Mr Sensible Vs Flatzoid's Perspective
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2023
- Let battle commence! I take on @FlatzoidsPerspective again. Will he have anything other than word salad, dictionary definitions, misunderstanding and changes of subject this time? we will see!!
Rescheduled to 2200BST - Flatzoids hamsters need a rest before they can generate electric!
----------------------------------------
#MrSensibleLIVE #MrSensible #funny
Donate: ko-fi.com/MrSensible
Donate via Willow: wlo.link/@MrSensible
Support on Patreon: / mrsensible
Membership: czcams.com/channels/PKx.html...
Follow on twitter: @ItsMrSensible
Contact on Discord: / discord
Please subscribe and be Sensible!
Stay Sensible
--------------------------------------------------------
Additional Music & Sound:
www.zapsplat.com
www.purple-planet.com
It is a misconception that if the earth were accelerating upwards with a constant acceleration it would need an increasing force and it would eventually exceed the speed of light.
That's not what SR predicts. In the reference frame of the earth it would need a constant upwards force forever, like rocket engines could provide. In earths reference frame you will be stationary, never reach or exceed the speed of light. And if you measure the speed of light in earths reference frame it would always be c.
But as seen from an external inertial observer earths acceleration would constantly decrease (because its relativistic mass increases) so its speed will approach the speed of light, but never reach it.
This may look like a contradiction but is what SR predicts and follows from the fact that all physical laws are the same for every inertial observer. The predictions of SR are tested in uncountable experiments, observations and applications and have never been falsified yet.
So a constant upward acceleration would work to create a constant downward acceleration on earth forever. But what does not work is that we could have varying accelerations at different latitudes and altitudes, like predicted by the WGS84 globe model. The earth does not have a homogeneous gravitational field.
You are correct of course Walter! My bad.
e.g. If I had a thrust of 1N I would continue to accelerate as long as 1N of thrust was continually applied (and there was no counteracting force such as drag etc). So I was in error over an increasing force, however you would need a continuous application of thrust, otherwise I would continue at the velocity I had reached at the point the thrust ceased. At this point I would no longer have a downward acceleration!
As the accelerating Earth approaches C, Tau will be driven closer and closer to zero. As Earth has been around rather a long time, we would have to already be near C, our Tau close to zero and so we should see the Universe dying around us!
See novel Tau Zero by Poul Andersan - fabulous book.
if the accelleration was constant we would reach speed of light but that would be magic and therefore bullshit
“As the accelerating Earth approaches C, Tau will be driven closer and closer to zero. As Earth has been around rather a long time, we would have to already be near C, our Tau close to zero and so we should see the Universe dying around us!”
With respect to which observer? An observer could have been traveling so fast from the beginning of time that right now he is traveling exactly the same speed as you. So no difference in tau now, no almost C with respect to him.
Your tau will be close to zero as viewed from an external inertial reference frame which was at rest with respect to you when the earth was created. And the time of the universe out there (not accessible for the flat earth anyway) would appear to pass at almost 0 rate wrt you, right.
But in your own reference frame, tau (proper time) will be always advancing the same amount.
This is another common misconception. Time dilation does not mean that your time (proper time tau) is slowing down in your reference frame. How could that be, because the relative taus depend on the relative speed between observers. But there are infinitely many external observers moving relative to each order. Which relative speed will you choose to calculate your tau? That’s where Witsit struggles.
And length contraction does not mean that length is contracting in your reference frame, same reason as above. You appear contracted as viewed from an external inertial reference frame moving relative to you, and vice versa.
Only when 2 observers are meeting again there will be a difference in time, because one of the observers has to change its trajectory, which results in a rotation in spacetime so the symmetry between the 2 observers is now broken.
This happens all the time in particle accelerators. The particles circling are constantly changing (rotating in spacetime) the reference frame with respect to an inertial observer. Thats why there is a measurable difference in the proper time of the particles and the observer. Not because the time passed at different rates, but because the reference frames have changed. For the particle time does not dilate. For you time does not dilate. But you don’t meet in the same reference frame after one orbit.
