Flat Earther Nathan Oakley Tries To Call Me Out, But Gets Everything Wrong
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 03. 2022
- Nathan Oakley did a stream where he put me in the thumbnail, in that stream he quotes me, and calls me out, but he really hasn't looked into the things that he's talking about
Dip Correction Tables:
www.siranah.de/manuals/Table_...
astronavigationdemystified.co...
$50 Patrons:
Hugh Jarsz
M.C.Nutkin
SHaKie
$20 Patrons:
Wolfie
Morrie
Graymore Ghost
KidVicious
Sacha Campbell
$10 Patrons:
What Jesus
Jane Spade
FTFE
MCToon
CMDR Dark Light
Richard Wilkin
Chuck Floyd
Steven De Bock
FactorOfTwo
$5 Patrons:
Simon D.
Betsy Klein
Draconae
Nowpinion
Richard Chapman
Unexpected Cavemen
Stephen Litten
Steve Aldridge
Breezeblock
Scott H
William Foley
Felicity Ellis
KilianP
Steve Plegge
Tomasz Badach
Gerard O'Reilly
ReGi0s
Toby Inkster
Stewart Chant
Chris Holmes
David Rintoul
Join my discord ► / discord
Support me on Patreon ► / planarwalk
Become a Member ► / @planarwalk
Subscribe ► / planarwalk
Follow me on twitter ► / planarwalk
Like my Facebook page ► / planarwalk
Nathan's debate style is that of a 12-year-old school bully.
He has no evidence. All he has is insult, denial and talking over other people.
And he steals your homework, which he doesn't understand so he throws it in a puddle and tramples on it.
He is not even a bully. He is the kid that pisses his pants and then tells his imaginary friends how stupid everyone else is and how awesome he is while sitting in a puddle of urine.
He doesn’t debate. You can’t debate someone if you never let your opponent finish a statement.
Just want you to know, all any fallacy does is give you a point of attack against an argument. IT DOES NOT refute anything on it’s own. You still need to provide an solid argument against it. He is pathetic.
12? You give him too much credit...
@@tjjones621 8
I still think my favourite Oakley argument is that since observable reality only works if the Earth is a globe, you can't use observable reality as proof of the globe because it's a begging the question fallacy.
That is amazing ahah
@@JavardoMusic Oakley has a poll up on his community page about globe being based on flat earth angles. Since no options said it is globe, I asked him, "ren't you begging the question and pre-supposing flat earth?"
His reply:
NathanOakley1980: 2 days ago
"No, elevation angle measurement proves earth is flat.
You can’t get an elevation angle measurement from a globe."
What an ignoramous, but I love that agrument...
@@kypdr According to his logic, a sextant couldn't work on a hill. He banned me when I pointed it out to him.
@@primonomeultimonome Given how vociferous the FE community is on the subject of censorship it's notable how quick they are to block any uncomfortable observation as "trolling". It very much puts the lie to their claims of wanting to learn.
Isn’t that how that how god was disproved in the Hitchhiker’s Guide books? Since the Bablefish (language translater) was too useful to occur naturally it was proof god doesn’t exist since god will never fully prove his existence, that would deny faith, the fish is proof god doesn’t exist.Clearly we are in rare genus territory here, is Nathan Oakley is here to replace the sadly gone Douglas Addams for fans of absurdist literature?
The thing that Nathan is banking on is that by calling you out and you responding, he thinks that your viewers are then watching his show for his response. However, most of your viewers will just wait for you to show us what his response is.
Exactly this
yeah, exactly... I've been following various debunkers for years now, and I've never been tempted enough to go to flerfs channel for my self. I'm 100% ok with just watching these guys and I don't even care what the other side have on theirs channels.
@@zubich The only channel I subbed to is “CC here, Chris“. The reason I don’t watch guys like Nathan or QE is because you know what you’re going to get. If you can make a Bingo card and get 4+ Bingos day after day after day you’re going to ask yourself why you continue watching.
