at the night sky tells you something is rotating. It's got to be either us or the universe/firmament dome thingy. There is no evidence that the 'dome' even exists. The likelihood that the entire universe rotates around us is very unlikely and there are so many different threads of evidence to show the earth rotates, one of which is the behaviour of gyroscopes, that makes it the most likely option. Note that this comment is not for the people that already know this. It's for anyone looking in that thinks a rotating, moving earth is impossible or unlikely. It ain't.
@@dickwayne7744 The Bible is NOT the oldest book - so you started with a lie. Further, the fact that a book is widely read does not make it accurate or reliable. The Bible claims that bats are birds and that whales are fish - it's demonstrably wrong in many of its declarations. Atmospheric pressure does not demonstrate the existence of a dome - it is one of the demonstrable effects of gravity. I have at least four videos demonstrating that this specific claim is fallacious. No-one is ignoring anything - your claims are just nonsense.
@@robertcatuara5118 he told me he was not interested in my content, nor did he actually watch the video he was commenting on. That being the case, I blocked him. Now he doesn't have to listen to anything I say on any level.
I can't argue against this evidence, so I'm going to change the subject to air pressure and containers, even though I've already asked that question a hundred times and ignored every time it's been explained to me. TAKE THAT, NASA!
Flerfs are always harping on about how we (i.e. normal folk) worship Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson as the go-to science communicators. Wrong. We worship PhD Tony for this.
We of the Witsit's Witless Witnesses (tm) believe that this rotational thingy that you sheep worship doesn't exist! But if it did exist, it would probably be due to a ferrocell and the inertia reciprocating state of the something or other.
I have been working with large ring laser for more than 20 years and we always measure earth rotation. I have done testing of a fiber gyro and you can do a neat experiment with one. If you measure earth rotation and you turn the gyro over 180 degrees you see the display showing the rotation going in the other direction proving its really earth rotation and not some artifact.
Right, in the experiments shown they tend to rotate the instruments because inversion is impractical - but it's the same principle.
@@PhDTony_original Yes impossible to tip them over. The fiber Gyro we have is the size of a computer hard drive very neat piece of kit. I haven't been to ROMY but I have been to the G Laser in Wettzell Germany. I have worked on all of the Canterbury Large Ring Lasers. Before the earth quake we had a 17X21M rectangular ring. If you ever get across the ditch happy to show you our rings.
@@robbarton7972 that would be a wonderful opportunity, thank you so much. Now I feel like a fraud, this should be your video!
Thanks Tony, most enjoyable.
So which do we choose:
Science or "nuh-uh"?
Hmm....
A fifteen degrees per hour drift?
As a fun fact, I was using mechanical gyroscope to detect rotational axis for military artillery as military service in Sweden during the 1980:th. We used an instrument that looks like _Wild Heerbrugg MIL-ABLE Gyro T2_
The accuracy was 1/1000 of a radiant, if we used linear average of the direction of the first three swings around the rotational axis of the globe (when it was settling), taking 11 minutes, sufficient for peace time firing at artillery range.
The only "nuh-hu" I have got from flerfs are "a gyrscope is difficult to use so it must be fake"
Very educational as usual Tony, thank you.
Excellent, especially for my favorite the Compton generator.
The historical development of different methods was really interesting. Thanks!
*VERY* comprehensive. Almost came in my pants when I heard the word toroidal tho.
M&S have a new ad campaign: this isn't just word salad, it is Witsit word salad.
Thanks Bob! 👍
Thanks Bob!
its a pity I can't post a "body of evidence" meme here. But to have so many ways that consistently show something is happening that matches reality. Once again Tony has delivered a mining dumper size load of evidence,that obliterates stupidity, worrd salads and running away from the question.
The quality of this content is unmatched. Amazing stuff.
Where is this quality you are so enamoured with, the first 2 minutes ,the rotating earth he claims is a satelite images taken on May 29 2016 showing just short of 5 complete rotations with absolutely no movement or change Then he claimswhatsoever in the clouds ha ha ha ha. Then he claims old Ferdy Reich measured a drift on falling objects hmm so the earth rotates beneath you whilst your falliing but not on a moving airplane hmm very interesting. Then every other so called proof defies the same logic as east west flight times being the same. I make no claims on where we live but I can't stand bullshit either from sycophants or scientists.
@@peat11 The Earth did not in fact rotate 5 times in one day, nor did I claim that it did. I replayed the loop of images back to back several times thinking that my audience would be able to take my meaning. I apologise for over-estimating you.
