Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Equatorial Mounts WOULDN'T WORK on a Flat Earth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- Get the limited time AtlasVPN offer - get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
Amazon link to Equatorial Mount Used: geni.us/EquatorialMount
PATREON: / davemckeegan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
00:00 - What are the mounts for?
03:58 - Sponsor
05:26 - How Equatorial mounts work
08:45 - Why they wouldn't work on a Flat Earth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #astrophotography
In ancient times, there were some cultures that were able to accurately chart the course of the stars across the night sky. Without the aid of modern digital instruments or computers, they created highly detailed and astonishingly accurate maps. Nowadays, we have a resurgence of the flat earth society??? Thanks a lot, internet!!!!
The Mayans were aware of the galactic orbit of the sun, while their observatory was basically a rooftop on a mountain. I believe it isn't entirely clear yet how they did that.
@@manuell3505 well, clearly they did their own research.
@@manuell3505 They had so little light pollution on the night of a new moon that they could see what is called "The Great Rift" very clearly. So a couple hundred years paired with insight and mathematics is the answer to that question. Still, it's so impressive that the obvious and basic explanation feels like it's left wanting. Extremely impressive.
@@SOYearsITEchoB 1 orbit of the sun is 230 million years. It required a strict preservation of very precise measurements for thousands of years. At the time conclusions could me made with that information many centiuries had passed since the first research. Where did they get the persistence to achieve what is way beyond a human lifespan?
The egytians weren't there yet. They probably didn't see the earth's precession, since the pyramids are based on the still situation of the stars at that time.
@@manuell3505 All you need is some basic math that we know for a fact they had.
I once watched "Bob" do a debunk of equatorial mounts. His "proof" for why they work on a flat earth was essentially "The earth is flat... these mounts work... therefore, they work on a flat earth". Solid FE logic there.
"The earth is flat, thus everything that exists on that flat earth means the earth is flat"
Are flerfs not taught logic in school? Not that it would be too hard for a functioning human to figure out on their own why a circular argument doesn't work, but I don't want to overestimate these folk
I remember that, a typical stupid thought that flat earthers think is reasoning.
Perfect example of begging the question.
@@aemrt5745 There is absolutely nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are all born ignorant but most of us learn enough to understand some things in our lives, and especially enough to know what we DON'T know, and that if we want to know we should learn. We do't automatically think... "I don't understand this therefore it must be wrong and the opposite must be right."
@@aemrt5745 No worries, I agree as well, I was just expanding on the point... 🙂👍
Came here for the scientific diss on flat Earth, stayed for the explanation of how star tracker mounts work. Now I know, thanks man!
The clickbait really evolving these days eh?!
@@texascityrc8660 We are but slaves to the algorithm.
hey that my line!!
🤣The only diss is about how stupid humans are, thinking... NOT! That the earth is a spinning ball 🤣
In the southern hemisphere stars not only rotate in man's fixed arc of horizon, they also drift west 15 degrees per hour. How can stars drift in 2 separate 15-degree motions in only one hemisphere seen from one spinning I'll earth? 🤣🤣🤣
@@Meta369 Clearly hasn't centered their equatorial mount correctly.
But do go on and tell me how a flat disk explains it better. 🙃
“I’m not suggesting that the stars are stupid. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met them.”
What a line
Came for the science, stayed for the science, upvoted for the dim star joke.
That line will give down in history and quoted alongside Plato, Socrates and Aristotle... he said it on here too and we witnessed it... what a time to be alive! 😁
But they called me and said they are still pissed. They don't like being referred to as "Dim". 🤷♂
@@VoltisArt No, you came for the pseudo-science.
Rolled my eyes at the dumb line
8:15 "Fifteen degrees per hour" - you forgot the "Thanks Bob!"
Thanks Bob
I was kinda disappointed wr didn't get a "thanks Bob" gotta be honest
Always there when we need somebody to deliver a factual death blow to the argument that is their life's work.
Thanks Bob!😁👍
Interesting!
Love it, Bob is wonderful, lol palm to face
Can you please also talk about the fact that someone in Australia, NZ, South Africa and South America can all look south and see the same stars patterns, but on a flat earth model, they're all looking in different directions rimwards, and seeing the same thing makes no sense.
I personally find southern hemisphere flat earthers the most impossible to believe when they say they've done any personal research.
also never pointed out you can see stars that would be over Africa by looking south from south america
It's actually worse than that. On a flat earth, even if you were pointed straight up, the mount still wouldn't work, because (according to all the common explanations of how the sky works in a flat earth model) the stars are supposedly all relatively close above us (not trillions of miles away), and they're rotating in a plane or dome around the north pole (not moving like a sphere). This means that, unless you were actually _at_ the north pole, the rotating mount would actually be rotating around _a different part of the sky_ than the stars are. You could either have the right part of the sky but the wrong axis of rotation, or the right axis of rotation, but pointed at the wrong part of the sky. You wouldn't be able to get both at the same time.
A different way of looking at basically the same problem is that in a flat-earth model with a relatively close "firmament" rotating above the Earth, the stars would actually also be moving closer to you and away from you all the time as they rotated through the sky, which it's impossible to correct for by just spinning your camera like this.
Right, now I don't have to point that out. Thanks
You said "flat earth model" (lol) like they have one of those.😆
@@mschedler4984 I think the better question is *which one?*
@@LineOfThy Technically, none are any sort of model with predictive ability. They all just end in disaster (kind of like a hurricane).
@@mschedler4984 Hey, just because it's made out of tinkertoys, is missing most of the pieces, and doesn't look anything like what it's supposed to be modelling, doesn't mean it can't still be a model! ...maybe.
I feel like if every flat earther got into star photography, they would quickly realize they can't do anything on a flat earth model.
The main issue for them is that they have no model.
I'm at least 98% certain that you could send a bunch of flerfing idiots to the ISS, push half of them out an airlock without space suits while the other half watch, and the half that come back to Earth would _STILL_ claim it was all faked and the Earth is still flat.
These are the same idiots who believe a Nikon P1000 is the greatest camera ever made, and that there's no need to use a solar filter when photographing the sun.
Naahhhh....they would have some long convoluted explanation for this🙄
They don't because it destroys there grift for UA-cam cash 99% of flerfs no it's a globe it's there gullible audience that are the stupid ones and the flatearth priests are laughing all the way to bank
@@GrnXnham Nahhh... it'd be short and simple and not make any sense, Magnetic declanation.