CC, however, is a mad lad. Like one day before Russia started to invade the Ukraine he said that there is no chance for any war, because everyone is in on it. Then 3 days after he blames Biden and the gas prices for the war. There is no way I know whether I’m getting a Bingo on that nonsense
I totally agree, so what I do is go to the channels he calls out, then watch & like as many videos as I can.
In the past, I have watched at a couple of Jokely's videos out of curiosity.... but no more; I simply can't tolerate the festering & arrogant stupidity on display in his videos, or his comment sections.... hell, I'd rather give myself a paper cut & pour lemon juice over it!
Nathan is desperate for some attention, he tried using his kids and now he's using everyone that's proved he's a liar and fraud.
I have to laugh at "presupposed spherical earth". No. As flat earthers consistently explain, we all started with "looks flat to me". The sphere only came about after that default position was repeatedly falsified.
Atheists are so scattered,
so i cant help but recommend some good Atheist-Channel on Random.
Know Viced Rhino, Hbomberguy and Belief It Or Not?
*_As flat earthers consistently explain, we all started with "looks flat to me"._*
The flat earthers are wrong with that as well. Most people don't care about the shape of the earth. Only when you start to care about the shape of the earth do you start to make hypothesis about whether it is flat, round, donut shaped or whatever. Flat is a presupposition because to begin with everyone is agnostic about the shape of the earth.
@@Tsudico I mean, a Flat Earth is basically the default assumption if you do not care about the shape of the earth.
@@WhiteThunder121 Why would flat be the default? Any hill, mountain, valley, or canyon among other topographical features would not indicate flat as a default state. No, the default is, "I don't care nor need to know."
@@nenmaster5218 don't forget Aron Ra
11:20 this is called integrity you made a mistake but instead of hiding it you showed it admitting your mistake. something that these flat earthers can't seem to do
To be fair given the number of mistakes flat Earthers make correcting them would be a full time job.
Man, if they have difficulty with negative numbers then imaginary/complex numbers are going to blow their (presupposed) minds.
Oakley can't convert meters to kilometres!
@@dogwalker666 "why would you divide... " Oakley
Might have laughed a little hard at this...
@@kypdr still makes me laugh.
@@dogwalker666 Oakley is a very... special individual, isn't he?
I like how his channel is called "Brian's Logic", cuz everything out of his mouth is definitely his logic and not actual logic.
Yep, but we all know he's missing one word in between that I've on occasion used.... Brian's 'Failed ' Logic.
Let's be honest if you want to wear your failure in life on your sleeve then FE welcomes you with open arms XD
Nathan mass debates his friends on a daily basis!
With all his presupposed debates, he's got to be a master by now..
I think you have it backwards. His friends do mass debates on him. He prefers to receive rather than to give....attention.
How can he mass debate when mAsS is not real? just like “sCiEnCe”
Smooth👍
How cute of you all too assume that guy has friends
Dude I find it so funny that in explaining why negative numbers can't be done they demonstrate how negative number are interpreted when applying math. "They can't have this here because...*negative*." "Well you just did it on paper before our very eyes, so that is what we mean by negative thanks"
I never understood the whole "we can't see the physical horizon" bit. Don't they realize that you only can only have a visual horizon if there is a physical horizon present? What the heck do they think is being refracted?
It's like watching a straw in a glass of water being refracted, only to argue that there is no actual straw because we can't see it directly. The mind boggles....
It's strange, if you ask them how a refracted horizon disproves the horizon they call you stupid and not able to use logic...
the horizon is an optical effect due to perspective that moves with the weather and camera lenses, it's not a fixed geometric sphere edge. you've got alot of catching up to do fundy.
@@sensualgoat3718
On a flat earth there would not even be a clearly distinguished horizon. Everything would just disappear into the distance.
Wait, so "physical horizon" as opposed to what, an imaginary horizon? It's not like an optical refraction makes the horizon any less physical.