What precision of photographic analysis did you use to demonstrate "absolutely no movement or change"? Or did you just eyeball it? What magnitude of motion would be required to produce clearly visible motion in a 12 hour period on an image of that scale?
There are Coriolis effects on planes but their effect is identical to that of a cross-wind. If you adjust heading once every five minutes then Coriolis has the same effect as an 11km/h cross wind.
That you do not understand why east-west flight times are approximately equal is simple ignorance of physics.
@@peat11 More concerning is your apparent inability to perform a meta-analysis.
Are there smarter people on Earth than you?
I would argue there certainly are.
Have they seen that east-west flight times are roughly equal?
If they had not noticed this, they would have to be stupider than you are. So I would argue that by definition, anyone smarter than you must have noticed this.
Have they concluded that therefore Earth does not rotate?
No they have not.
We are thus lead to one of two conclusions:
Either you are one of the smartest people in the world, or, you're mistaken.
Guess which one is more likely to be correct.
@@PhDTony_original There is none so blind as they that cannot see, where did I say the earth is flat, I called out bullshit and 100% contradictory evidence, so the rotation of the earth affects lasers, falling objects, pendulums, gyroscopes, bullets and missiles but not planes. We could all have Phds everybody on the planet if they had sufficient memory and recall, gigo gigo gigo!!!. As to where we live now that is a real mystery because nothing geometrically works "I repeat nothing".
@peat11 as I literally *JUST* explained, Coriolis does affect planes, they compensate for it before its effects can accumulate.
No, PhDs are not awarded for memorisation - they require that active novel independent research be undertaken.
We have abundant evidence regarding where we live, your complete ignorance of that evidence does not make it magically cease to exist.
Went to math most flerfs watching are already drooling.
Outstanding presentation, Dr. Tony! 👍
Great job Tony. It almost pains me that your level of intelligence is wasted trying to explain things to people as willfully ignorant and stubborn as FLERFs.
Brilliant video Tony. Concise and easy enough for a Flerf to understand. I assume you will have no rebuttal from any Flerfs in your comments unless they come out with a complete non-sequitur to your video.
As someone who lives in SE Australia and does long exposure astrophotography, just the fact that I need to align my tracking mount with the south celestial pole so that it and the earth move on the same axis is proof enough of what we live on. I suppose most of them don't believe in space either though.....
Amazing video Tony. That was such a thorough debunk the flerfs will be in floods of tears.
You can take a flat earther to logic, but you can't make him think. To them, it's all coloured bubbles and pixie dust.
Awesome, thanks!
so good. this series is going to be the gold standard for flerf debunks. one thing they always say is "no curvature has ever been measured on the surface of water" or words to that effect. i think "displays convexity upon it's surface" is the catchphrase. level earth observer is always quoting it. i hope you do a debunk of that one.
That is on the list.
Jesse Koslowski (spelling?) has a whole series of measurements demonstrating the convexity of water.
Comment for the algorithm.
I missed your content, sir. Welcome back.
Fun fact: our techniques for measuring Earth's rotation are accurate enough to measure the impact of Three Gorges Reservoir in China being filled with water in 2008, after the dam was finished.
It has been demonstrated that since 2000 Earth's polar motion has been dominated by human water capture
Thanks Tony I always learn so much with your videos 💕
Easy to follow, a little harder to fully understand, even harder to accept if you flerf. But nothing can disprove it. Great video.
Clever science on TH-cam, who knew 🎉🎉🎉. Joking apart, it’s not just flat Earth fans who prefer simple bite-sized proofs. Since we all believe our eyes, why not explain the practical limits of diffraction so, in a long distance observation, when we clearly see a boat or an island disappear into the sea, it would be good to tell a flat Earth fan that diffraction can’t distort that much?
Good point, though I would be cribbing from Clive Wells's excellent video on that subject.
Having learnt about Foucault's Pendulum at school and spending much of my working life designing test equipment aerospace industry, I had never heard of Foucault's gyroscope experiments. Just goes to show there's always something new to learn even when you're getting well into your seventies.
11:12 what you say here nicely matches the prediction I made some time ago, about the island of irrationality on which flat Earthers will finally gather:
_Earth is flat as my holy book says so. But God the Almighty has allowed Satan to make it LOOK LIKE a sphere in all physical measurenents we humans can do, so that the true and faithfull believers can be separated from those who fell for the satanic charade._
This only makes sense if you completely disregard "Nuh uh!"
Tony video inbound. Finding my dictionary. 😊
Spit out my chewing gum 🤓
perfect as always, Tony. I just wish I could give an extra like for "gibbering witsit word salad"
I can already hear a 'demonstrable realist' saying these don't count because they are not direct observations of earth's rotation before pointing to a crane and asking how it can be still.
