Get an amazing gift for your mom this Mother’s Day! Go to establishedtitles.com/PROFESSORSTICK and get 10% off today. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring today's video.
But I thought that Mothering Sunday happened 41 days ago on the 27th March. That is 41 days late for that, and if talking about the next years Mothering Sunday then that is on the 17th March 2023 which is 316 days early which seems far too early to be buying a present.
Thanks m'Lord Stick, you saved my wretched behind this Mother's day. She will love the title (even though it is not Queen), especially from a Celtic land and with a tree planted.
They often confuse the focus ring for the zoom control. What they call 'zoomed in' is just very out of focus. As the picture of Vega shows all to clearly in this video.
If it is in incredible detail it actually refutes his point. If the sky is a firmament with a dome then wouldn't that mean the ceiling of that dome would have to be at least the distance from the north pole to Antarctica at it's highest point if they believe Antarctica is an ice wall? Seeing as the North pole would be the center of that hemisphere. So if in Alaska they can see stars they're looking at objects somwthing like nine thousand miles away?
Those objects are completely out of focus. Here's the same thing done with the street light. Heavenly orbs my ass! ua-cam.com/video/5Usx8ZMCCMs/v-deo.html
@@nathanjasper512 It could be a flattened dome but the point still stands: if there is no light pollution then we can see stars right down to the horizon. Those stars will be close to the ice wall. If viewing from the Norther Hemisphere, that's more than half the radius of the Diskworld.
I always wonder: if we "just can't see that far", how can we see the stars on the 'firmament' which is supposedly hundreds to thousands of miles up? How can we even see airplanes cruising at 6-7 miles, but not see boats 4 miles out at sea from the beach? Edit: I asked under the original video, but nobody seems to know.
Also, how can we NOT see the Sun but can see the light from the Sun after it has "gone too far"? And why is it that the Sun has gone "too far" for us to see at sea level, but from the height of a cliff of say 40 metres, I can still see the Sun AFTER it has "gone too far" although I am actually even (fractionally) further away?
Its gravity pulling the photons down to your eyes in the instance of the plane, but grom the boat they have to fight the pull of gravity the entire way and eventually sink to below your vision. Simple science really
Eric also ignores a thing called RADAR. All ships and airplanes equipped with radar have a limited range of sight, according to how high the radar device is located above the surface of the earth. There's a decided lack of mountains and trees in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so Eric can't use that argument for why a ship has a range of only 20 nautical miles.
Yes. Also, any high school graduate can join the military electronics programs that teach radar. It's not like it is some hidden knowledge reserved for the elite or ultra privileged. I think it would be kind of hard to maintain a conspiracy of this magnitude with so many new working-class people every year finding that even long range radars can't see low-e contacts until they are only a few miles away.
Ships have their radar up high enough that the radar range is further than 20 miles.. i spent years at sea on a prawn trawler and even though it was a lot lower than a ship we had over 20 miles of radar range
@@markshort9098 ...right. But I think the point is that (depending on antennae position and transmission characteristics) radar range along the surface performs in tens of miles...but not hundreds of miles. Of course anything above the horizon and in line of sight is easily detectable from hundreds of miles away.
Everyone keep in mind these flat earthers tend to think your vision is something that projects out of your eyes, not what light is passively received by your eyes. Leads to a good portion of wrong conclusions about many topics like apparent horizons, perspective, refraction, etc.
i find i consistently fascinating how many details of science have to be changed to make the earth flat every single part of science has to be rethought for it to be true nothin is untouched
I love how they understand perspective and vanishing points when discussing stuff like this, but oh my goodness, sun's rays through clouds, all knowledge of perspective and vanishing points go out the window!
No, they don't understand perspective at all. Why do boats hulls disappear first over the horizon? Flerfer "Duh, that's perspective". Ahh, no definition of real perspective includes that magical feature. Which is why it is called Flerspective when discussing flat earthers. They can't explain what we see using known characteristics, so they just make stuff up and pass it off as them "knowing" something which just is not true.
If anyone has told me when I was a young lady that there would be a large number of flat earthers on the internet I would have* laughed at them and told them not to be so daft! *Well, firstly I would have asked them what on earth was the internet?
Same lady, same. Well, when I was a kid, I already knew about the internet but if anyone told me there were a large number if flat earthers here, I'd be completely sure they were pulling my leg.
The "Internet", Past-Selena, is a nasty device that allows people unfiltered access to mass-communication without the safeties of newspaper editors, radio and TV executives, and peer-reviewed scientific journals. So kooks end up saying anything they want to millions of people, which is not always good.
Me too Selena. When we first got internet at the office it was a good thing. Now it is so full of false information that it has become question of freedom vs culling the obvious falsehoods.
When I was a Young Man, and discovered the Internet, there were no Pictures, or Vijeos. One had to connect with protocols that only spoke Text and telephone tone codes. And the negotoation "language" for getting online was named after my little green childhood Sesame Street hero. I remember connecting Punch Card era programmers to their meal tickets.... I also would never have believed the Plague of Flerfers and their ilk would descend on NerdVanna....
On a clear day, if the Earth was flat, the horizon on the ocean would be indistinct and fuzzy to the naked eye. It would not be sharpened when viewing it through binoculars or a telescope. However, it's razor-sharp on a clear day, both to the eye, and through optical devices.
If the Earth were flat, then yes, the further away something is the harder it would be to see...but it would disappear _evenly_ over its entire height. If you were on a boat alongside a line of cliffs stretching away into the distance, everything at the cliff, from base to top, would grow indistinct at the same rate. Yet, in reality, the cliffs, as they get further way, start disappearing from the bottom up, even if the tops are still clearly visible.
Not true. The elevation angle of celestial objects drop 1° every 69.05 miles. So 69.05 × 90° = 6,214.5 miles for the sun, moon, and stars. That's how perspective reality works.
@@tbrown3356 How high are the sun, moon, planets, and stars above the flat earth? I know you won’t answer, and deflect with some nonsense but it doesn’t matter. We can test your claim with a simple equinox. On an equinox the sun is directly over the equator and everyone everywhere experiences roughly 12 hours of daylight. If the 1 nautical mile per degree of elevation change is accurate on a flat earth, the equator must be circle centered on the GP of Polaris (call this point P) and have a radius of 5400 nmi. Point A is the GP of the sun at noon. Point B is the GP of the sun at sunset/6PM. At sunset the GP of the sun should be 5400 nmi from an observer described by line AB and yet the triangle over a flat earth formed by APB is an isosceles right triangle with two sides of 5400, third side cannot be 5400nmi. The distance could only be 5400nmi when the angle formed by APB is 60 degrees. So at 4PM..
@@tbrown3356 You keep forgetting how Polaris would need to be in a infinite number of places simultaneously for that to work on FE. Or there to be an infinite number of polarises. As an aside, what on earth has happened to Oakley's viewing figures? They've halved recently. I thought you might be able to explain, you being a fanboy/sock.
@@tbrown3356 No, that is how a curved earth works. All you need to do to debunk what you just said is a piece of paper, a ruler and a protractor. Draw out the relationship you just described on a flat baseline. And then, just for giggles try it on a circle. Oh. Dear. The circle works and the flat one fails completely. But, I won't be surprized if you don't understand what I am even talking about. Right?
I was trying to argue with a flerf where this "midnight Sun still in the sky North somewhere" was? The Sun is a magnitude -26.75 star. First magnitude stars are the brightest, then second magnitude, then third, and the lowest magnitude of star you can see is +6.5. But the Sun is a blindingly bright star which is 33 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE brighter than the faintest star you can see, each magnitude being a power of 10. What possible atmospheric and distance effects can dim the Sun by 33 orders of magnitude so we can't see the Sun at night?? None, that's what! I think their best explanation was a "magic lampshade" that limited the Sun's light along a wavy border on the Earth that exactly corresponds to half the world on the Round Earth, but whose border constantly changes with the seasons. Such a lampshade has to absorb all that radiation and would get so hot it would cook our atmosphere and everybody in it! What's it made of? What holds it up and makes it move with the Sun and change shape just right? I'm guessing Flat Earther Wish Energy and that's all!
@@Dracopol Careful mixing up apparent magnitude with absolute magnitude. The Sun is bright because it's close. But the Sun is only a moderately bright star.