Incorrect. Regardless of the shape of the surface, due to refraction there will be a visual horizon, although no actual horizon exists on, for example, a flat surface.
Can be quite easily understood from literature written by Andrew T. Young, for example. He's supposed to be the master of refraction in the realm of globetardia.
Oakley blocked me when I asked to come on his channel and requested his "evidence" for flat earth before hand. I didn't even get a reply, just blocked. Hilarious
Happens all the time with flattards and creationist channels but essentially they are both the same
Saved you some time and annoyance. You win. 👍
I'd love to see the look on angry Mr. Jokeley's face when he finally figures out that if the Earth was flat _there would not be a horizon_ .
he knows its not flat, the grift is just to avoid having a real job.
@@jase171973 Don't blame him. He's unemployable.
@@Jehannum2000 might be able to sweep the streets.
I want to know how I can't see this really huge ice wall that's supposed to be there. If it's that tall, surely I should see it.
I expect him to clip the part where your calculation isn't correct with the table you are using, and he'll be going "A ha! You see! It wasn't even right all along!"
and making sure he doesn't show the bit where it's still further away than the table says for not accounting for refraction.
@Planarwalk: Your deviation of the dip correction from the Almanac comes from the refraction coefficient used in the Almanac. The Almanac uses a refraction coefficient of k = 0.17 as calculated from standard atmospheric conditions at sea level, which yields a refracted radius of 6/5*R = 1.20*R rather than 7/6*R = 1.17*R.
The refraction coefficient that leads to 7/6*R is k = 0.143, which is used in geodesy where they measure over land rather than water. Over water refraction is commonly slightly stronger than over land. This is taken into account in the Almanac by using 6/5*R for the refracted radius of the earth.
Almanac also has a correction table for dip in nonstandard conditions.
The other guy in the thumbnail at 0:35 is me!! Literally a couple of weeks into my recovery from leukemia in early 2017. I wonder why Nathan chose that one rather than the dozens of other appearances I make on camera? 🤔🤔
Pro tip: never waste your energy on a flat earther. Just smile and move along.
Yeah, just waste a bullet😜
Nathan is so wrong about everything….no wonder he’s always angry!
These bloody globe earth sailors who think the Earth is round, and navigate in great circles, It's not like they ever actually get anywhere around the world 😀
Ps Still waiting to meet a FE Navigator, Nathan
When we said "you can not see such a small angle" we talk about seeing or noticing it with the naked eye. Just like we say you can not see the curve when looking at the horizon because the curve is tiny. In an actual image when you use a straight edge you can actually see the slight curve, given your observer height is high enough, when comparing it to an actual straight line. Many people have shown this. Any yes, we know that cameras and fisheye lenses can have distortions. However we specifically talk about images from cameras where the horizon line is below the center of the camera. Distortions are circular around the center of the camera. So a line above the center would be bent downwards at the far ends so it would increase a potential curve. However straight lines below the center would be bent upwards. You have seen this countless of times when an actual fisheye lense was in use. However we do have images from cameras in space which do not have such a lense and when looking at a horizon line that is below the center and it is still bent in the same direction, all arguments about lens distortions are out of the question.
When we talk about the angle to the horizon from a certain observer height, there is actually a slight dip that goes over 180°. So we indeed look slightly downwards by a fraction of a degree when we are off the ground. However the dip is so small that a human can not notice this dip with the naked eye. However having a telescope that has an integrated artificial horizon, you can actually observe the tiny difference which gets larger as you go up in altitude. Though even at a relatively high altitude (say crusing altitude of an airplane), the dip is tiny, but still there.
Though the misconception of Nathen goes much deeper here. First of all we do not live on a 2d circle but on a sphere. Also we don't stand at the exact top of the sphere. Since the earth rotates, your angle to a certain celestial object changes with time depending on your location on earth. Yes, when you are at the geographic north or south pole, your view would not really change (at least not over the course of your lifetime). So yes, if you visit the geographic north and south pole and take a picture of the nightsky all around, you would notice that the stars close to the horizon look the same, just inverted as those you see on the other hemisphere. Also there's a slight overlap of what you can see. How large that overlap may be depends on your height above the earth and of course on the topological structure around you. Even though the earth is a sphere on a large scale, on a local scale you're dealing with local mountains or slight ups and downs in the terrain around you. So you usually don't see a clear horizon anyways.