Enjoyable, and informative series of studies and given examples. Thank you!
Oh I do love your videos, not only for the thought demonstration of a rotating spherical earth there are the great ways you say it all . Thanks
On the subject of procession along with my Wil Tirion Sky atlas 2000. I also had both volumes of the Sky catalogue 2000.0
The catalogue resembles something more akin to a phone directory. Volume 1 had stars down to magnitude 8 listing coordinates for epoch 2000 along with numerous bits of data including procession. Because stars are observed to move over time. Volume 2 had double stars, variables and non stellar objects.
The atlas is epoch 2000 as it has the stars printed in the correct positions for the year 2000. I also have somewhere a copy or a Nortons star atlas which is epoch 1950.
Most pole finder scopes used with equatorial mounted telescopes for the northern hemisphere. Use Polaris as a guide. You dial in the date to your local meridian time and it gives you a mark as to where Polaris is in relation to the celestial pole so you can easily set your scope up. The marking for Polaris would have some graduations that are referenced to the year. Because Polaris moves relative to the celestial pole. Enough that it’s taken into account and it’s marked there on the pole finder scope. It’s definitely moved since I first started messing with telescopes in the 80’s.
I’ve used a line when some flerfs maintain that the earth and solar system cannot be moving because when they look up in the night sky. Nothing moves or has ever been observed to have moved. To which I retort, that statement is like a mayfly stating plants don’t grow as they’ve never seen any change in size over their life time
@@dickwayne7744 You can compare your observations to Hipparchos's star catalogue to see that stars have moved.
If you bothered to do even simple observations, you will notice that the constellation on the horizon above the sun at any point in the year is about a full zodiacal sign ahead of what the Babylonian astronomers claimed.
You would also notice that the constellation Ophiuchus is now in the Zodiacal belt, largely displacing Scorpio.
@@PhDTony_original ”Ophiuchus one of the 13 signs of the zodiac“ is a fun thing to throw into any conversation with anyone who’s preaching about astrology.
@@erykmozejko3329 exactly so, it's rather awkward for them.
15 degree per hour. Thanks Bob.
Interesting as always.
Thank you for sharing this history of human knowledge.
Gyroscopy requires a container.
A vacuum chamber.
Excellent video, Tony! I was not aware that Foucault used mechanical gyroscopes to detect the rotation, so that was fascinating. Sadly, none of this will change the minds of the science deniers, but it's really interesting for the rest of us. 👍
Flerf response: "Feels stationary to me!"
Great to hear your voice, Tony!!!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Great presentation, Tony. Clear and concise. Gotta lie to flerf.
Loved it Tony! Well done.
Maybe you presented this elsewhere, but to me, the best evidence for a rotating earth is the constant "motion" of the stars. Astronomy has established stars are individual objects at varying distances from earth, so it cannot be claimed that the stars positions are in any way subjective or some kind of illusion. There is no reason for such objects to move in a circle around our lowly solar system, as motion in a circle requires a centripetal force. Furthermore, motion of all those individual objects at different distances would imply an impossible coordination to keep the relative position of all these stars and galaxies constant. Finally, nothing can go faster than the speed of light and that would mean stars and particularly galaxies would have to be going faster than the speed of light to get around such a great circumference that results from a very large distances from earth in one 24 hour period.
So if the stars are not moving, then our platform for observing the stars must be rotating. Nothing else makes sense. One can then establish that the earth is a sphere by noting the changes in the angle to the celestial north or south poles with changing north-south position on earth. The mere fact that we can see stars in all directions would not be possible on a flat earth but would the easy on a rotating globe. It also explains the opposite direction of the apparent rotation of the stars around the north and south celestial poles.
I agree, however, flat earthers respond with some combination of:
They're just lights in the sky
You can't tell the shape of the thing you're standing on by looking up
That effect is not due to motion, it's due to light bending to make it look like motion.
That's why I started with earth-based observations.
Flat earthers also do not accept that celestial objects are at different distances. They claim the stars all lie on a dome.
Parallax requires Earth orbit the sun - which they reject.
Superb, interesting and informative information clearly communicated. Top work Tony.
Great Video Tony, Thanks for your time!
Absolutely fascinating.
Thank you.
Everytime Foucault is mentioned now I always think of that time Anthony Riley looked up the wrong Foucault and did an entire video on it embarrassing himself.
He is spectacular.
@@PhDTony_original it's why I laugh every time Riley or any flerf tells me to do my research. They can't even get a first name right.