I recall someone made a 10'000$ challenge saying all the Flat Earth people has to do is create a model that explain a Sunset that is consistent with the real world. From what I remember, nobody managed to win the price as there are no possible Flat Earth model capable of that.
@@John.0z McToon proved flat earth with his challenge. He used elevation angle measurements which require a horizontal plane (flat earth). Mctoon meltdown ua-cam.com/video/lOywhSmP0hI/v-deo.html
Models don't explain reality, they can only give a correction description or incorrect description of an observation. Perspective is reality. We have plenty of videos, drawings, classes teaching and showing perspective. The sun never actually drops, but appears to because of perspective. The horizon is not a physical geometric earth curve edge for the sun to go over. The horizon is the result of perspective making it look like the sky and surface converge.
@@tbrown3356 Models are made to describe an observation. But the point about the Sunset is to give a description that is accurate enough to create a Model that can approximate the real world very well. From what I understand, no such model of the Flat Earth has ever been done. I heard a lot of excuses about perspective But As a Mechanical Drafter myself who work with perspective all the time, I don't see the problem they seems to talk about. I see many more problems For instance, if the Sun goes so far away it can't be seen when it's close to the horizon, Then why does it remain the same overall size throughout the day? Perspective should make it appear smaller when it gets far away and bigger when it's closer
Hey, don't be upset, Stick! Sure, those guys can make multiple videos a week, but they _have_ to do that to maintain their dwindling subscriber base, whereas you keep us all happy by just being yourself. You rock, mate!
What are you talking about? All the credible flat earth videos get deleted or knocked way down in the search results. All the global idiots like n.d.Tyson are first with his pear shape earth theory. Lol
Why is it whenever I see something about "Flat Earth" I can't help but get the feeling it's just one big trolling movement. It's like whenever science demonstrates whatever ridiculous claim they make is bunk, they come up with something even more ridiculous in response.
Well the modern rebirth of the flat earth movement did start off as a big troll with The Flat Earth Society in the sixties, people didn't get the joke and here we are. It was popular with people that dug Situationism and Discordianism.
@@paintedporches Supposedly "Christians Against Dinosaurs" began as a joke making fun of creationists. The idea is now taken seriously by some creationist UA-camrs. Here's an interview with a young woman who fell for the joke: ua-cam.com/video/72M-f4BhCGQ/v-deo.html
@@lusoverse8710 It's a novelty, an amusement. The title confers no other benefits, and (here's the important bit) they don't pretend it does. It is no different a "grift" than a souvenir shop.
Sadly, with the "lord" or "lady" title, it does not actually come with an OFFICIAL title that you can actually use anywhere in the UK. Heh. It's really just a neat novelty.
Yes and the website is absolute shit, looks so much like a dropshipping scam, idiotic countdown, 10s of special offers and false reviews. I do not know why someone in its right mind would do it as it clearly lessen the trust I have in the following argumentation.
@@anandsuralkar2947 Exactly, a lot of these companies claiming to plant trees 'plant' saplings in an area where they can't survive and don't maintain them.
And how they use an out-of-focus image of Venus (@ 5:00) to show how "you can use a telescope or camera.... show that the planets are not that far away and can be zoomed into incredible detail." Detail from a horribly out of focused imaged image of Vega? hmmmm....
To be honest, I don't notice when content creators "miss' uploads. Actually, some people I subscribe to post everyday or every other day and it feels overwhelming. So don't worry about missing weeks.
The Mount Everest example is just a hypothetical. Most people realize that your line of sight to Mt. Everest is probably obscured as well as atmospheric factors will hinder you in reality. But with a good enough telescope we can see good detail on the moon which is orders of magnitude farther away than Mt. Everest. It is a very easy to understand hypothetical as to why the Earth cannot be flat.
The moon is way up in the sky and has a wide visual angle to it. When it's elevation angle drops as it moves far enough away from you, you can no longer see it either. It's just perspective. You have a 90° visual field. As things move away from you they appear to drop their elevation angle. They are not actually dropping from the sky. Lol.
I use a simpler example that 'Murican Flat Earthers can understand. Why can't you see the Rocky Mountains from Kansas, 700 miles away? Kansas is flat as a pancake. Go to a high building in Kansas and look for the Rockies, which are 3 miles high. 3 miles high, 700 miles away makes a width from the base of the Earth of about 0.25°, half the width of the Sun or Moon. You should see these mountains in the distance. So where are they?
@@page8301 A star directly above you is at your 90°. As you or the star travels away the star drops it's elevation angle 1° every 60nm. The star doesn't actually drop, it's just your perspective.
As an 8 year old I too thought my vision emanated from my eyes outward. When I later read about how light causes vision it made perfect sense and I dropped the childish notion. As a child I also could not understand how water could "flow uphill" south to north if the earth were spherical. A bit of education goes a long way, folks. You have to be willing to learn.
@@toddboyce3599i see how you can read it to think I believed the earth to not be spherical but thats not the meaning. My confusion was not understanding gravitys effect on water flow, not the earth shape. I should've worded it better.
If the Earth were flat, I should be able to see at least one mountain from North Florida. When I lived in Portland Oregon, I could barely see Mt Hood from my 4th floor apartment, and it was only about 50 miles or so away. Earth ain't flat.
Regarding Eric's claims about the distance of the stars, his footage was likely taken from a P900, or a similar camera, and is based on the idea that a camera is all you need to observe the 'luminaries.' They seem to refuse the idea of using the proper tools for the job, namely telescopes, because they think that 'the man' has somehow modified each and every telescope to only show the images they want us to see. At this point, this ridiculous idea has been dismantled so many times that I can only conclude that Eric is lying through his teeth about this, because none of it is true.
Eric is making money off of deluded and undereducated rubes. That's why he continues his con. If he could make decent change by promoting his neo-Nazi ideas, he'd drop flat Earth in a New York second.
If the Earth was flat there wouldn't even be any horizon, just an eternal blue-gray haze between ground and sky way off in the distance. Also, flat-earthers always demand "Show us the curve". To this I say: "Show us the bend". Because if Earth is a disk with the North pole in it's center, shouldn't all roads running straight East bend slightly to the left?
so the stars I see at the horizon are closer to me than any mountain around, because the mountains are too far and are obscured by the air, but the stars aren't?
The existence of a perceivable horizon on the ocean is a refutation of flat Earth. The theoretical horizon on a flat surface should be infinitely far, so atmospheric effects should obscure it completely. The ocean's surface should fade into the sky with no distinct boundary. It's only because the curvature brings that boundary to a finite distance that it's often visibly distinct (depending on atmospheric conditions at the time).
The horizon is not theoretical. If you have eyes then you can see the horizon (apparent line where the sky appears to meet the surface). The horizon is not a physical geometric earth curve edge for boats and mountains to fall over. It's caused by perspective.
@@tbrown3356 Perspective means that closer objects look larger than farther objects, and that closer objects will obscure farther objects. On a "flat" surface, how does this produce a distinct horizon?
I interviewed a group of flat earthers once and asked this question. Their only answer was "Perspective" and told me to set a pen on the table and move my head up and down. Wasn't very convincing, but I wanted to continue with the interview so I said "yes this makes sense."
If the earth is flat, we'd be able to walk to the moon. I feel like flat earthers are secretly laughing knowing it's just one big running gag that's been going on for quite a while. But nope, flat earthers are just people who have flat personalities and flat brains.
@@Synthis_Bioji The 2/3 people I talked to were incredibly nice, even though I made it clear I was not a flat-earther. I just think it's a failure of the education system and the allure of being involved in a conspiracy.
What if we just throw em' all into a cannon and use them as cannon fodder, if they go flying into the distant horizons afar, that'd definitely prove that the earth ISN'T flat, because it isn't.
Zooms in on star with telescope. "Wow look how close that star is". Yeah, that's how zooming in works. You zoom in and make it look closer than it really is
On a flat earth, radio communications, like mobile phones, would be impossible because hundreds of millions of transceivers would create an immense level of noise. The only thing stopping that is the curvature. In fact on long range radio links, beyond about 50 km, it has to be taken into account as the curvature would intrude into the area known as the fresnel zone. Hence towers that sometimes have to be 100 meters high AGL, way above any obstructions. Flat earther blissfully uses his phone to rewatch his nonsense though.