Subtlety is lost on Nathan.
Which explains his "debate style" of angrily shouting into the void.
The part where the guy tries to explain the star is hilarious. If the star was the sun, he just proved a globe model. The viewpoint at the top is at sunset and the one on the left is at high noon. 🤦🏼♂️
The reason Oakley can’t find anyone to debate is because he won’t let anyone express an opinion that contradicts his own. Anyone who does gets muted, that’s not a debate, that’s censorship.
A number of people are calling for a boycott. If no one debates him on his channel then it dies a slow death. I don’t know why anyone would go on his channel, anyway. But there always seems to be someone willing to subject themselves to it. Needs a warning sign. Globers , stay away.
of course, most people don't debate established facts
Funny that Nathan used to use ‘diffraction’ to explain boats disappearing over the horizon, but doesn’t like it any more…
Certainly not since Catz asked him what diffraction was.
Edit: Thanks Bob.
@@A15degreeperhourdriftI recall the moment vaguely. Do you have a clip of it?
My morning coffee always tastes better with a video of nathan being humiliated in the background.
@@prof.cecilycogsworth3204 Sorry, not without searching through dozens of videos.
I know Ranty has a copy, he used it on one of his mockery jobs on Oakley/Sleepy.
Creating conflict via fake clout chasing. Looks like POEkley's channel is in trouble.
I'm surprised by just how much he's relentlessly insulting people. No one insults the other party if they want an open, honest debate.
Oakley knows we live on a globe, He is a fraudster. A Failed actor who scams people for a living.
My observation which made me know his knowledge id minute at best
I think the other mistake he's making is thinking that the diagram is to scale. A dip correction of 4.6 arc minutes is very small over the short distance (such as the radius of the earth compared to a person's height), and makes a difference only over long distances (the distance to stars). He needs to learn trigonometry. To give an approximate scale, a soccer ball viewed from about 756m is 1 deg side to side. That's already pretty small. 4.6 arc minutes if .0766... deg.
Yep, we can look slightly down from the poles, so over a really long distance, that makes a difference, but what these goons have overlooked, is that the Sun is much larger than the Earth, the Earth rotates, and the Earth's rotation is on a tilt,.... so all they have proven, is sometimes you can can see some stars near the horizon, and sometimes you can't. I think we all knew that. Plus we don't all live on the poles,... so there's that.
I think you mean 1 *arc minute* side to side. (For a soccer ball to subtend a whole degree, you'd need to view it from about 13m.)
@jmdyck You are correct. I mixed up my values. Still 4.6 arc minutes would be just over 4.5 soccerballs high at 756m. That's still pretty small at that range. For those not into metrics that's 4.5 soccer balls high at 2480 ft, or almost 1/2 mile.
He had 34 people on the live stream last night - at least 4 were globers hahaha
They just run through their daily agenda (housekeeping)
Then he asks everyone for money
Then he talks shit, says not to swear, swears and opens his serial killer tone
When I asked Qs - I got put into time out … not to be able to comment again for the rest off he show
Oakley is still trying to ponder the revelation that you CAN divide kilometers into meters and that shouting that you can't doesn't change that fact.
If they were to correct for the dip, Nathan would be gone.
I got about half way through before I couldn't take any more... A few thoughts. The problem Nathan has with his views is exactly as you state, it isn't a debate but a circle jerk and that is only fun (if you're into that sort of thing) if you're a participant. The quote mining and cherry picking practiced by Oakley and other flat Earthers is standard operating procedure for them, so it's annoying but no surprise. If as you say, the visual horizon varies because atmospheric refraction is inconsistent, all it does is make R uncertain, it doesn't make it disappear. My analogy is that if there's an elephant in the room and we all have difficulty measuring its circumference, it only makes its circumference and therefore R uncertain, it doesn't make the elephant disappear!