Excellent presentation of factual technologies! I bet Witsit is already gearing up to use that 160 IQ of his to "destroy" this indoctrination of yours. & I can even hear Flatzoid from here saying that you literally just made his point for him while simultaneously debunking yourself. 🤣
When Flatzoid and Riley had that conversation awhile back, they were both speaking literal gibberish, yet nodding their respective heads as if they understood the lunatic they were speaking to.
@@ColaGuts un F'n real isn't it
That "160 IQ" claim really annoys me. I'm sure he found an online "IQ test" that clearly says it's for "entertainment purposes" and pretends to believe the results are genuine. If he "did his own research," he'd know just how rare such a score would be and would go with a more believable number that would still put him in the 90+ percentile. Ironically, claiming an IQ of 160 makes him appear _less_ intelligent, to informed intelligent people.
Then again, it's only the people gullible enough to think Earth could be flat who would take this claim seriously, so maybe it's intentional after all? Sort of the way the "Nigerian prince" email scams used to use horrible grammar and spelling, ostensibly as an intentional means to select the least-intelligent people who'd be more likely to fall for the scam.
Can’t wait for this!
Got an idea: Collect all these and many other info in a booklet named 200 NONREFUTABLE PROOFS THE EARTH ACTUALLY IS A SPINNING BALL.
"irrefutable" not "nonrefutable", but otherwise I agree.
@@thearmouredpenguin7148 Tanks, Englisch are not my orginal lenguage.
Not a bad idea actually.
@@PhDTony_original And make videos with a soft conspiratory voice....
I am sure most Flerfs will say Pi is something you eat.
Cause they eat cow Pi and drink Urine
I will give a FLERF exactly 3.1415926535 seconds to shut up.
"Duh! Lyin' globetards cain't even spell pie."
These days it is also something that can be used for playing with small computers and IoT. 😁
Thanks Tony I would imagine that the leading Flerf's are working on this right now
Thanks for a clear and concise explanation of ring lasers.
Great stuff. Even a child's toy top starts to precess when it begins to topple. No need for something more complcated. Rotation confirmed.
Interesting video. Thanks for making it.From a top level perspective just looking at the night sky tells you something is rotating. It's got to be either us or the universe/firmament dome thingy. There is no evidence that the 'dome' even exists. The likelihood that the entire universe rotates around us is very unlikely and there are so many different threads of evidence to show the earth rotates, one of which is the behaviour of gyroscopes, that makes it the most likely option. Note that this comment is not for the people that already know this. It's for anyone looking in that thinks a rotating, moving earth is impossible or unlikely. It ain't.
@@dickwayne7744 The Bible is NOT the oldest book - so you started with a lie. Further, the fact that a book is widely read does not make it accurate or reliable. The Bible claims that bats are birds and that whales are fish - it's demonstrably wrong in many of its declarations.
Atmospheric pressure does not demonstrate the existence of a dome - it is one of the demonstrable effects of gravity. I have at least four videos demonstrating that this specific claim is fallacious.
No-one is ignoring anything - your claims are just nonsense.
Did DickWayne delete his comment? I can't see it.
@@robertcatuara5118 he told me he was not interested in my content, nor did he actually watch the video he was commenting on.
That being the case, I blocked him. Now he doesn't have to listen to anything I say on any level.
Concise, comprehensive, excellent. 😊
Wrong Foucault lol. We all love PhD Tony.
We haven't heard much from Sheepy Worrier for a long time. I wonder what's happened to him.
I can't argue against this evidence, so I'm going to change the subject to air pressure and containers, even though I've already asked that question a hundred times and ignored every time it's been explained to me. TAKE THAT, NASA!
Thanks Bob.
Thanks 👍
Gotta lie to flerf never fails.
Flerfs are always harping on about how we (i.e. normal folk) worship Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson as the go-to science communicators. Wrong. We worship PhD Tony for this.
Ah Maybe he finally figured out that the earth is flat
Wouldn't it be easier for a flat earther to recreate Reich experiment using a plumb bob on the top of a tall building?
No, the plumb bob's velocity is zero, so the Coriolis acceleration is zero.
🤔
🙃
It's all just coincidence, I say we trust that one guy from the 1800's instead 😂
We of the Witsit's Witless Witnesses (tm) believe that this rotational thingy that you sheep worship doesn't exist! But if it did exist, it would probably be due to a ferrocell and the inertia reciprocating state of the something or other.
Thanks for doing this Tony. 🫡
🤓
gibbering witsit word salad. lol!
Stop trying to use science to disprove flat earth.
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱 thanks for therapy 🥱🥱🥱🥱‼️