I saw a Flater ask "If we have Satellite, why does my Cellphone go out of signal?" The best answer I saw was "Because it's a cell phone, not a satellite phone." Which they probably should have known, my phone gives up trying to find me far sooner than my Satnav ever has.
The response from a flat brainer would simply be that companies lie about the transmission power output. In reality it's much less, so interferences is not a thing. How did I do as a fleather? Obviously now NASA's payroll got much bigger (it's already quite big with all the civil engineers and land surveyors), but it does not matter, because NASA for sure has at least a bajillion dollars available.
Thanks for my Sunday morning Stick. What about the sun? Why can't we always see the sun with a telescope? It's always putting out enough light to illuminate half the disc. Where is my sun? Thanks for another great vid.
yeah the atmosphere would still block view on a flat earth it would be still completely different than what we actually see in the real world nothing would be hidden bottom first, the distance you see will have little to nothing to do with the height you are and a blueish tint would appear on everything gradually as they move away, before getting completely out of view so everything we see in the real world, is completely opposite to what we would se in a flat earth dubay only pretends something have other explanations or are not real, even when those things are actually measurable, like distance to stars
@@chrisantoniou4366 yeah, i was just trying to keep it on topic, if i wrote everything that is impossible on a flat earth, it would be an essay of 10k words for sure
@@naruarthur That's why I said "not to mention"... I think that if you were to set out all the things that are impossible on a flat Earth you would only be scratching the surface with 10k words. Probably the only thing possible if the Earth was indeed flat would be that all the flat Earthers would then be globe Earthers! 😂
Dubay takes extreme and straw-man examples to avoid having to explain the more mundane ones, like: why can't I see the mountain that's only 50 km away, but I can still see the sun which is at least a few thousand km away (according to flerfs)? It's a basic con-artists tactic, design to appeal and to seem to make sense to the intellectually challenged and vulnerable.
Its even easier to argue with that: The higher in elevation u go, the farther u can see. That makes no sense in terms of lets call this "atmospheric sight blocking" as the distance to an object u can see from that high elevation increases, as u climb up. If it would really be an atmospheric effect, u would decrease the range u can see by invresing elevation.
If the Earth were flat, then whatever is producing gravity would still be working on light too, causing light to bend downwards. Because we perceive light as straight lines, this would give the Earth the appearance of being hollow with us on the inside, curving up instead of being flat or globular.
@@tbrown3356 The Cavendish experiment was the first to measure the force of gravity between masses, but not necessarily the first to measure the Gravitational constant. A scientific hypothesis is a guess
@@agimasoschandir What was the Dependent variable (effect observed in nature) and independent variable (assumed cause of the effect observed in nature) for Cavendish "experiment "? A scientific hypothesis is a statement of cause and effect. You must have a viable scientific hypothesis before conducting an experiment.
@@tbrown3356 I don't think I have to prove gravity... but sure, yeah. Take a #2 pencil and hold it 3 feet off of the ground. When you release your grip on the pencil 3 feet in the air (dependent variable) I predict it will fall towards the center of the earth (independent variable). It'll be stopped by the ground, but still. Based on countless calculations and experiments done prior, I predict it'd take roughly three tenths of a second to reach the ground and clatter against it (also the independent variable). The reason this is not a very useful experiment is because flat-earthers claim (foolishly) "but buoyancy! We can explain any phenomenon just as well as gravity can, with buoyancy! Everything seeks its level!" Which is just a smidgen more difficult to disprove than simply demonstrating that things fall towards the center of the earth at a rate of 9.81m/s². I do, however, have an experiment which can positively disprove "buoyancy" as an explanatory force. I'll manipulate buoyancy with my superior knowledge of its true nature to create a scenario in which heavier things do not fall "down", and lighter things do not fall "up". Take a glass of water, or, if you're afraid it'll break, a plastic bottle. Fill it with mixed sediments, those which will sort out if you shake up the bottle and then set it on your kitchen counter for, say, 5 minutes. Tie a string around the bottle's little neck flare, or somehow constrain the glass of water to the string. Be sure that if you dangle the glass or plastic by the string that it'll stay right-side up. Now, with your sediment-filled water container, swing it horizontally on the string. You should have a lot of stamina, because the experiment will require you to keep this up for, say, 5 minutes. After the 5 (or 10 or 20) minutes of swinging the water container, you can allow it to spin down and you can retrieve the water container. Observe the results. What I predict is that, barring some stirring caused by spinning down the water glass or bottle, the sediments have hydrologically sorted exactly the way they would've if you had left it, upright, on the table for that amount of time. If that is the result of the experiment, I will have demonstrated that buoyancy depends on an exterior force, and is not, itself, a force. Buoyancy is a product of gravity, which is a force. You can produce your own buoyancy if you can apply a force to a system, as the above experiment aims to demonstrate.
@@tbrown3356 also... that's not what dependent or independent variables are. An independent variable is some parameter which you, the scientist or whatever, have control over, and is independent of other parameters involved in the experiment. A dependent variable is a parameter whose value is proposed to be dependent on the independent variable. Determining whether or not this relationship exists is usually the aim of a scientific experiment. In the Cavendish Experiment, the independent variables were the distance between the objects that were suspended, and the mass of the suspended objects. The dependent variable is the distance traveled by the objects, or the force observed between the objects. The Cavendish Experiment was successful in measuring the gravitational constant, yes. And it definitely did prove that gravity does exist between masses.
Completely out of focus stars in Eric’s potato camera can look like the psychedelic shapes he deceitfully shown again and again. Flerfs can’t use a telescope… (or they just won’t because it will break their narrative) #You’ve got to lie to flerf!
Even with color and particle interference from the atmosphere, distant objects like Mount Everest would fade away and become hazy as you drew further away, instead, distant objects disappear below the horizon because the Earth has curvature.
I have a Flat Earther as a Facebook friend. (Please don't ask) She posts stuff and I often ignore it, but recently a friend of her's asked a question. "If the Earth is round, why does Greenland get 24 hour Sun?" Me, as a non-scientist/astronomer (But enjoy thinking about it a lot) suggested this; "The Earth is tilted. For around half the year, the northern half of the planet is leaning towards the Sun, thus giving them more sunlight. For the other half of the year, they should be in 24-hour darkness since the angle the Earth is leaning towards doesn't change as it orbits around the Sun." So eh... Did I get anything wrong?
Eric claims the limit is 3km ish, but conveniently leaves out the fact we can see much further than that for tall objects such as buildings or mountains. We can see their tops from much further due to their height.
Anyone using this exact argument with a Flat Earther is equally as dumb, but I suppose Flat Earthers need to tackle arguments they can handle. I especially liked zooming in on Venus and stars to show the camera wasn't in focus. 100/10, great photography. Yes, you do have to focus properly on stars despite the distance, and you don't just turn the focus ring all the way to the "inf" side as there is usually some over travel. And that's not even considering the fact that the focal point changes as you zoom. Flat Earthers continue to display astounding incompetence with the equipment they use.
5:35 He's looking at those objects with a P1000 that's comically out of focus and thinks that weird blurry thing is the actual appearance. He's then assuming that because it looks so big it must be close.
I love your videos! I feel like there's a really strong ecosystem of science communicators on UA-cam now so don't feel stressed if you can't upload sometimes, you're not in this alone! Thank you so much for the work you do here, it's really important to counter the bullshit 💜
I absolutely love your tendency to discard the rest of these peoples 'evidence' once you hit ten minutes. Like theyve taken up enough of your time, and ours
Professor Stick, oh, Lord Stick, excuse me. And they plant trees! Oh, and not being able to upload daily? That just makes each video more valuable! 👍🥰💖✌
An apparent line where the sky appears to meet the surface is perspective. That doesn't debunk the ground being observable, measurable, and navigatable flat.
As some one who has spent a lot of time at the top of Mauna Kea … 15,000 ft above sea level… IF the earth were flat, the shadow mt Everest would cast a KILLER shadow. You can’t see the mountain but you would see the shadow.
But the fun part is that from here I can actually look into the direction Mt. Everest would be on a flat earth, and the horizon in that direction is a tad lower than eye level. And: Around this time the sun is rising exactly there. So, if I don't see the silhouette of Mt. Everest it means that the sun is on front of it, and thus less than 8 km high.