Now here's one that Nathan hasn't considered... Nathan does in fact believe that there is a visual horizon and that it's due to atmospheric refraction. The only thing that can possibly cause atmospheric refraction is an atmospheric pressure gradient and this is something that Nathan DOESN'T believe in because if he did he would have to admit that both gravity and space are real. You might also ask Nathan if space isn't real, what is between the molecules in our atmosphere, but you will probably have been muted by then... 😆
I would love to see Nathan do a debate in person.
You said "Whether the Earth is flat or a sphere, the horizon can be refracted"
That's baltantly false.
The horizon can't exist on a flat earth. If there is no horizon, how can it be refracted?
There would be a geometric horizon, just like they hate against for the globe model. However, their geometric horizon would never be visible due to the atmospheric scattering of light due to water vapor and particulates in the air which leads to things slowly going fuzzy and blending into the atmosphere (generally called atmospheric extinction). If they looked out into the ocean, as their line of sight approached "eye level" the ocean would gradually blend into the color of the atmosphere and so there wouldn't be a definite line that could be claimed to be the horizon and no visible separation between water and sky.
@@Tsudico But there would still be refraction. Air is still a thing and there's still less pressure higher up, even they have stopped denying it.
So ... maybe if you stood on the southern coast of Italy, looking out over the see, maybe you could see an orange blob in the sky that is the Sahara desert? I know there'd be lof of air but it'd be a lot less dense along the line of sight.
There are definitely some rounding errors in your Python script because a Python calculation with only integers will result in an integer (losing any fractions). You should use floats or Decimals instead:
>>> 7/6
1
>>> 7.0/6.0
1.1666666666666667
>>> from decimal import Decimal
>>> Decimal(7)/Decimal(6)
Decimal('1.166666666666666666666666667')
Arwijn....The oracle/wizard/telepath
You mean Gollum.
Orifice...
6:46 I think I see his problem. Our eyes are not glued to the ground. His diagram has the observer's height at 0.
I commented once on a Nathan Oakley vid. Something to do with sea level as I remember. I didn't bother to continue when he insisted level is flat.
As my fellow humans across the ocean would put it, Nathan Oakley is a bloke.
Hey, nice videos...I would like if you could think about my idea for a moment...now I'm not talking about a real magnetic monopole, just a construct of magnets that have their net magnetic field appear as a monopole at a certain distance from the construct...it seems only to work when you have an icosahedron (I've done the geometry a long time ago using the circular magnets representing a face of an icosahedron)...then you can shape the individual magnets to connect into a ball or sphere...in other words you can connect magnets using their poles to form a ball...they don't like to be in that position so they crash/implode...but if you can create a light metalic construct to keep them from "imploding" (aluminium frame) and adjust the for the curvature of the magnets and their strength (thickness)...meaning the thicker magnets would be just one pole to the outside of the ball so as to create a net south or north looking from the outside...also I would imagine that keeping the magnets in this position it would demagnetize them in a relatively short-or-I-don't-know time, can this construct be of any use? Also given the manufacturing of the magnets these days they have a variety of magnetization options and shapes of magnets it shouldn't be a problem to connect them almost perfectly in a sphere shape...and the bigger the shape the inverse square law could bring down the force that's causing them to "implode" inwards...
Nathan Oakley probably isn't a flat earther.
Nathan Oakley is definitely a man who has monetised a channel.
Oakley knows we live on a globe, But his whole income is from the flurf cult simpletons.
So, he name drops just to lend to his credibility but takes it out of context and misinterprets it so that he can straw man it? Typical globe denier. 🤷♂️
Nathan Oakley is definitely my favourite youtuber... his debate style is second to none and the Oxford debate team can certainly learn something from this genius...