The funny thing has always been that if you spend ANY time looking at stars seriously you instantly become aware of most of what he’s talking about in this video.
One vacation I took to the Caribbean (I live in Canada) I couldn’t believe how different the sky looked. I could barely find my bearings in the sky. All my familiar stars being barely visible on the horizon with tons more I had never seen before with all the stars directly overhead seeming like they were racing across the sky. Do none of these people travel or look up?
Sheep rarely look up. Too busy looking for a blade of grass to sneak up on.
They're too busy sticking bubble levels on the ground trying to find a curve.
The short answer to your question is "No." The long answer to your question is "No, they don't."
Whenever they're looking up, their P90 is so out of focus they claim that Venus is a water planet.
@@warrickdawes7900 Along with all the other "water planets" like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn... unless of course everything is just "lights in the sky". 😂 When you think about it, it must be sad to be a person for whom the rest of our Universe is reduced to "lights in the sky".
Flerfs don't realise, or don't care, that any explanation they think they have for their observations has to account for all of them at the same time. They're essentially trying to fit a king-size duvet into a pillow case, managing to get one corner in and claiming that it fits perfectly. Then they get a second corner in and say it still fits perfectly, ignoring that they've had to dislodge the first corner to do it, and so on. Every hit is counted, at the cost of pretending there are no misses.
It's like they're playing whack-a-mole, whereas the globe earth model just nails a wooden plank across the entire board.
Awesome video and great explanation. I used to always bring this up when "debating" flat earthers and I would bust out laughing when they just get angry because they know the equatorial mount simply decimates the whole FE nonsense.
I was told by a flat earther that the reason I couldn't see the southern cross from where I live in the USA was because of mountains. You really can't measure the stupidity level of flat earthers
Not really, the problem is everyone assumes the ae globe projection as the flat earth model, which of course isn't because the ae map is a globe map flattened out. Which also means the math needs to be adjusted and needs to be adjusted, which it was not.
So under your logic the ae globe model doesn't work, so therefore the flat earth doesn't work? Sounds like a strawman argument misrepresenting flat earth over a bad globe model.
@@2100suprafreak They never said anything about the flat earth model being a globe projection. Do you have an actual working flat earth model then? One which explains how an equatorial mount works? Or are you just shouting "strawman!" because you know you can't explain how an equatorial mount works on a flat earth and this is is your only rebuttal?
Please explain how a flat earth model would account for the equatorial mount.
@@2100suprafreak It doesnt matter what flat earth map you use....the point he makes is still valid and flat earth is still retarded wet dream of religious fundamentalists.
@@2100suprafreakprove how it does work on a flat earth then. You could be the hero of the moron community if you can come up with a model that explains how everything works on a flat earth.
Otherwise it’s just another sad Oakley-style response quoting fallacies instead of facts.
Thank you, finally someone said it! I'm an amateur astrophotographer myself and I've long said that this is all the proof you need. I have both a Celestron VFX and a Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro equatorial mount, and driving either of them with software like Stellarium, it literally lets you toggle the Alt-Az and Equatorial grids off and on and you can see the obvious difference. Simply looking at that and running through the various times of night (or day) while you plan to shoot a specific target should demonstrate to anyone how the sky operates, especially if you shoot from wildly different latitudes like me.
Considering Flat Earthers advocate "doing your own research", this is a very simple and easy place to start (though, admittedly not cheap with good astrophotography gear). I suggest they go to an astronomy event so they can see it for themselves without having to layout a penny. Or hell, just download Stellarium for free, it's on every platform there is, you can even change your latitude on it to see from different vantage points.
Flat earth heretics are hypocrites and deceivers. Humans figured out the earth is spherical with sticks, string, pendulums, and unaided eyes thousands of years ago.
People like Scimandan have repeatedly said that, but you have to lie to Flerf. So they handwave dismiss it as CGI, or some other trickery, and they've tried sextant navigation but somehow they can wrap their heads around that.
I love Stellarium. I got the $10 one for more options. Even satellites gets to be tracked there.
@@KoRntech Have they *TRIED* it, or have they sat at home screaming and panting into a mic?
Hah,Bold of you to assume that flerfs are going to research something that proves that earth is in fact,round.
A wise man once said _"you can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into",_ and that applies perfectly to literally any non-ironic flat earther.
It's the oppositie you learn the flat earth thru you own observations the globe is beaten into your head from a young age, Nobody reasoned themselves into a globe earth but every flat earther got himself there. But yeah I agree with you no globe lover reasoned themselves into what they believe and you can't reason with most of them only the ones that are meant to learn it will ever get themselves out of the globe cult.
@@tommosher8271 Well said buddy I couldnt agree more. I think many of these people dont realise or forget that most flat earthers shared the same globe beliefs for most of their lives and evolved from there. We had the same education as them not 'no education' as so many keep saying. There is one fella in this thread saying that flat earthers are mostly unemployed and the ones that arent earn substantially less than the national average!
@@forbiddenscience1970 It's so bizarre I don't remember being the way they are about it. I never felt the need to attack people who told me the earth was flat but the again most people don't the one's that do mostly do it because they are just bullies.
@@tommosher8271 Ha I think you might be onto something there. In my experience the conversations that start with a pile of insults never go anywhere for either side so I just try and politely retreat but I have had so many lovely wholesome conversations with Globies they far outweigh the bad. I forgive the rude ones though because it is a lot to take for sure, possibly it is the hardest truth to accept but I think the most enlightening in the end. I think also like Jeran has said, once you have slung an avelanch of abuse at somebody over a position it is much harder for you to subsequently concede they might have been right! :)
@@forbiddenscience1970 Interesting and well said. I never realized when I believed in the ball how idiotic the whole theory was and I'd say that covers most people because we never really think about til they start to notice things that don't make sense. So that covers two groups those who are asleep and those who becoming aware, to then the subject is amusing and nothing more. After you realize how stupid it is you wonder how you believed, the ones who defend it are the mystery and the ones who commit their life to defending it to the point of making videos and becoming part of the organized effort to attack people for believing the earth is flat seem to have mental issues or actually work for those who want this subject forgotten. It's hard to stay online or on platforms once you go up against these clowns but very interesting indeed.
The most common flerfer behavior after watching this video:
1st - Can't understand most of it;
2nd - Can't offer an alternative solution for the flerf issues;
3rd - Claim that you are just repeating what you've been told, without realizing that's exactly what flerfers do after watching flerf videos.