@@tbrown3356 If the sun were behind Mt. Everest, I'd see the silhouette of it in front of the sun, just as I do with the cooling towers of the power plant over there. Besides, even when the sun _was_ behind Mt. Everest and we just don't see the latter for some reason, the sun would still be at most 24 km high. (Not to mention the fact that the sun is completeley below eye level when it begins to rise there.)
Oh god. I'm getting vague memories of a British man that loves Yorkshire tea gold and has a beautiful accent taking advantage of a particular website to get obscene amounts of free land from Scotland.
It is truly unfortunate that my favorite UA-camrs like SciMan Dan and Professor Stick have to resort to choosing scams for sponsors that resemble star registries, in order to make a living on UA-cam while UA-cam keeps most of the revenue from the ads that constantly interrupt their videos.
Funny, I also thought of Mt. Washington, NH as an example. As well as Mt. Whitney, California. Have someone on one mountain aim the brightest strobe light at the other, where someone with a telescope is waiting. On a moonless night you'd think it should be seen even through clouds? Unless the Earth is round of course.
I came up with a video clearly demonstrating a south celestial pole by showing the stars and milky way rotating around it. Flerfs either try to quickly change the subject to other flat earth nonsense, or blocks me for it, or both lmao
I already own a section of land and title from them. I'm now so far up myself I've vanished to peoples sight and I've even lost my reflection, that may have something to do with a vampire biting me on the neck recently, or was that just a mosquito, hmmm. EDIT: Woo hoo, the name change has even set in lol.
Lord Stick, while the atmosphere would get in the way from a long distance, for those closer they would see it. Now, those close enough to see it could do the following experiment: While traveling away from Everest, on a flat earth, Mt. Everest would not have its lower parts disappear under the horizon, it would simple become smaller, due to increase distance, and become fainter, due to atmosphere.
In the flat earth model, things must be vissible at least 1/4 the way across the earth since a small and local sun must be vissible from 1/2 the earth at any given time.
If you can't see Mt Everest from say the ice wall which is a known distance according flatearthers.than a tight radar signal should easily find Mt Everest as radar can also bounce off the troposphere as it does on globe 🌎.
I have always known the Earth is no flat, but seeing the YT context warning saying "The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk" makes me question this notion. LOL
I have an experiment for flat earthers to try. Send a weather balloon up with a 360° camera from the north pole. Since the north pole is supposed to be in the center of the plane and should be under the tallest part of the dome.... according to the flat earth theory, we should be able to see past the equator.
Looking due South from the Aleutian Islands, there is nothing but ocean and a grand total of 0 obstructing view... yet nobody can see the Southern Cross. RIP Flattardia.
Thanks for the video Lord Stick! I think the UA-cam grind is somewhat an illusion. I think quality is always more valuable than quantity. Keep doing you!
1 million flerfity-gawd points if you counted how many times Poe Dubay said "furthermore" 🤣 Bonus points for whoever was put to sleep the most by his droning voice... 🤭
With binoculars you can see clearly Jupiter and the galilean moons; and if you repeat your observation several days you can see how they move. So his mocking of Galileo's telescope is just another example of his despise of science and scientists.
And if they complain that they can't see it because distortion, use radio wave, bounce radar signal out of mount Everest, after all air is pretty much transparent for most of radio waves wavelength
If a large telescope was built at the top of Mount Everest & another on the top of Mount Chimborazo so most of the atmospheric distortions, dust, haze, fog etc would be eliminated from the line of sight, those telescopes still wouldn't be able to see each other. BECAUSE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE. BUT if the earth was flat, they should be able to. Flat earth believers should test this out.
Well a known distance on any "earth model" is from the North Pole to the Tropic of Cancer, about 7400km in total. Now given that when "the sun" is over the Tropic of Cancer there is 24-hour sunshine at the North Pole, it is logical to deduce that we must be able to see up to that distance at minimum.
You can't see Cedar Rapids, Iowa, from Iowa CIty, Iowa (both have fairly tall buildings - the 15-story Hotel Chauncey in iowa City, and the 21-story Alliant Energy Tower in Cedar Rapids) - a distance of only 44km.
Hmm. I might need to purchase a lordship for my father. His lineage comes from Scotland and he loves all things Scottish. I wonder if his lordship would pass to me upon his demise?
![[UA] Team Vitality проти NAVI | IEM Cologne 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wttO1zVRTC0/mqdefault.jpg)
Get an amazing gift for your mom this Mother’s Day! Go to establishedtitles.com/PROFESSORSTICK and get 10% off today. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring today's video.
Ok, that was totally a sales pitch, but a good one ;-)
but i nedd a flat earth gift for mothersday as the pizza disk world is so real
But I thought that Mothering Sunday happened 41 days ago on the 27th March. That is 41 days late for that, and if talking about the next years Mothering Sunday then that is on the 17th March 2023 which is 316 days early which seems far too early to be buying a present.
@@makotoxchihiroyaoifangirl8409 yeah i thought that too lol just get her a flate earth pizza
Thanks m'Lord Stick, you saved my wretched behind this Mother's day.
She will love the title (even though it is not Queen), especially from a Celtic land and with a tree planted.
"Can be zoomed into incredible detail" *shows fuzzy image that looks anything but incredible*
They often confuse the focus ring for the zoom control. What they call 'zoomed in' is just very out of focus. As the picture of Vega shows all to clearly in this video.
Astrophotographers prove him wrong everyday.
If it is in incredible detail it actually refutes his point. If the sky is a firmament with a dome then wouldn't that mean the ceiling of that dome would have to be at least the distance from the north pole to Antarctica at it's highest point if they believe Antarctica is an ice wall? Seeing as the North pole would be the center of that hemisphere. So if in Alaska they can see stars they're looking at objects somwthing like nine thousand miles away?
Those objects are completely out of focus. Here's the same thing done with the street light. Heavenly orbs my ass!
ua-cam.com/video/5Usx8ZMCCMs/v-deo.html
@@nathanjasper512 It could be a flattened dome but the point still stands: if there is no light pollution then we can see stars right down to the horizon. Those stars will be close to the ice wall. If viewing from the Norther Hemisphere, that's more than half the radius of the Diskworld.
I always wonder: if we "just can't see that far", how can we see the stars on the 'firmament' which is supposedly hundreds to thousands of miles up? How can we even see airplanes cruising at 6-7 miles, but not see boats 4 miles out at sea from the beach?
Edit: I asked under the original video, but nobody seems to know.
Also, how can we NOT see the Sun but can see the light from the Sun after it has "gone too far"? And why is it that the Sun has gone "too far" for us to see at sea level, but from the height of a cliff of say 40 metres, I can still see the Sun AFTER it has "gone too far" although I am actually even (fractionally) further away?
@@chrisantoniou4366 the photons get tired after a while, obviously..
Its gravity pulling the photons down to your eyes in the instance of the plane, but grom the boat they have to fight the pull of gravity the entire way and eventually sink to below your vision. Simple science really
@@basebutter I'll take that as sarcasm because a true flat Earther doesn't believe in gravity... :)
@@chrisantoniou4366 1000% sarcasm lol
Eric also ignores a thing called RADAR. All ships and airplanes equipped with radar have a limited range of sight, according to how high the radar device is located above the surface of the earth. There's a decided lack of mountains and trees in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so Eric can't use that argument for why a ship has a range of only 20 nautical miles.
It's because Eric is dumb
Yes. Also, any high school graduate can join the military electronics programs that teach radar. It's not like it is some hidden knowledge reserved for the elite or ultra privileged. I think it would be kind of hard to maintain a conspiracy of this magnitude with so many new working-class people every year finding that even long range radars can't see low-e contacts until they are only a few miles away.
Ships have their radar up high enough that the radar range is further than 20 miles.. i spent years at sea on a prawn trawler and even though it was a lot lower than a ship we had over 20 miles of radar range
@@markshort9098 ...right. But I think the point is that (depending on antennae position and transmission characteristics) radar range along the surface performs in tens of miles...but not hundreds of miles. Of course anything above the horizon and in line of sight is easily detectable from hundreds of miles away.
I laugh at such ignorance.
Radar is limited by its signal frequency and power output.
It can't see beyond those parameters not the Earth's shape.