Yup, there is certainly something to be learned, not sure Nathan would be in agreement though... 😂🙄
Agreed. The dating of the Iron Age, the identity of the man who made the Foucault's Pendulum, and so much more.
All from Nathan!
Of course Oakley got it wrong, after all he thinks the earth is flat and how much more wrong can you get?
By also claiming that the whole Universe is only 6000 years old, or maybe up to 10 000 years if you feel generous.
You're mistaken. Nathan Oakley does not think that, as he is a fraud. It's part of the toxic show he's decided to put on.
"There's a problem with Brian's logic here". I see what you did there.
Even primary school students can debunk flat earthers like Nathan easily. Nathan can't do the maths as he can only count to 3.
Nathan can you please keep sending these fascinating proofs....very entertaining and lots of laughs..thanks
"very good friends"......hmmmmm
Nathan is everybody's cuddly pear shaped friend.
@@Stonemonkie1 I would much rather cuddle Planarwalk...
@@pauliek.thefixer8935 planarwalk looks like he might be cuddly much in the same way a greyhound makes a good lapdog but I suppose there might be other factors involved.
With such friends, who needs enemies.
His flat Earth knowledge is known globally.
How do they always get kinda close to a representing something correctly then whiff it so hard?
I know I'm new to this and am probably asking a question brought up before but how do flat earther account for time zones? I mean if it was flat there wouldn't need for them and we all would have roughly the same daylight / nighttime. so how is it dark and light at the same time during the day on earth?
They ignore them, As on flattardia the sun would never set.
Isn't that the free masons symbolic of 'the one seeing eye' in their chart? How kabalistic!
I like how nasa pays me 50k$ a week to not tell anyone because I am working in seismology and was in Australia once.
I can’t be much help in the long term for ideas, but I’m very much looking forward to the next part 1 of the nigel cheese trilogy? or how ever many more part 1s it takes to finish that video of his
Has any flat earther stated how high they need to go to see the whole disc?
Brian is now cutting his fingers off to see if he can count negative numbers.
Well I must admit that I struggled for a few minutes to understand exactly how you were calculating your 'dip', but I got there in the end. And anyone that dabbles with celestial navigation to any degree (no pun intended) knows that 'dip' correction is for the 'visual horizon', so includes geometric dip and 'standard refraction'. Nice video, but I doubt Nathan will appreciate it.
That would require Nathan to actually understand something he is talking about for a change. I suppose there is the slight possibility that he is a grifter and knows what he is saying is utter bullshit as well.
@@fomori2 I think he is more interested by the fact of being a guru, and having people under submission. The place of bloodthirsty tyran in Russia been taken by someone else, he just spouts nonsense about flat Earth to have a fanbase and adepts. If he would have recruit more drones by supporting, let's say, North Korean propaganda, he would be spouting that the Juche is wondefull right now.
Nathan Oakley, bringing the Fun into Fundamentalism and Fans to the Fanatism. Oh, and the Mute into Mutual Understanding.
Saucy!
At 12:55 you have the reason for your presence in Nathan's video thumbnail: you are well known, and therefore you may bring some views to Nathan's channel.
Can you put out a challenge to flat earthers, asking them to explain how the sun appears to rise due East, travel directly overhead, set due West then rise again almost due East when viewed from the equator during the equinox? It seems like the most obvious evidence for a spherical Earth and I've never seen a flat earther even attempt to explain how that would happen on a flat earth.
Even better, ask them how the sun rises in the SOUTHEAST from Sydney AUS. It's latitude is south of the Tropic of Capricorn and yet the near their summer solstice (December), the sun rises SOUTH of due east. Pretty amazing on a flat earth.
@@mikefochtman7164 true, but maybe a little to complicated for a flat earther. I want to hear them explain how the sun disappears in one direction and reappears in the exact opposite direction, if not down and under then up the other side.
@@mikefochtman7164 I've just got back from Lapland where the sun is at its lowest point at local midnight North of my location at this time of year.