4th - ignore it altogether and parrot some nonsense about needing a flat plane.
5th- Nu Uh!!
6th - “go watch on UA-cam the 200 proofs of a flat Earth” (while ignoring the actual topic being discussed in this video)
@@TokyoXtreme At first I thought you were genuinely telling people to go watch that comedy show! 🤣🤣🤣
Dont forget the ultimate fallback: 'It's round-earth technology. Thus it cannot be trusted.'
I can't hear Drift without saying Thanks Bob in my head.
Now remember, flat earthers vote...
Beginning your videos with a silent few seconds of doggo scritch is perhaps your greatest asset, and given the quality of your information delivery, that's absolutely saying something
I'm an EQ mount user. You can even track objects on the other side of the planet. Just go into the settings and turn on below horizon tracking, and you can follow the Sun all the way AROUND the Earth as we rotate. Wolfie6020 has footage of this being done. It's even more impressive if you do it with the Moon because it rises and sets at widely differing locations from day to day.
That makes me want to take my mount out and try it.
Thanks for covering equatorial mounts. It's one of those things that make it impossible to think that we're on anything but a sphere if you understand how it works and let's be honest with your explanation it isn't hard to understand.
It'll be interesting to see what those who are deep into that closed mindset will respond with. Whatever it is it necessarily has to be misunderstanding what you made very clear, it's either that or simply agree that we are demonstrably on the only surface that these mounts can work on :p
Flerfspective. It is always flefspective.
Well, it doesn't really only works on a perfect sphere, it'd also works on a double cone (or diamond shape) and any kind of obloid... But then again, none of those are flat 🤣😂
@@lXlDarKSuoLlXl Sure, anything that will orientate it that same way. As you just stated it simply can't be a a 2D shape.
but we already know the answer to your question. confronted with any basic fact, flat earthers respond with dead silence, loud farts, word salad, and outright fraud.
@@victorfinberg8595 Indeed but that doesn't mean that loud farts, word salad and dead silence can't be rather funny (and interesting to the really twisted people who interests themselves with psychology :P).
I mean, that is all flat Earth ever was but debunking videos still garner a large audience.
Of course the fact that the declination scale, on and EQ mount, only has a range of 0° - 90° which works for both hemispheres. Big clue for flerfers that.
Heck, the fact that you can align with the northern or southern axes based solely on latitude is an insurmountable issue on a flat earth. Then again, stars in the flat earth make no sense at all, so what else is new.
@@flowingafterglow629 The fact that there are TWO celestial poles, one on either side of the Equator should also be a big clue, but hey, we're talking about flat Earthers here... 😆
Yet I had a back and forth with some idiot called ‘TB’ (I’m informed this is an Oakley sock) who denies the SCP and claims ‘we’ are aligning there ‘somehow’. Truly deluded.
The EQ mount and the Sextant. Two flat earth killing tools that flerfers claim to be expert with but have never touched either.
I bought a telescope that came with an equatorial mount. It took a minor learning curve but it makes viewing things so much easier. Now all I need is a motor for it.
And depending on how long I plan to view I can align just by Polaris or fine tune it to true north
Pretty sure anyone who knows what an equatorial mount is or knows how to operate one wouldn't be a flat earther
Building one is also a surefire prevention.
Got to visit an old observatory once. The telescope was mounted in a rig similar to that and the 'motor' was a pendulum and weights system similar to a mechanical clock (well, when you think about it, it IS a clock of sorts). The professor explained how it worked basically and how they would lock onto a small patch of sky and start the mechanism, then sit up most of the night with it. This was built something like 1912 or whatever, long before NASA and internet. Yet it worked pretty darn well (or so the professor claimed).
UCL's Observatory in north London?
@@aemrt5745 mechanical systems in general are a thing of beauty. Everything needs to work together to stay in balance. While computerized systems are nice, they feel lacking.
I used one like that, 1900s or so, a ton of brass. I think I ended up admiring more the clockwork than through the eyepiece.
@@DrRussian Like the antikithera mechanism. Not the product of a flattard mind.
@@phildavenport4150 I thought that nobody knew who built that? Did somebody find out? Also did you know the theory of evolution was first posited by a Flat Earther, Alfred Russel Wallace?
You are using wrong unit for earth rotation. It's not 15 "degrees per hour". It's 15 "degrees per hour thanks Bob".
Trust me, I've tried to debate flat earthers in the past and they all "did their research". So much, in fact, that they all repeat the same exact claims they heard somewhere verbatim and ad nauseum without applying the smallest amount of any sort of critical thinking and without doing any actual independant research using the scientific method which in the end results in an experience that feels similar to trying to sand a mountain down with a silk cloth.
"Did their research" is conspiracy speak which translates to: I googled for some keywords and found something out of context that fits my position so I didn't look at the source more thoroughly to verify it actually supported my position.
But "do your own research" is shorter to say.
Professor Dave has a great video about how flerfs all say the exact same things, if you haven't seen it ua-cam.com/video/KyD8VIK032o/v-deo.html
@@frankwales I have actually, but thanks anyways!
@@Tsudico yeah
Their research:Trust me bro!
I can't wait to see the FE comments begin to trickle in where they post something completely asinine underneath a random comment and act as though the video itself doesn't exist. Those comments are my favorite. It's a bit like going on a date and deciding what to order and some random person walks up and tells you that clocks are a lie.
*Equitorial mount exsists*
"Yeah, but water can't stick to a ball!!111!"
When they bring out the "water doesn't stick to a ball" nonsense i then ask "then how is the ball wet, if water doesn't stick to a ball"
@8:15 Missed an opportunity to says "Thanks Bob".... Great video, thank you for sharing.
The look on the dogs face when you said “I wouldn’t know I never met them” classic.🤣
I wonder how flat earthers would explain this one away? It's a great proof that they can do themselves with equipment that is relatively accessible for the average person.
They always come up with some crazy excuse though
Yeah, I’m curious too. It’s always interesting to see how whacky they go and how angry they get when it gets too close to breaking their self-image, which they’ve attached to knowing better and to the FE theory.
They don’t even need the mount thingy. They can just look up and see where the stars are moving. They can also take a camera, set it still and see where the centre of rotation is for the star trails. IT’S SUCH OBVIOUS PROOF. But you just know they’re incapable of changing their mind, so they’ll twist and break everything into the weirdest shapes just to deny it doesn’t fit. It keeps getting weirder, and I love it. I hate it, but it’s intriguing how ridiculous they’ll go the longer time goes on. So I love hearing about it.