Everyone keep in mind these flat earthers tend to think your vision is something that projects out of your eyes, not what light is passively received by your eyes. Leads to a good portion of wrong conclusions about many topics like apparent horizons, perspective, refraction, etc.
i find i consistently fascinating how many details of science have to be changed to make the earth flat every single part of science has to be rethought for it to be true nothin is untouched
I love how they understand perspective and vanishing points when discussing stuff like this, but oh my goodness, sun's rays through clouds, all knowledge of perspective and vanishing points go out the window!
I think they still understand, they just ignore it to avoide cognitive dissonance
Could be said also about you
@@tbrown3356 In what way?
No, they don't understand perspective at all. Why do boats hulls disappear first over the horizon? Flerfer "Duh, that's perspective". Ahh, no definition of real perspective includes that magical feature. Which is why it is called Flerspective when discussing flat earthers. They can't explain what we see using known characteristics, so they just make stuff up and pass it off as them "knowing" something which just is not true.
@@ItsJustMe0585 You don't understand perspective is the cause of the horizon but you believe it's real when seeing divergent light through clouds.
If anyone has told me when I was a young lady that there would be a large number of flat earthers on the internet I would have* laughed at them and told them not to be so daft!
*Well, firstly I would have asked them what on earth was the internet?
Same lady, same. Well, when I was a kid, I already knew about the internet but if anyone told me there were a large number if flat earthers here, I'd be completely sure they were pulling my leg.
The "Internet", Past-Selena, is a nasty device that allows people unfiltered access to mass-communication without the safeties of newspaper editors, radio and TV executives, and peer-reviewed scientific journals. So kooks end up saying anything they want to millions of people, which is not always good.
Yes, all that information at their fingertips and they latch onto idiots... sad!
Me too Selena. When we first got internet at the office it was a good thing. Now it is so full of false information that it has become question of freedom vs culling the obvious falsehoods.
When I was a Young Man, and discovered the Internet, there were no Pictures, or Vijeos.
One had to connect with protocols that only spoke Text and telephone tone codes.
And the negotoation "language" for getting online was named after my little green childhood Sesame Street hero.
I remember connecting Punch Card era programmers to their meal tickets....
I also would never have believed the Plague of Flerfers and their ilk would descend on NerdVanna....
Oakley, and QE love to scream and shout about that list of magical concepts. Their idea of a scientific explanation is truly astonishing.
On a clear day, if the Earth was flat, the horizon on the ocean would be indistinct and fuzzy to the naked eye. It would not be sharpened when viewing it through binoculars or a telescope. However, it's razor-sharp on a clear day, both to the eye, and through optical devices.
If the Earth were flat, then yes, the further away something is the harder it would be to see...but it would disappear _evenly_ over its entire height. If you were on a boat alongside a line of cliffs stretching away into the distance, everything at the cliff, from base to top, would grow indistinct at the same rate. Yet, in reality, the cliffs, as they get further way, start disappearing from the bottom up, even if the tops are still clearly visible.
I don't know about Everest, but you would definitely be able to see the Sun and Moon above the Flerf at all times.
Not true. The elevation angle of celestial objects drop 1° every 69.05 miles. So 69.05 × 90° = 6,214.5 miles for the sun, moon, and stars. That's how perspective reality works.
@@tbrown3356 that not how perspective works. That's just how you want it to work.
@@tbrown3356
How high are the sun, moon, planets, and stars above the flat earth?
I know you won’t answer, and deflect with some nonsense but it doesn’t matter. We can test your claim with a simple equinox.
On an equinox the sun is directly over the equator and everyone everywhere experiences roughly 12 hours of daylight.
If the 1 nautical mile per degree of elevation change is accurate on a flat earth, the equator must be circle centered on the GP of Polaris (call this point P) and have a radius of 5400 nmi.
Point A is the GP of the sun at noon. Point B is the GP of the sun at sunset/6PM.
At sunset the GP of the sun should be 5400 nmi from an observer described by line AB and yet the triangle over a flat earth formed by APB is an isosceles right triangle with two sides of 5400, third side cannot be 5400nmi.
The distance could only be 5400nmi when the angle formed by APB is 60 degrees. So at 4PM..
@@tbrown3356 You keep forgetting how Polaris would need to be in a infinite number of places simultaneously for that to work on FE. Or there to be an infinite number of polarises.
As an aside, what on earth has happened to Oakley's viewing figures? They've halved recently.
I thought you might be able to explain, you being a fanboy/sock.
@@tbrown3356 No, that is how a curved earth works.
All you need to do to debunk what you just said is a piece of paper, a ruler and a protractor. Draw out the relationship you just described on a flat baseline. And then, just for giggles try it on a circle.
Oh. Dear. The circle works and the flat one fails completely.
But, I won't be surprized if you don't understand what I am even talking about. Right?
They still can't adequately explain why I can't see the bright bloody sun at midnight xD
I was trying to argue with a flerf where this "midnight Sun still in the sky North somewhere" was? The Sun is a magnitude -26.75 star. First magnitude stars are the brightest, then second magnitude, then third, and the lowest magnitude of star you can see is +6.5. But the Sun is a blindingly bright star which is 33 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE brighter than the faintest star you can see, each magnitude being a power of 10. What possible atmospheric and distance effects can dim the Sun by 33 orders of magnitude so we can't see the Sun at night?? None, that's what! I think their best explanation was a "magic lampshade" that limited the Sun's light along a wavy border on the Earth that exactly corresponds to half the world on the Round Earth, but whose border constantly changes with the seasons. Such a lampshade has to absorb all that radiation and would get so hot it would cook our atmosphere and everybody in it! What's it made of? What holds it up and makes it move with the Sun and change shape just right? I'm guessing Flat Earther Wish Energy and that's all!
@@Dracopol Careful mixing up apparent magnitude with absolute magnitude. The Sun is bright because it's close. But the Sun is only a moderately bright star.
I recall someone made a 10'000$ challenge saying all the Flat Earth people has to do is create a model that explain a Sunset that is consistent with the real world.
From what I remember, nobody managed to win the price as there are no possible Flat Earth model capable of that.
There is a current related challenge - to calculate your location with a sextant using only flat earth calculations - see MC Toon.
@@John.0z McToon proved flat earth with his challenge. He used elevation angle measurements which require a horizontal plane (flat earth).
Mctoon meltdown
ua-cam.com/video/lOywhSmP0hI/v-deo.html
Models don't explain reality, they can only give a correction description or incorrect description of an observation. Perspective is reality. We have plenty of videos, drawings, classes teaching and showing perspective. The sun never actually drops, but appears to because of perspective. The horizon is not a physical geometric earth curve edge for the sun to go over. The horizon is the result of perspective making it look like the sky and surface converge.
@@tbrown3356
Models are made to describe an observation.
But the point about the Sunset is to give a description that is accurate enough to create a Model that can approximate the real world very well.
From what I understand, no such model of the Flat Earth has ever been done.
I heard a lot of excuses about perspective
But As a Mechanical Drafter myself who work with perspective all the time, I don't see the problem they seems to talk about.
I see many more problems
For instance, if the Sun goes so far away it can't be seen when it's close to the horizon,
Then why does it remain the same overall size throughout the day?
Perspective should make it appear smaller when it gets far away and bigger when it's closer
@@tbrown3356
Flat earthers need to *GROW UP!*
Hey, don't be upset, Stick! Sure, those guys can make multiple videos a week, but they _have_ to do that to maintain their dwindling subscriber base, whereas you keep us all happy by just being yourself. You rock, mate!
Dwindling rapidly due to natural selection, most likely...!
What are you talking about? All the credible flat earth videos get deleted or knocked way down in the search results. All the global idiots like n.d.Tyson are first with his pear shape earth theory. Lol
"And can be zoomed into incredible detail" - shows a video of an out of focus Venus and an out of focus video of Vega
Why is it whenever I see something about "Flat Earth" I can't help but get the feeling it's just one big trolling movement. It's like whenever science demonstrates whatever ridiculous claim they make is bunk, they come up with something even more ridiculous in response.
Well the modern rebirth of the flat earth movement did start off as a big troll with The Flat Earth Society in the sixties, people didn't get the joke and here we are. It was popular with people that dug Situationism and Discordianism.