Oh that's easy. At sunset the sun goes down into the underworld, travels west to east through the underworld during the night to emerge, reborn, in the east the following day. Isn't that obvious?
I wonder how many times they get asked about the height of stars by using their elevation angles with sextants
"We don't see the geometric horizon" 😆😆😆
That word salad is why Bwians lack of logic got my vote for upper left.
All flat Earth believers have one thing in common. They either misunderstand something or they completely ignore something. And by something I mean logic, reason or understanding how a system works.
Okley Dokely, Nathan Jokely!
Someone should compile a list of all the debunkers Oakley is too chicken to debate! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Start with FTFE, he's terrified of FTFE/McToon/PhDTony and so on.
'Scuse me while I fix...
". . . So now I'll call out Nathan Oakley: I didn't buy any cabbage today. How dare you??"
Neat, innit?
Nathan wouldn't ever be "dishonest" about anything. 🙄 Eeeeeeveeerrr.
You're doing great, Planarwalk. Flerfs give enough content to keep you busy for awhile, LOL! But ... if you want more ideas, try tackling yercs, next! A yerc is a Young Earth Creationist - at least that's what I call them. It's a whole lot shorter, and not as CAPSLOCK as the term YEC, which I don't think they deserve - even for the proper noun nonsense. Just no, they don't get to be proper nouns, IMO.
There's also pseudoscientific woo peddlers, too. The ones that prey on grieving people to help them contact their dear departed whoevers, the ones that do "hands-on healing," or "magic/psychic surgery," or any number of other psychic nonsense.
There's also electric universe/plasma cosmology weirdos, too - one group's even a doomsday cult! And that leads in to other cults, too... plenty of those to debunk!
Anyway, that's just a few ideas. Hope they help you a bit. Just please, whatever you do, do NOT do that SovCit/auditing male bovine feces, please... I _hate_ that crap! And, since this is a few weeks old, I'll try to stick this comment on a newer video if I remember to do so. I do kinda get distracted, LOL!
"the problem with Brian's logic"...uh...what logic?
Because of the dip when you are at a peninsula where you have horizon on both sides you can place a tube where you can see one horizon when looking through it one way but the other side therefor points to the sky. It is a great globe proof, but i hardly ever see anybody do it. Can you make a simulation of it?
The dripping with sarcasm was duly noted on overload.
This channel deserves so much love, always good content!
Someone not speaking dishonestly doesn't have to resort to such childish filler phrases as "little bitch." Why would he have to defend his manliness, or establish dominance, if he were correct? it's almost like he just wants to force people to believe what he believes..... Weird, i know.
Oakley does not believe it, he is conning the flattards.
"Nathan Oakley .... Gets everything wrong" yep, that about sums him up. Pretty well actually :)
I don't condone violence in ANY WAY but, Nathan Oakley really does have a face I could never get sick of hitting. Hard. Repeatedly. 😏
Nathan and yourself are my ideal buddy cop duo. You're just the young hotshot to find his heart under his had boiled calluses.
Stars are far, stars are large... Oh bloody hell. He's talking about optical observations. Angular size, no matter how far, no matter how large, to use, optically, they're very small, at undefined distance.
Nathan's channel is an echo chamber for people who feel inferior because they don't understand why the things they see are different from how science says they really are.
Instead of accepting that there are are allways things one does not understand, they try to make the thing go away by pretending that they *do* understand, and it's everybody else that's wrong about it.
This leads to hilariously cringy situations like these where a handfull of clueless are whipping eachother up by making a hundred false claims that explain why their understanding surely must be right, and they declare victory over an imaginary enemy that has not even heard them talk.
Yeah its wild
Nathan told me he secretly uses the globe Earth map that Dave offered $9M for. He told me not to say anything...
Yup, Riley has just told me he knows exactly what Slappy was telling him with "Shut up, perfect globe proof". He then ran away without explaining how it means anything other than that...