This just DOESN’T have a different explanation that makes sense. Occam’s razor MUST kick in when they try to figure it out, but somehow they keep going.
All telescopes have lenses and/or mirrors in them to mimick what we would see on a rotating globe.
NASA makes sure there are no violators and locks up anyone who tries to disclose this secret!
There you go. EZ PZ.
Simple. They believe stars are fake.
@@Webfra14 damn, I’ve changed my mind. That makes so much more sense than the earth just being round.
@@coconutcore Very true, no equipment needed, and star trails should be enough. Wondered if having an instrument tell you exactly what angle you were looking at to align with the axis of rotation, plus an easily verifiable 15degree per hour rotation would add an element of proof/take some of the burden off their mental load!
I have noticed that flat earthers don't have a response to any points we show them that debunks the flat earth; until someone points things out. For example they always say "water finds it's level" well no flat earther was saying anything about water droplets curving, and ocean waves curving until Professor Dave mentioned it in his vídeos. Only then they made memes saying water droplets aren't examples of water curving because they aren't the size of oceans. Well it's the same thing with the star trackers, no one was saying anything about them until you and others like Reds Rhetoric, Astronomy Live, have been showing them how they wouldn't work on a flat earther. Now there's a few flat earthers already talking about how star trackers don't work properly, or don't work beyond the horizon ect. You do great work please keep the debunking videos coming.
Set the motor to the star setting, which will account for a 15° drift.
Thanks Bob!
In the manner of Conspiracy Catz, we could call that the super-noodle-doodle setting.
best "thanks bob" moment i had in weeks 🙂
funny enough, a flat-earther will now take one of these out, and do exactly what you say needs to be done to line it up. After starting it and getting the perfect picture, they will say, "but I took one out and it worked, and since I believe in a flat earth, IT DOES work on a flat earth".
I have heard exactly that line of "reasoning".
I've silenced countless of flerfs by asking them how would we polar align the mount on a flat earth, especially in the southern hemisphere. I still haven't gotten an answer.
Edit: One flerf tried to convince me that they are fake lmao.
Eratosthenes of Cyrene figured out that the Earth was a sphere with a circumference of between 24 and 26 thousand miles using nothing but a stick in the mud and the marching pattern of a band of mercenaries traveling from one city to another back in 240 BCE. Here we are, in 2023CE/AD, with all the technology in the world and the entire wealth of human knowledge available in the palm of your hand, and we still have idiots who think the Earth is flat
500 years ago, when the first European sailors were headed to go south of the Equator, they were fully prepared to see stars they had never seen before and knew that navigation at night was going to get a bit tricky once the Pole star was no longer visible. I don't recall reading whether Vespucci had knowledge of the Southern Cross.
@mcgeorgerl there are a couple factors that might go into play on that. First, some time after Eratosthenes, a man named Posidonius used a similar method to measure between two other points from Eratosthenes, and got an inaccurate result which cut the circumference down from 24-26k miles to roughly 18k miles, the lower estimate seemed more accurate to Ptolemy, who included it in his "treatise on geography" in the 2nd century, which was used by the European explorers. The other factor being that Eratosthenes' measurement was accurate to the length of the equator, so a West-East circumference rather than the Meridian which is a North-South. I can link the article with this info if you'd like to read it for yourself.
@@SyniStar616 Please do, I'd like to read that. One of the problems that Columbus had was that he ascribed to a "small Earth" view akin to Ptolemy but he was having trouble getting funding because the "money guys" of those in power weren't willing to risk it due to the uncertainty of the true distances between longitudes. Hard sometimes to believe that so much of this was based upon the lack of decent timepieces. So, Columbus's calculation East-to-West was off. His West-to- East was probably off as well since he was a reader of the tales of Marco Polo although I do not know if Columbus made a map of Polo's exploits as others had.
I've also tried to find examples of earliest globes. Some of the early cartographers would draw 'gores' that people would acquire and then glue them onto appropriate sized wooden balls. Sounds crude but essentially the same way Replogle made the two globes sitting on my desk but used cardboard instead.
@@SyniStar616 Which European explorers? My reading suggests that Columbus had trouble getting funding because either the court astronomers had Eratosthenes' value or because even Ptolmey's value meant that Columbus' calculations were too far off. They certainly concluded that the ships of that era couldn't sail across an ocean as big as they calculated it to be and that Columbus' earth was too much smaller than it really was.
And, in fact, they were quite correct. Had Columbus not blundered into Hispaniola, he would have turned back or they all would have died.
Dave, I hope you can continue to stay true to the course of not going down the route of so many other channels who just smirk, laugh, insinuate people are dumb, or all the other "space comma", "flerf", head-slapping, traits that tend to be found on them.
I didn't tune in for long as it was late, but I did catch a bit of the livestream with McToon and some of this kind of talk and behaviour was creeping in. It would be easy to get accustomed to this kind of thing too much and that would be a terrible shame.
What's always impressed me is the general lack of this on your debunks, along with really concise, clear, explanations - even mock ups with light-sources and whatever - to show where these people are being misled and not thinking rationally.
These are the kinds of things that really ought to help flat Earthers question themselves (considering that they are "open minded" and "interested in the science" etc!) as to whether they are right, or whether, sadly, they have been manipulated into falling for a lie.
These are the kinds of videos and approaches that I feel I could compile and share with somebody in my own life who is sadly down a very deep rabbit hole with this cult and a whole host of other conspiracy theories and religious issues - whereas I could not, ever, show them material from SciManDan, FTFE, McToon or especially "Creaky Blinder".
It is one thing to challenge Flat Earthers and to robustly tackle some of their leaders who operate this cult for their own status and profit, as sometimes it just has to be done - but it is quite another thing to actually help get people OUT of flat Earth.
The other channels seem to forget this, or have simply given up trying.
I can understand why (as they are some of the most stubborn people you can possibly encounter and it is an absolute nightmare to reach them when they are so far gone), but cracking out video after video that are always taking the piss or chuckling with "I just can't believe they said this!" mirth is not an environment that would be appealing for anybody to change their mind on.
In fact, I reckon it would only send them on the defensive and entrench their views of "defending" their side.
I was impressed again with the way you dealt with Nathan Oakley. This is a valuable channel in my opinion and I'm glad you're doing what you do, in the way you tend to do it.