But it's not a troll... it's perhaps a few conmen at the top, and a bunch of people that the (primarily U.S.) education system has utterly failed
@@paintedporches Supposedly "Christians Against Dinosaurs" began as a joke making fun of creationists. The idea is now taken seriously by some creationist UA-camrs. Here's an interview with a young woman who fell for the joke:
ua-cam.com/video/72M-f4BhCGQ/v-deo.html
No disrespect to religion but I feel the same for religion, prob because I didn't learn about it before being an adult.
@@kallmannkallmann yep, religion is SURREAL to me, a born atheist
5:08 That is hilarious. I do astrophotography. We are seeing a recording of out of focus Venus and Vega
Professor Stick is a better name than Lord Stick. A title you earned is always nicer than ones you get from owning a chunk of land.
But lord does sound badass you gotta admit
It's a grift, and I'm sorry to see Stick promoting such things.
It is real however its Laird stick not Lord stick.
General Stick sounds the most impressive.
@@lusoverse8710 It's a novelty, an amusement. The title confers no other benefits, and (here's the important bit) they don't pretend it does. It is no different a "grift" than a souvenir shop.
Sadly, with the "lord" or "lady" title, it does not actually come with an OFFICIAL title that you can actually use anywhere in the UK. Heh. It's really just a neat novelty.
Yes and the website is absolute shit, looks so much like a dropshipping scam, idiotic countdown, 10s of special offers and false reviews. I do not know why someone in its right mind would do it as it clearly lessen the trust I have in the following argumentation.
@@Tsukiru They still plant trees tho
It is a scam, not a novelty.
@@blakebell8533 that could be a scam too
@@anandsuralkar2947 Exactly, a lot of these companies claiming to plant trees 'plant' saplings in an area where they can't survive and don't maintain them.
And how they use an out-of-focus image of Venus (@ 5:00) to show how "you can use a telescope or camera.... show that the planets are not that far away and can be zoomed into incredible detail." Detail from a horribly out of focused imaged image of Vega? hmmmm....
To be honest, I don't notice when content creators "miss' uploads. Actually, some people I subscribe to post everyday or every other day and it feels overwhelming. So don't worry about missing weeks.
The Mount Everest example is just a hypothetical. Most people realize that your line of sight to Mt. Everest is probably obscured as well as atmospheric factors will hinder you in reality. But with a good enough telescope we can see good detail on the moon which is orders of magnitude farther away than Mt. Everest. It is a very easy to understand hypothetical as to why the Earth cannot be flat.
The moon is way up in the sky and has a wide visual angle to it. When it's elevation angle drops as it moves far enough away from you, you can no longer see it either. It's just perspective. You have a 90° visual field. As things move away from you they appear to drop their elevation angle. They are not actually dropping from the sky. Lol.
I use a simpler example that 'Murican Flat Earthers can understand. Why can't you see the Rocky Mountains from Kansas, 700 miles away? Kansas is flat as a pancake. Go to a high building in Kansas and look for the Rockies, which are 3 miles high. 3 miles high, 700 miles away makes a width from the base of the Earth of about 0.25°, half the width of the Sun or Moon. You should see these mountains in the distance. So where are they?
@@tbrown3356 What?
@@page8301 A star directly above you is at your 90°. As you or the star travels away the star drops it's elevation angle 1° every 60nm. The star doesn't actually drop, it's just your perspective.
@@tbrown3356
Flat earthers need to *GROW UP!*
As an 8 year old I too thought my vision emanated from my eyes outward. When I later read about how light causes vision it made perfect sense and I dropped the childish notion. As a child I also could not understand how water could "flow uphill" south to north if the earth were spherical. A bit of education goes a long way, folks. You have to be willing to learn.
@@toddboyce3599i see how you can read it to think I believed the earth to not be spherical but thats not the meaning. My confusion was not understanding gravitys effect on water flow, not the earth shape. I should've worded it better.
did the guy just claim the earth is flat because stars appear closer when using a telescope?
It's even worse. He just looks at out of focus images of stars...
I wonder how he explains the workings of an equatorial mount? 😂
@@chrisantoniou4366 No flerf never ever did. They darn well know why...
If the Earth were flat, I should be able to see at least one mountain from North Florida. When I lived in Portland Oregon, I could barely see Mt Hood from my 4th floor apartment, and it was only about 50 miles or so away. Earth ain't flat.
Regarding Eric's claims about the distance of the stars, his footage was likely taken from a P900, or a similar camera, and is based on the idea that a camera is all you need to observe the 'luminaries.' They seem to refuse the idea of using the proper tools for the job, namely telescopes, because they think that 'the man' has somehow modified each and every telescope to only show the images they want us to see.
At this point, this ridiculous idea has been dismantled so many times that I can only conclude that Eric is lying through his teeth about this, because none of it is true.
Eric is making money off of deluded and undereducated rubes. That's why he continues his con. If he could make decent change by promoting his neo-Nazi ideas, he'd drop flat Earth in a New York second.
If the Earth was flat there wouldn't even be any horizon, just an eternal blue-gray haze between ground and sky way off in the distance.
Also, flat-earthers always demand "Show us the curve". To this I say: "Show us the bend". Because if Earth is a disk with the North pole in it's center, shouldn't all roads running straight East bend slightly to the left?
5:01 Remember, fellow Hannah Reloaded watchers! If this video comes up we get a "doesn't understand how cameras work".
Printed out NFTs of Scotland. What an innovative idea.
so the stars I see at the horizon are closer to me than any mountain around, because the mountains are too far and are obscured by the air, but the stars aren't?
The existence of a perceivable horizon on the ocean is a refutation of flat Earth. The theoretical horizon on a flat surface should be infinitely far, so atmospheric effects should obscure it completely. The ocean's surface should fade into the sky with no distinct boundary. It's only because the curvature brings that boundary to a finite distance that it's often visibly distinct (depending on atmospheric conditions at the time).
The horizon is not theoretical. If you have eyes then you can see the horizon (apparent line where the sky appears to meet the surface). The horizon is not a physical geometric earth curve edge for boats and mountains to fall over. It's caused by perspective.
@@tbrown3356 Perspective means that closer objects look larger than farther objects, and that closer objects will obscure farther objects.
On a "flat" surface, how does this produce a distinct horizon?
@@tbrown3356 just because you don't understand perspective it doesn't make the earth flat. Can you explain spherical excess in triangulation networks?
@@bitcores Perspective is also the sky appearing to drop and the ground appearing to rise until meeting at an apparent line called the horizon.
@@b0b5m1th No you can explain your own arguments.
I interviewed a group of flat earthers once and asked this question. Their only answer was "Perspective" and told me to set a pen on the table and move my head up and down. Wasn't very convincing, but I wanted to continue with the interview so I said "yes this makes sense."
They were very nice people, I could tell they really believed in what they were talking about.
If the earth is flat, we'd be able to walk to the moon. I feel like flat earthers are secretly laughing knowing it's just one big running gag that's been going on for quite a while. But nope, flat earthers are just people who have flat personalities and flat brains.
@@Synthis_Bioji The 2/3 people I talked to were incredibly nice, even though I made it clear I was not a flat-earther. I just think it's a failure of the education system and the allure of being involved in a conspiracy.
What if we just throw em' all into a cannon and use them as cannon fodder, if they go flying into the distant horizons afar, that'd definitely prove that the earth ISN'T flat, because it isn't.
@@RRDino I see.
Zooms in on star with telescope. "Wow look how close that star is". Yeah, that's how zooming in works. You zoom in and make it look closer than it really is
Lord Professor Stick has graced us with his presense! All hail Lord Professor Stick!
On a flat earth, radio communications, like mobile phones, would be impossible because hundreds of millions of transceivers would create an immense level of noise. The only thing stopping that is the curvature. In fact on long range radio links, beyond about 50 km, it has to be taken into account as the curvature would intrude into the area known as the fresnel zone. Hence towers that sometimes have to be 100 meters high AGL, way above any obstructions. Flat earther blissfully uses his phone to rewatch his nonsense though.
I saw a Flater ask "If we have Satellite, why does my Cellphone go out of signal?"
The best answer I saw was "Because it's a cell phone, not a satellite phone."
Which they probably should have known, my phone gives up trying to find me far sooner than my Satnav ever has.
Great point, Shant Kay, that I'd not thought of.
The response from a flat brainer would simply be that companies lie about the transmission power output. In reality it's much less, so interferences is not a thing.