I'm not gay, and the NZ accent sometimes (illogically, I'm sure) bugs me, but I love this guy so much; I want to smooch his brain.
Question: If Oakley was turned into Soylent Green, would he still be toxic?
When Brian's Logic (hilarious) argues against negative numbers I wonder how he copes with the longitude of, say, Dublin measured from the Greenwich meridian. It's -6.26, Brian.
G'day Mr Planarwalk, could you please do an educational video on how trade winds work on a globe and why they wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Thank you, I really enjoy your content.
It's weird, but just by looking at Oakley's default sneering facial expression you can somehow immediately tell he's a bully.
I've never seen him ever discuss anything with someone, he immediately leaps to insults and pretending he is vastly more intelligent than the other person (itself a laughable fantasy).
With no moderator and one debater holding the mute button... his are not debates. I'm sad that I had to type that...
It's all "balls" and "nuts" with Nathan Oakley 😂😂
Nuts'n'Balls!
I've had this idea for a while, I'm sure others have thought of it too lol. I don't know how viable or feasible it would be, I suppose there's GoFundMe, but anyway I reckon it would be really interesting to send one of these flerf clowns up into orbit. Yes strapping them to a ballistic missile would be fun but what I really mean is we make it possible for lets say Nathan Oakley to take a ride into earth orbit. They can go-pro document their own experience and people can watch them via other onboard cameras etc so they can look back at the earth and shit their pants. I think it would be a very interesting experiment to see what would happen during and after such a venture. Sure! someone like Oakley does not deserve the privilege of a ride into space but imagine the fallout among the flerf community. Would he say "Y'know what, I was so wrong. What an educational and life changing experience. I'm no longer going to be a complete pratt." OR, would he lie to maintain the loyalty of his misguided followers. So comment and let me know if anyone would want to see this experiment undertaken.
If the earth were flat, sunrise and sunset would take nowhere near as long.
If the earth was flat the sun would never set.
just more eyerolling as Brian tries to explain his claim....
Uncommented code?!?!?!????
I will have words with NASA about this lapse in performance.
Oakley actually thinks that things, that we can not see because something blocks line of sight, vanish out of existence or how do I have to get his rambling about there is no physical horizon because of aperant horizon? Do I miss something?
Nathan at 13:12 “I’ve got Planarwalk and AB Science saying you can’t use the geometric horizon. Check out these clips I quote-mined!” 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Since flerfs don’t see the problem with 🍒🍒🍒🍒🍒cherry-picking then Nathan must not have any problem with his Top-Left video nomination. These are all your words Mister “BALLS!!! In my mouth” Oakley. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
like i would expect a flerf to understand math...
There's so much sarcasm in this video, it might as well be an average conversation in the UK.
Using Nathan's "eye level" compared to the size of earth, humans are far taller than Mount Everest.
I clicked on like, because I should reward the self induced torture about watching an oakley video.
Regardless of refraction if the earth was flat then dip correction wouldn't exist and the diagram that he is using would never have been drawn.
While you know he is wrong and I know he is wrong. He and his followers think he is correct.
I don't think his followers, or flerfs in general, care about being right or wrong. They care about being edgelords who have taken the red pill, lifted the veil and drawn back the curtain... Reality doesn't really come into it. It's about making themselves feel special when they know they're nothing of the kind.
I'm nothing special either but then I never expected to be.
It is debatable weather he thinks that he is correct. He may see his position as a business opportunity and/or even take sustenance from a messiah complex.
I didn't really follow or enjoy this video, but dropped a comment & thumb-up bacause P-walk is a righteous dude.
Oakley doesn't debate on his channel, he just cuts people's mics and shouts over the top of them. In Scotland we call people like a baw bag, that's not a terribly nice description.
This is just like how Flat Earthers can't understand the difference between Geographic North & Magnetic North... arguing that there is no such thing as Magnetic North.
Is that shirt referencing Inuyasha? I feel like I know what it's referencing but am not sure