Whew.
SMASHED this one Dave!!! I remember back in 2017 when one of my friends said "hey have you heard that people think the earth is flat?" My response was "what like centuries ago you mean?" Shm. That's not what she meant. When I looked into it, star maps were my go to for disproving that the earth is flat. Because, like the mounts, the maps don't work if you plot the positions from a flat earth. Very cool to learn about a tool that makes this so plain you'd have to be wilfully ignorant to not understand its implications. Keep making videos of this quality and I'll be a subscriber soon! Keep up the good work and thank you for doing your part to combat the relentless idiocy of flat earth proponents.
Great video Dave! Thank you for a very informative video!
Simple, concise, and way over the heads of the _Flerferati._
I would say way way too advanced for a peanut brained flerf.
Your own scientific guru's admit that GRAVITY ITSELF is FAKE/INTANGIBLE!!! ua-cam.com/video/4jOwrpfrB5w/v-deo.html
@@StevesDataStore Peanut brained? Peanuts have way too many wrinkles for a flerfer brain.
I wonder if flerfer brains are flat :p
@@talbrightmoon2625 Is that why they don't know what GRAVITY is ITSELF in ANY FUNDAMENTAL WAY??
I come for the science, I stay for the dog.
@Deepranger930, the hose has a wonderfully doggie.
Challenge any Flerfer to do astrophotography for 6 months. You cannot avoid the shape of the earth when you start doing it. The reason why there are flat earthers, is because none of them have ever bothered to do astrophotography or actually study the stars in any detail.
"because none of them have ever bothered to do astrophotography.."
Nor navigation, surveying, ham radio, school!
It's like none of them have ever done ANYTHING!!
Wait what the hell do they think stars even are?! What do think the sun is?! This flat earth thing is Insanity!
Stars are holes in the Celestial Sphere through which Divine Light pours into the world. I mean, obviously.
@@Lemon_Inspector You are so wrong. I can't believe you would spew such insanity.
Stars are pin pricks in the curtain of night. I know this because I held the tail feathers of an eagle and flew through one. Where is your hard science?
I can hear Super mute Nathan shouting "you need an R !!"
But they need R as well. Their dome needs at least one but likely more if it isn't a half-sphere. Similarly they complain about the globe "using" refraction, but that would occur on a flat earth as well. They really shouldn't be called flat earthers because they don't make positive claims about flat earth that can be tested, they don't know what their model should contain because they don't actually have a model. They are just globe and science deniers, because they fight anything that requires more than their own senses to understand and seem incapable of being able to use their mind to visualize things.
Unless they are con artists like Nathan who is taking advantage of others for his own ego and financial gain.
_Where is the R value that makes the plane with the Venus and the R value with a flat stationary Earth? You presented me a supposition avoiding to fulfil it's requirements to be analyzed by making a transposition of your incomplete model over a fully functional system that it's motionless and enclosed._
@@Catalin-Stefan That sounded pretty close to Nathan's usual word salad.
@@Catalin-Stefan 😂🤣👍
equator doesn't exist so these mounts don't exist either. It's all CGI
Nathan Oakley will have fun incoherently "debunking" this video 😄😄
No, we are those who will gonna have fun. He will gonna have some hard times explaining this, but as how I see Nathan (a fake flat earther who only seeks attention and ask for money from stupid people) he will gonna avoid to answer to this video.
"Hey, Nathan, show us how your telescope tracks stars without an equatorial mount. And while we're waiting for the long exposure to happen, explain diffraction."
@@frankwales "prooceds to start fuming from the mouth out of anger"
I wonder can the equatorial mount track Nathan's wife as she moves away from him
"You will need 'R' for that" or something.
This is really good. I've always used the star trails going opposite directions along with totally different stars and constellations at the poles to destroy the flat Earth nonsense.
And yet, they refuse to understand. I have just had a flat Earth idiot (that's the only word for him) tell me it was caused by bending of the light by the atmosphere and perspective! How do you even BEGIN to rebut crap like that?
Can also use the fact that the north star gets closer to the horizon the closer you get to the equator until finally dropping completely below the horizon and out of view. Which is only possible on a globe.
@@snaz27 Flattards typically have no sensible or defensible answer to this, so they usually avoid the problem.
Another great video, thanks! One easier way to show a flat-earther that space is not always “up” is to show him photos of the moon from different hemispheres and he will see the moon is roughly upside down in comparisons. Ask him why we have different star maps up here, compared to the Southern Hemisphere. And ask an American flaffer where the Southern Cross is at night... The list goes on.
They got their knowledge from Silverhawks. Those people think there is an "up" and "down" in space, lol.
@@StormsparkPegasus "The enemy gate is down." - Ender
The dog is a genius next to a flat earther
I was kind of expecting you to say "I'm not saying the stars are stupid, they don't believe the earth is flat".
I'm an artilleryman. Firing at the outer ranges of some of the bigger guns, we have to take into account the relative direction and speed of rotation of the Earth as well as the curvature. Lives count on these calculations and they wouldn't work on a flat Earth model. (We even have to take into account the gravity of the Moon as well)
How much error does the Moon contribute? Like, if you're aiming at a target 1km or 1 mile or whatever away, by how much would you miss?
@@Lemon_Inspector It only really takes major effect at longer ranges (arpund 30km say.) The precise degree to which it alone effects things I cannot say, it would depend on other factors, but it is enough that if you DIDN'T take it onto account it would throw everything else off. At that point, the round simply wouldn't be travelling on the track you calculated, making all your corrections for other factors also wrong, effectively changing your point of aim.
It doesn't take much to drastically increase risk to friendly soldiers or civilians, especially in built up areas.
Great video! That is why Wolfie always says equatorial mounts like these are the flat earth killers. Well, that is, if they try to understand how these things work……
If they tried to understand how _anything_ worked beyond the veil of conspiracies, there would be no flat-earthers.
I've wondered for some time if there's any of them living south of the equator, where flat Earth's southernmost stars should just whirl around the horizon. The stars don't do that at all. There's no wall. Just a big island covered in ice (and usually horrible weather, to be fair) a bit bigger than Australia, that you can fly or boat around if you have the resources. (Hint: Turn gradually right if going East, not left.) All the while, you can watch the stars spin in place overhead, around the _south pole_ of the globe.
What a pleasure to hear something explained so clearly.