How did I do as a fleather?
Obviously now NASA's payroll got much bigger (it's already quite big with all the civil engineers and land surveyors), but it does not matter, because NASA for sure has at least a bajillion dollars available.
Imagine a flerfer uploading a video on YT via Starlink.
The horizon is a consequence of curvature.
You have any evidence for that claim?
As a fun experiment I would love to see Stick doing a fun video of real scientifically proving flat earth theory. Just for fun.
One acre can fit enough 1x1 plots were it can pull in over 2 million dollars at the price establishedtitles sells the plots for!
Thanks for my Sunday morning Stick. What about the sun? Why can't we always see the sun with a telescope? It's always putting out enough light to illuminate half the disc. Where is my sun? Thanks for another great vid.
It's Saturday though
@@Heliocentric time travel is real. That or time zones.
@@Heliocentric Nope. Sunday in Australia, aka Oz to locals.
>> Tom's Ukrainian/American wife Pam
yeah the atmosphere would still block view on a flat earth
it would be still completely different than what we actually see in the real world
nothing would be hidden bottom first, the distance you see will have little to nothing to do with the height you are
and a blueish tint would appear on everything gradually as they move away, before getting completely out of view
so everything we see in the real world, is completely opposite to what we would se in a flat earth
dubay only pretends something have other explanations or are not real, even when those things are actually measurable, like distance to stars
Not to mention the apparent motion and direction of the stars and the existence of two celestial poles corresponding to the two geographical poles...
@@chrisantoniou4366 yeah, i was just trying to keep it on topic, if i wrote everything that is impossible on a flat earth, it would be an essay of 10k words for sure
@@naruarthur That's why I said "not to mention"... I think that if you were to set out all the things that are impossible on a flat Earth you would only be scratching the surface with 10k words. Probably the only thing possible if the Earth was indeed flat would be that all the flat Earthers would then be globe Earthers! 😂
@@chrisantoniou4366 agreed with that ending, they are so stupid that if earth was actually flat, they would be the ones not believing in it
Dubay takes extreme and straw-man examples to avoid having to explain the more mundane ones, like: why can't I see the mountain that's only 50 km away, but I can still see the sun which is at least a few thousand km away (according to flerfs)?
It's a basic con-artists tactic, design to appeal and to seem to make sense to the intellectually challenged and vulnerable.
Its even easier to argue with that: The higher in elevation u go, the farther u can see. That makes no sense in terms of lets call this "atmospheric sight blocking" as the distance to an object u can see from that high elevation increases, as u climb up. If it would really be an atmospheric effect, u would decrease the range u can see by invresing elevation.
I love how flat earthers can't fathom how we know how far telescopes can see.
If the Earth were flat, then whatever is producing gravity would still be working on light too, causing light to bend downwards. Because we perceive light as straight lines, this would give the Earth the appearance of being hollow with us on the inside, curving up instead of being flat or globular.
Do you have a scientific hypothesis (independent and dependent variable) for an experiment proving gravity?
@@tbrown3356 The Cavendish experiment was the first to measure the force of gravity between masses, but not necessarily the first to measure the Gravitational constant.
A scientific hypothesis is a guess
@@agimasoschandir What was the Dependent variable (effect observed in nature) and independent variable (assumed cause of the effect observed in nature) for Cavendish "experiment "? A scientific hypothesis is a statement of cause and effect. You must have a viable scientific hypothesis before conducting an experiment.
@@tbrown3356 I don't think I have to prove gravity... but sure, yeah. Take a #2 pencil and hold it 3 feet off of the ground. When you release your grip on the pencil 3 feet in the air (dependent variable) I predict it will fall towards the center of the earth (independent variable). It'll be stopped by the ground, but still. Based on countless calculations and experiments done prior, I predict it'd take roughly three tenths of a second to reach the ground and clatter against it (also the independent variable).
The reason this is not a very useful experiment is because flat-earthers claim (foolishly) "but buoyancy! We can explain any phenomenon just as well as gravity can, with buoyancy! Everything seeks its level!"
Which is just a smidgen more difficult to disprove than simply demonstrating that things fall towards the center of the earth at a rate of 9.81m/s². I do, however, have an experiment which can positively disprove "buoyancy" as an explanatory force. I'll manipulate buoyancy with my superior knowledge of its true nature to create a scenario in which heavier things do not fall "down", and lighter things do not fall "up".
Take a glass of water, or, if you're afraid it'll break, a plastic bottle. Fill it with mixed sediments, those which will sort out if you shake up the bottle and then set it on your kitchen counter for, say, 5 minutes.
Tie a string around the bottle's little neck flare, or somehow constrain the glass of water to the string. Be sure that if you dangle the glass or plastic by the string that it'll stay right-side up.
Now, with your sediment-filled water container, swing it horizontally on the string. You should have a lot of stamina, because the experiment will require you to keep this up for, say, 5 minutes. After the 5 (or 10 or 20) minutes of swinging the water container, you can allow it to spin down and you can retrieve the water container. Observe the results.
What I predict is that, barring some stirring caused by spinning down the water glass or bottle, the sediments have hydrologically sorted exactly the way they would've if you had left it, upright, on the table for that amount of time.
If that is the result of the experiment, I will have demonstrated that buoyancy depends on an exterior force, and is not, itself, a force. Buoyancy is a product of gravity, which is a force. You can produce your own buoyancy if you can apply a force to a system, as the above experiment aims to demonstrate.
@@tbrown3356 also... that's not what dependent or independent variables are. An independent variable is some parameter which you, the scientist or whatever, have control over, and is independent of other parameters involved in the experiment. A dependent variable is a parameter whose value is proposed to be dependent on the independent variable. Determining whether or not this relationship exists is usually the aim of a scientific experiment.
In the Cavendish Experiment, the independent variables were the distance between the objects that were suspended, and the mass of the suspended objects. The dependent variable is the distance traveled by the objects, or the force observed between the objects. The Cavendish Experiment was successful in measuring the gravitational constant, yes. And it definitely did prove that gravity does exist between masses.
Completely out of focus stars in Eric’s potato camera can look like the psychedelic shapes he deceitfully shown again and again. Flerfs can’t use a telescope… (or they just won’t because it will break their narrative) #You’ve got to lie to flerf!
Even with color and particle interference from the atmosphere, distant objects like Mount Everest would fade away and become hazy as you drew further away, instead, distant objects disappear below the horizon because the Earth has curvature.
I have a Flat Earther as a Facebook friend. (Please don't ask)
She posts stuff and I often ignore it, but recently a friend of her's asked a question.
"If the Earth is round, why does Greenland get 24 hour Sun?"
Me, as a non-scientist/astronomer (But enjoy thinking about it a lot) suggested this;
"The Earth is tilted. For around half the year, the northern half of the planet is leaning towards the Sun, thus giving them more sunlight. For the other half of the year, they should be in 24-hour darkness since the angle the Earth is leaning towards doesn't change as it orbits around the Sun."
So eh... Did I get anything wrong?
i believe you are correct from my vague memory of science class
Eric claims the limit is 3km ish, but conveniently leaves out the fact we can see much further than that for tall objects such as buildings or mountains. We can see their tops from much further due to their height.
must be due to his low render distance with his limited brain capability
GPU is expensive man.
@@woundedone there seems to be a correlation with rising gpu prices and rising tinfoil 4heads
Anyone using this exact argument with a Flat Earther is equally as dumb, but I suppose Flat Earthers need to tackle arguments they can handle.
I especially liked zooming in on Venus and stars to show the camera wasn't in focus. 100/10, great photography. Yes, you do have to focus properly on stars despite the distance, and you don't just turn the focus ring all the way to the "inf" side as there is usually some over travel. And that's not even considering the fact that the focal point changes as you zoom.
Flat Earthers continue to display astounding incompetence with the equipment they use.
All except Bob knodel and his gyroscope
@@badron8846 Especially Bob Knodel and his gyroscope, because despite it working properly he's trying to make it not work properly.
@@bitcores I'll concede to that. I didn't think of it that way
Forget everest, show me the effin' sun at midnight, from New York City.
9:20 Only 300 miles away, and we still can't see that far.
I never had any interaction with the flatearthers I'm just better than them.