Unless one is a flat Earther, in which case it is seen as confusing heresy, designed to fool and captivate the true followers of High Priest Dubay.
Nothing works on flat earth.
Great video, one would hope that this would be enough to get the flat earthers to give up. But discussing with a flat earther is like talking to a wall so I don’t have much hope that it will 😂
oh you sweet,summer child.
@@thinboxdictator6720 Hey, what’s this, a talking wall. You know, I should probably edit my first response. Saying that discussing with a flat earther is like talking to a wall isn’t really true. It would be an insult to the wall as it actually is shutting up and listening to what you say. That is way more than any flat earther has ever done.
Even the wall has more chances of understanding the point compared to a flat earther… 🤣🤣🤣
Nah, they'll never give up. They will say the sky is CGI before that.
@@thinboxdictator6720 do you have a response to the content of the video?
Thanks for covering this. Wolfie6020 and others have tried to explain these things to flat earthers, but they'll never get it. They're far too invested in their conspiracies and religious apologetics to come to terms with reality.
haha, fun seeing you here!
Heck, even simple Religious Apolegetics destroys their argument. There is a reason why the word 'circle' in Isaiah 40:22 is translated as 'spheros' in the Greek Bible, because the exact obsject used is literally a round, uncut boulder!
They would even use the 'compass' translation, forgetting that Lodestones exists, and are used by Phoenicians as a primitive compass by spinning it around, as they always point north, and guess WHAT does the Bible describe the earth (a lodestone spinning in nothingness)
@@PsychoMuffinSDM likewise =)
Flerfs understand equatorial mounts just the same way as they do sextants... 🙄
Yeah, not at all
You structured and voiced the entire explaining action to perfection.
Flat Earthers be like: "Well, i need to look into that. Personal dome bla bla bla..."
But great explanation. Back in the days i had to align my pole scope without any app, just good old manual operation and hoping for the best. Also, that was before digital cameras were a thing, so you had to wait quite some time to see if your setup had worked.
I actually was thinking about film cameras for astrophotography and concluded "nope" because of this haha
@@TheShimmy12 Astrophotography is doe differently these days. One takes lots of exposures, like hundreds of them and use a program to align them all perfectly and stack the images together to make long exposure photos. It really is amazing. Because of this new method, exact alignment of the mount is not as critical.
I usually don't watch flat earth debunking videos, but the camera mount interested me. Pretty cool stuff!
I'm surprised there isn't a sect of Flat Earthers believing in the Twin Flat Earths - one disk for the southern hemisphere, one for the northern. Or maybe they're both sides of the same disk.
It wouldn't actually solve anything, but it would be much more interesting.
The coin earth! Only question would be, which is heads and which is tails?
Phuketword has pushed this kind of thing once or twice. But even among flat earthers he is considered pretty fringe.
Advice for people who are stupid enough to believe that the Earth is flat - Find a ball, like a beach ball. Tape a small plastic person to the top of it, and tape another small plastic person to the bottom of it. Now pretend that one of those is at the north pole, and the other is at the south pole. Now rotate the ball, and see if you can tell what each of those small plastic persons would see if they look straight up. One of them will see everything above them rotating clockwise, and the other will see everything above them rotating counterclockwise. Now tape a small plastic person exactly between the other two, and rotate the ball again. The new person when he looks up will not see any rotation above him at all. That new plastic person will only see everything moving across the sky above him. He will observe no rotation, even though you know the ball is rotating, because you're the person who is making it rotate. Try putting small plastic people on the ball in various places, and rotate the ball, and figure out what they will see if they look straight up. All of this matches exactly what people on Earth see when they look up.
Now try to tape small plastic people to a flat disk, and see if you can get them to look up and see the same thing that people see on the real Earth when they look up. Rotating the disk is allowed, but bending the disk is not allowed. This is the best way that I can think of for stupid people to figure out for themselves if the Earth is flat or round, rather than having to just decide who to trust.
Why doesn’t anyone mention that if the earth was flat you would be able to bring the sun or moon into focus with a telescope anytime of the day. Like when they say you can bring a boat into perspective with a camera from the horizon, you should be able to do the same thing with the moon or sun during sunset or sunset etc. and when the sun is out of view you should be able to see it regardless with a telescope. So stupid.
But no flerf would understand any of that you've explained. Sad but true 😢.
They may understand,but since this completely proves earth is round,the "smarter" flerfs won't touch the subject to try to prove it wrong
@@foodaah yes, it should be "Most of the flerfs ....". Thank you 😂👍.
Ah ha!
You’re forgetting that the stars are actually small and close, so you will need to angle the mount to point to them depending on how far from the axis you are.
You can easily discount the fact that the maths then doesn’t work, and that Polaris wouldn’t be on the horizon at the equator by making up some pseudoscience word salad, possible latitude specific negative refraction coefficient, or assigning a magic refraction index to the ‘Dome’ and then mute any dissenting voices.
You missed a prime opportunity for a ‘15 degrees per hour, thanks Bob’ quote😂
On a serious note, loved the graphics and explanation of the equatorial mount pointing along the north/south axis - I’ve tried to explain to my kids and the struggled with the concept for ages!
I actually looked up Polaris's height in Alexander Gleason's 'Is the Earth a Globe?'. He places Polaris at just 1725 Nautical/1985 Statute miles (Give or take a little bit due to the wobble) above the plane.
Only recently discovered the wonderful world of flat earth and the delightful Mr Oakley. I'm an astrophotographer and it made me think whether there was practical proof that I could secure with my telescope, just for fun (since its all CGI anyway according to flerfs). But then I remembered how my EQ mount functions and realised all of my deep space images prove a globe.... Res ipsa loquitur. The mount CANNOT function on a flat earth and ESPECIALLY not in the southern hemisphere if the NCP is about the geographic centre. So glad someone has actually made a good video on this as it is definitive proof.
Not proof - that’s the clever kit on the tracker
@@melvinp1324 how is it not? It's not even "clever kit" on the tracker. It just rotates along two axes at a specific rate. How can it work on a flat plane given that the point it is rotating in line with (the NCP) would be moving laterally away from and/or towards the mount? Similarly how would that track using the same method in the southern hemisphere bearing in mind the tracker doesn't know if you're in the north or south?
The actual mechanical motion of the tracker requires it to be on a rotating sphere (or mostly sphere like shape) or on a sphere which everything else in the universe rotates around for it to work irrespective of your position on the earth.