I do occasionally engage with them but I have to stop. I lose brain cells just listening to their rubbish and complete lack of logic.
Lord Stick hath spoken!
I love how "incredible detail" basically means 'out of focus'.
5:35 He's looking at those objects with a P1000 that's comically out of focus and thinks that weird blurry thing is the actual appearance. He's then assuming that because it looks so big it must be close.
Perfect flat Earth logic!
I love your videos! I feel like there's a really strong ecosystem of science communicators on UA-cam now so don't feel stressed if you can't upload sometimes, you're not in this alone!
Thank you so much for the work you do here, it's really important to counter the bullshit 💜
Missed you. Good to see you’re back.
I absolutely love your tendency to discard the rest of these peoples 'evidence' once you hit ten minutes. Like theyve taken up enough of your time, and ours
Professor Stick, oh, Lord Stick, excuse me. And they plant trees! Oh, and not being able to upload daily? That just makes each video more valuable! 👍🥰💖✌
Oh thank you Lord Stick, with gracing us with your videos...
Horizon debunks flat earth. Flat earthers just can't figure that out.
An apparent line where the sky appears to meet the surface is perspective. That doesn't debunk the ground being observable, measurable, and navigatable flat.
@@tbrown3356 Yes it does. The horizon is the effect of curvature. Case closed.
@@eminence_front6043 So you don't believe in perspective reality? Just going to pretend that the horizon is a physical geometric earth curve edge?
@@tbrown3356 Please tell me the formula to calculate perspective.
@@tbrown3356 No on said the horizon is geometrical... except you
My closer example is Pike's Peak. It should be visible on a clear day from a hill in western Kansas, such as Mt Sunflower, but it isn't.
As some one who has spent a lot of time at the top of Mauna Kea … 15,000 ft above sea level… IF the earth were flat, the shadow mt Everest would cast a KILLER shadow. You can’t see the mountain but you would see the shadow.
But the fun part is that from here I can actually look into the direction Mt. Everest would be on a flat earth, and the horizon in that direction is a tad lower than eye level. And: Around this time the sun is rising exactly there. So, if I don't see the silhouette of Mt. Everest it means that the sun is on front of it, and thus less than 8 km high.
lol.
"Sun is on front of it"? What is your malfunction?
@@tbrown3356 If the sun were behind Mt. Everest, I'd see the silhouette of it in front of the sun, just as I do with the cooling towers of the power plant over there. Besides, even when the sun _was_ behind Mt. Everest and we just don't see the latter for some reason, the sun would still be at most 24 km high. (Not to mention the fact that the sun is completeley below eye level when it begins to rise there.)
@@tbrown3356
Flat earthers need to *GROW UP!*
@@flatearthphysics1921 The sun is above Mt. Everest always. Just perspective.
Quality and accuracy require time.
We appreciate your efforts.
Oh god. I'm getting vague memories of a British man that loves Yorkshire tea gold and has a beautiful accent taking advantage of a particular website to get obscene amounts of free land from Scotland.
Why do flerfs think that out of focus images of stars and planets are allowing them to see detail? Oh, yeah, the "think" part doesn't work.
It is truly unfortunate that my favorite UA-camrs like SciMan Dan and Professor Stick have to resort to choosing scams for sponsors that resemble star registries, in order to make a living on UA-cam while UA-cam keeps most of the revenue from the ads that constantly interrupt their videos.
Gotta lie to flerf... 😜
Funny, I also thought of Mt. Washington, NH as an example. As well as Mt. Whitney, California. Have someone on one mountain aim the brightest strobe light at the other, where someone with a telescope is waiting. On a moonless night you'd think it should be seen even through clouds? Unless the Earth is round of course.
Lord Stick, that was an excellent transition.
The segway to the sponsor was amazing, but the section was too long. Still, I'm happy that you got sponsored
You can skip past the ads. Who complains about ads these days.
The word is spelled "segue". The wheeled conveyance is called Segway (brand).
I came up with a video clearly demonstrating a south celestial pole by showing the stars and milky way rotating around it. Flerfs either try to quickly change the subject to other flat earth nonsense, or blocks me for it, or both lmao
I already own a section of land and title from them. I'm now so far up myself I've vanished to peoples sight and I've even lost my reflection, that may have something to do with a vampire biting me on the neck recently, or was that just a mosquito, hmmm.
EDIT: Woo hoo, the name change has even set in lol.
Oh my gosh they can zoom their cameras in on stars and make the focus all crazy to reveal the secret details of them go flatards
I see a pulsing star a lot, and at a certain time of night it's right there, waiting for me to gaze upon it.
Lord Stick, while the atmosphere would get in the way from a long distance, for those closer they would see it. Now, those close enough to see it could do the following experiment: While traveling away from Everest, on a flat earth, Mt. Everest would not have its lower parts disappear under the horizon, it would simple become smaller, due to increase distance, and become fainter, due to atmosphere.
In the flat earth model, things must be vissible at least 1/4 the way across the earth since a small and local sun must be vissible from 1/2 the earth at any given time.
If you can't see Mt Everest from say the ice wall which is a known distance according flatearthers.than a tight radar signal should easily find Mt Everest as radar can also bounce off the troposphere as it does on globe 🌎.
Lord Stick destroys flat-earthers, again.
So from another tall mountain where the air is more clear, we should be able to see the mountain.
I have always known the Earth is no flat, but seeing the YT context warning saying "The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk" makes me question this notion. LOL
Ok. That was a hilarious sponsor ad transition
I have an experiment for flat earthers to try. Send a weather balloon up with a 360° camera from the north pole. Since the north pole is supposed to be in the center of the plane and should be under the tallest part of the dome.... according to the flat earth theory, we should be able to see past the equator.
The only words you need to hear are:
"a 15' per hour drift"
Thanks Bob 🤣🤣
Good to have you back, your Lordship!
Looking due South from the Aleutian Islands, there is nothing but ocean and a grand total of 0 obstructing view... yet nobody can see the Southern Cross. RIP Flattardia.
Thanks for the video Lord Stick! I think the UA-cam grind is somewhat an illusion. I think quality is always more valuable than quantity. Keep doing you!
At least the absolute necessity of the grind, not that the grind itself doesn't exist
The thing about established titles ads- they never actually tell you if you can use your lane
5:34 It's based on that he thinks he sees details, while he confuses zoom with focus.
"I zoom in on star it get bigger, this means it close!" - a very intelligent person - 2022
1 million flerfity-gawd points if you counted how many times Poe Dubay said "furthermore" 🤣
Bonus points for whoever was put to sleep the most by his droning voice... 🤭
With binoculars you can see clearly Jupiter and the galilean moons; and if you repeat your observation several days you can see how they move. So his mocking of Galileo's telescope is just another example of his despise of science and scientists.
Dogma doesn't do well when technology gets past "maybe this soap thing is worth a go".
Professor Stick: Why, hello there.
Me, a man of culture: General Professor Stick....
And if they complain that they can't see it because distortion, use radio wave, bounce radar signal out of mount Everest, after all air is pretty much transparent for most of radio waves wavelength
He put a star out of focus and called it "zooming in". I kinda feel bad for his lack of education. Poor flat-earther.
If a large telescope was built at the top of Mount Everest & another on the top of Mount Chimborazo so most of the atmospheric distortions, dust, haze, fog etc would be eliminated from the line of sight, those telescopes still wouldn't be able to see each other. BECAUSE THE EARTH IS A GLOBE.
BUT if the earth was flat, they should be able to.
Flat earth believers should test this out.
Well a known distance on any "earth model" is from the North Pole to the Tropic of Cancer, about 7400km in total. Now given that when "the sun" is over the Tropic of Cancer there is 24-hour sunshine at the North Pole, it is logical to deduce that we must be able to see up to that distance at minimum.
You can't see Cedar Rapids, Iowa, from Iowa CIty, Iowa (both have fairly tall buildings - the 15-story Hotel Chauncey in iowa City, and the 21-story Alliant Energy Tower in Cedar Rapids) - a distance of only 44km.
Eric DUMBay, totally earned name.
Flat Earthers can never explain why from Calais you can see the White Cliffs of Dover but never Dove Harbour. Now why would that be??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
Hmm. I might need to purchase a lordship for my father. His lineage comes from Scotland and he loves all things Scottish. I wonder if his lordship would pass to me upon his demise?