Similarly, the tracker could take an image of the NCP also and only need to rotate along one axis. Which would be impossible on a flat plane with a dome/firmament above it where either the flat plane or the dome rotates due to the fact that the stars would move along two axes (as they would move closer and further away and left/right over the course of one night)
Thanks for sharing my video with proper attribution.
Great video and explanation!
Thank you and thanks for creating such beautiful videos 😊
Nice to see this covered again. The stars on a flat Earth can be triangulated to about 4000 miles up. The flat Earth diameter is about 25,000 miles across. So even if you align straight up, the stars are so close they will be doing big ellipses in the sky as they go from near to your location to far away and back again. Well they would if you could see them in the daytime. To track a star on the flat Earth you need another motor to take care of the displacement due to change in distance.
The distance between stars stays constant. That wouldn't be the case if they were changing distance significantly, thus the Earth isn't flat folks!
except, of course, the stars are not just magic points of light. they are all giant fusion furnaces, and being 4,000 miles away from them, even Shadrach would not survive. also, the triangulation, and finding the celestial objects to be something like 4,000 miles away can only be done for a single observer at a time, and falls flat as soon as multiple observers are used.
@@victorfinberg8595 Hmmm, 4000 miles you say? I have Alexander Gleason's (Of the famous 'Gleason Map' which he didn't draw anyway. It was drawn by J. S. Christopher.) book right in front of me and he proves mathematically that the Sun is a mere 1725 Nautical miles (1985 Statute miles) above the plane. In Figure 32 (Page 337) he also clearly shows that Polaris, if 90 degrees above plane at the Pole, is also visible at 45 degrees from Ottawa, Canada (Which sits at 45 Degrees from the Pole), Polaris can then be mathematically proven to be at about 1725 Nautical Miles/1985 Statute miles above the plane, not the 4000 miles as you suggest. Since you're off by about 100%, you had better start wearing SPF 5000, even at night.
@@mcgeorgerl are you insane?
straight up, are you going to stand there, and say with a straight face, that you have
"mathematical proof that the Sun is less than 2,000 miles above the plane"
just to confirm, before i chop your absurdity to ribbons
@@victorfinberg8595 Take a deep breath, dude. You've got me all wrong. I was merely telling you what one of the textbooks on 'Earth as a Plane' says is the "actual" height of the Sun which is about 1/2 of the number you quoted. You see, their "proof" that dates back to the late 19th century (Using the simple geometry of a triangle) yields a result so ridiculous that even modern FE types can't accept. So, they often give out 3000 or 4000 miles as if that's any better. The point is, if they say "4000", they can't get the math to work that's in their playbook. When dealing with FE types, it's best to use their own documentation against them... not that that does any good either.
@@mcgeorgerl well, good think i asked for confirmation, then, isn't it?
because, for example, one immediate question to be asked would be, if the Sun is 4,000 miles directly above Ottawa, where is it in relation to Vancouver, 3,000 miles to the west?
Disappointed that there's still no comment yet from eftupworld - the only flat earther I know to actually own and use an equatorial mount but STILL insist he's on a stationary earth watching rotating stars. He even agrees there are two visible points of rotation but thinks they are both above the earth - despite the fact that anywhere on earth (except the equator) one end of the mount's rotating axle points at the one visible celestial pole, whether north or south - but the other end points at the ground. Spectacular mental gymnastics.
C'mon, eftup - you have an established position to defend.
When I was a kid I had a CHEAP 3-inch reflector telescope. No equatorial amount, just a tripod with a ball joint.
I remember looking at the Moon & the planets {Mars, Jupiter, & Saturn} and watching them slowly drift across the image in the eyepiece.
Back then, as best as I can remember -- and from what little I knew at the time -- these compensating telescope mounts were called 'clock drives' because they were basically clockwork mechanisms.
Since the Earth is a spinning globe, it means the northern and southern hemispheres technically rotate in opposite directions, and we can easily prove this with observations, gadgets and things like equatorial camera mounts.
For the world we observe to work on a flat Earth, you'd need an inner circle rotating counter-clockwise and an outer disk rotating clockwise. This means you'd be able to see a clear divide in the ground and watch as the earth rotates away from you on the other side. Cities would be split apart and joined back together every 12 hours.
Got it.
I recently got a very nice flat-earth busting photo of the cloud layer lit up from underneath just before dawn.
Errr, Perspective!!! . . . .. Refraction!!!!
Or their favorite fallback answer:
CGI !!!!
Another great video. One quibble: at 8:15 you say that the plate spinning at 15 degrees per hour perfectly cancels out the Earth's rotation. If the hours are 24 hours a day, then that's not quite correct for following the stars, with the exception of our Sun. For the more distant stars, you need sidereal hours, which are almost eight seconds shorter than solar hours.
I like your calm, logical approach to this. There are other science channels where the presenter behaves in such a smug, condescending way towards flat earthers that I no longer want to hear anything from them again on any science topic. I am heavily into science and one thing about science is it acknowledges that it can get things wrong, and as new discoveries are made, so does science. No real person of science would have that type of attitude.
For anyone who understands how the equatorial mount works, and have used one, it is an irrefutable proof that the Earth is round. End of discussion with the Flat Earth wackos!
Nothing works on a flat earth.
What I like about this presentation is that the equatorial Mount is a thing you can hold and touch which is very important when appealing to anti-science audiences. They don't want to be TOLD how things work they want to see it themselves. There is a certain virtue in that although it gets tedious. You shouldn't have to demonstrate that 2 + 2 = 4 every time you want to add up the grocery bill. Anyhow it's absolutely the case that equatorial Mount will only track if it is properly aligned and that alignment only matters on a round earth.
Neither would GPS.
If Flat-Earth enthusiasts were interested enough in reality to maybe take an afternoon to research part of it, it wouldn't hurt to check the Math upon which GPS is based.
It is clearly set up to facilitate navigation across the surface of an oblate sphere.
While occasional glitches do present (as with any complex system), if the world were flat, GPS would never have worked, even once.
The Maths required to navigate across a plane are vastly different from those applied to the creation and function of the Global Positioning System.
You said 15 degrees per hour but forgot to say, "thanks, Bob."
It's crazy that videos like this need to me made in modern day.
I have two reasons to watch your channel: your great arguments, and that sweet puppy that shares the screen with you 🙂
This was an extremely interesting video showing a piece of machinery I’ve never heard of before, but I’m just impressed your dog was so comfortable it didn’t even move
6:54 holy shit, there is my house :D
theres a flat earther in my discord server that says the light from stars doesnt travel to us, "it's just there"
😂
🤣🤣🤣
I don't believe in a flat-earth, and never have (except for when I was a very, very small child). But I still click these types of videos because the proofs that are offered are inevitably educational, and I appreciate some free education.
lol when I was a "very small child" I believed in a spherical earth, but we're INSIDE the ball, and that space faring rockets must have some sort of pointy spear to pierce through the crust.
@@zainabe9503 There are some who still believe that. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Hollow Earth, about halfway down you'll find a section on the 'Concave Hollow Earth,' where they believe the entirety of the universe is in the center of a ball that we are the inside skin of. There's some sort of space-warping thing that happens as you move toward the center.
This theory has the advantage for its adherents that the Earth is the entirety of the universe, the center of the Earth is the center of the universe, and Earth and its contents are all that exists. The ultimate head in the sand theory
(8:18) cut to Bob's 15* per hour "thanks Bob"
As a fellow amateur astronomer, vouch.
There is literally nothing that would work the same if earth were flat. Not one thing.
More simply put, an equatorial mount rotates on a plane, since the earth is rotating. On a flat earth, the camera would have to spin in a cone to keep focused on a single celestial body, and the cone would have to be wider the further the celestial body you are centered on was away from Polaris. Since it doesn't rotate in a cone, it wouldn't work on a flat earth.
it's also worth mentioning that if you did try to use a motorised mount on a flat earth, it would need to use 2 axes of rotation to follow any celestial object.
Amazingly, I've never seen a scope mount that uses two axes of rotation like that. It's almost as if we've never needed such a solution to get decent long exposures, for some reason.
Too facty and/or mathy. Needs more emojis.
Do flerfs believe that either the earth or the stars rotate? I genuinely don't know
@@mrosskne most believe that stars an planets are light bulbs on the Dome, which rotates once every 24 hours. Some believe in a flat rotating disc above the flat pizza. None of them actually explain how the Sun and the Moon interact with the Dome.
It is even worse than that. While you could track a star in the center of the view, all the other stars will appear to rotate around that star throughout the night. And they won't even rotate in circles, it would be ellipses.
did you notice sun illumunates flat-earth in a circle at a time? but real data show half of the earth can see the sun at anytime. and if you try to draw this on flat-earth you need to try really hard whereas globe is perfectly illumunated at-half without any fancy drawing.
Yep. Flerfers have yet to explain how a small, nearby Sun can somehow extend its light all the way out to the edge of the world, while at the same time limiting its range to only the north pole (during the equinox anyways). Of course, they've yet to explain pretty much every one of their stupid conjectures, as far as that goes!
No, it isn't a question of trying really hard. It's a question of being impossible to show varying day length and seasons simultaneously without invoking magic or denying that what we observe in the northern hemisphere also happens in the southern hemisphere. It's all total bollocks.
@@PeerAdder it actually still possible to map the light. afterall, we can still map globe to a flat paper. the thing is, the shape is not something to draw easily, plus it needs to explain how other areas gets dark. you need some magical barrier to stop light so to create night. for globe-earth the explanation is simple: sun-facing surfaces are light, the other side is dark.
@@YilmazDurmaz no, we really *cannot* map the globe to a flat piece of paper or vice versa without introducing cuts, creases or distortions. We *can* correct for the distortions, this is how every atlas works, but the distortions are unavoidable going from a sphere to a plane. We can't just put a ruler or protractor on the resulting flat map and measure distances and angles directly. Which is precisely why no accurate, undistorted map of flat earth exists.
It's the same going from a plane to a sphere. If the earth really were flat then we absolutely *could not* produce an accurate globe map, no matter how hard we tried.
Try wrapping a ball in a sheet of paper, or unfolding an orange peel so that it lies flat, and you'll see exactly what the problem is.
And of course the Flat Earth explanation for day/night variations amounts to "if it's sunny it's because it's sunny, and if it's dark it's because it's dark". Which is no explanation at all, like all their other so-called explanations.
Great video. Reds rhetoric and sly sparkane have covered this topic before.
The usual flerf idiotic responses:
You didn’t account for perspective.
You can’t look at the sky to determine the shape of the ground.
Nuh huh.
Works perfectly on a flat earth.
Some other derp.
I have seen people debunk a lot of flat earther crap.
This has to be the single most damning one.
a 15 degree per hour drift? thanks Bob.
RIP Bob. 15⁰ per hour forever.
Fifteen degrees per hour?
Thanks, Bob!
Indeed "Thanks Bob"
@@dogwalker666 Yes. I remember some 45 years ago, at school, somewhat bored, but we started to play with the sunlight and the shadow on our papers. We had to to calculate how fast the sun moves. Now, after 40 years, I know it by heart! Thank you, Bob, indeed!
@@AnttiKivivalli Indeed, Best way to remember.
I was wondering whether anyone would talk about these telescope mounts. They only make sense on a globe.
In the 1980's I once made a time exposure photograph pointed to Polaris and proved for myself the star isn't exactly on the North Pole. Flat earthers should do that for themselves as well. But they will stay in denial, I guess.
Flatearth aside, it's a brilliant and easy to understand explanation of how tracking mounts work and how they address basic sky mechanics. I wish I had that on point explanation when I started astrophotography years ago.
Irrespective of flat earth or not, that was a fantastic explanation of the fundamentals of star trackers. I've followed the instructions of my mount before, without fully understanding the reason behind them. Thank you.
The flat earthers minds will break trying to prove you wrong
I gotta say, you tackled the subject of equatorial mounts so much more straightforward than anyone I've seen. Nice.
Went through about 10 pages of comments and not a peep from flat earthers. Funny how they never show up when they know they have nothing that can refute a clean and simple observation.
Well that's clearly not true, buddy 🙄 I can see 2 within 25 comments below you 🤔
You gotta sort by newest first if you really wanna laugh. But I can garantee most of them are trolls who don't actually believe in the shit they are saying.
@@flecks_piano You make some silly assumptions. Are the stars moving over the Earth, or is the Earth moving?
@@IvanMectin both. The stars move, and the earth moves.
@@Top-Code Typical avoidance answer 🥱💤 Ok, give me the 4 motions of the Earth in mph? Let's watch you avoid this basic question 🤔
Excellent video once again, thank you for your well-crafted explanations with visuals to go along.