I know it’s difficult to explain and seems impossible. Drawing Minkowski diagrams or simply applying the Lorentz transformation will show how this works. And reality proves that it works this way -> GPS…
It’s a fact that the speed of light is c no matter how fast the source or the observer travel. It’s a fact that the physics in every inertial reference frame is the same. This can only be explained by SR without contradictions. The problem is not SR. The problem are we, not understanding how the universe really works, despite the fact we can observe that it works in a way that is not common sense to us.
@@WalterBislini was meaning if Earth is close to C, our Tau with respect to the rest of the universe around us would be approaching zero, hence the universe would appear to ralidly be aging ss wo look at it from our speeding Earth. But a minute for us would still be a minute.
Would that not be so? We would see stars born age and die as we look at them, no?
@@WalterBislinactually, thinking about it we wouldn't would we. As we got that fast, everything would get red and blue shifted and then out of visible spectrums.
I guess that evidences it's not happening!
That smug falsetto laugh every time Flatzoid runs into a dead end is just hilarious.
I also find it very irritating. He uses it when he mocks as well.
It makes me wonder how his followers tick. It is painfully obvious that Mr. Sensible is interested in the exchange. He argues patiently, polite and without setting traps. And their champion is constantly giggling, clings to words and acts in way, which would himself explode in anger when he was on the receiving end. How can anybody just look at that and not be aware how Flatzoid comes across? Or do they see it and are even proud of their asshattery because they think trolling is a valid way of arguing?
Flatzoids budget on Straws must be so huge that it bends space-time.
It’s great that he agrees that taking water to a high altitude and adding a small amount of heat causes it to boil…
…but if you instead reduce the pressure a little bit further, he thinks the water outgases instead.
He clearly demonstrates that he doesn't actually understand what 'boiling' is all about - the vapour pressure within the liquid equalling the external pressure.
Its the same problem again. Its like there is no ability to imagine in a FE brain. Cant scale, nothing in three dimensions, cant have complex concepts, maths isn't a thing, no contradictions. I dont even think its an IQ problem, its more of an attitude??
I actually believe that Jerran, Del and Rachie have spent so long going around and around with FE concepts they are literally having a eureka moment and start doing real experiments.
Sadly for me, the big names, Witsit, Oakley, Sargent all know its a globe. They work to hard misrepresenting not to. The excellent presentation you did the other day, how it left any there conclusion that the are changes in gravity based on latitude is impossible. How can you not understand that the inconsistency between the last two digits of a nine digit integer, is to be expected and is about to as close to being perfect as you can get. But without people like Flatzoid questioning what he is being told, and just repeating it.... its him that goes under the bus!!!!
the sheer derp at the end with the sextant was ridiculous..
Flatzoid so obsessed with the scientific method, that he never does any experiments using it!
I'm writing this, after the live stream, while Mr. Sensible is waiting for Flatzoid to show.
Let me guess: Flatzoid is reciting the ultra-simplistic "scientific method" as taught to fairly young kids.
I felt it was a mistake for Mr. Sensible to “give in” on this point by arguing that the IV had been manipulated.
It doesn’t matter if it had or hadn’t been manipulated. Sometimes in science you can’t reach out and “wiggle” the IV. But, it’s still an observation. Yes, it’s a correlation. That’s okay in science. It’s just a small piece of evidence that together with other evidence has formed a strongly held theory.
It’s very telling the Flatzoid picked an “invisible magnifying glass” as his analogy. Similar to the invisible dome, invisible god, invisible Ice wall etc
What scientific Method do Yu Yuse on your own to observ vacation
To find earths spin?
Go out side and give me your scientific method or method s of doing something or so.
Or-are you appealing to authority ?
@@derekseube7039 Perhaps you can ask any flat earth authority why they can't determine the height of the sun, despite all of their combined "knowledge"?
Until they can do this, then maybe you can start to appeal to their authority!
I'll stick with the established science.
@@chrisclarke7274 you don’t ever question science?
You take it as authority?
If “science” says you are spinning at a thousands miles an hour you say yes.
Then I spin you in a thousand mile per hour module and you die … you can’t say no
Walk out side and tell me how you are spinning so fast without appealing to what you have been told about.
And measure it for me and show it to your overlords for me as well.
“Space is just available ability” - Flatzoid
This quote seriously needs to be posted everywhere. You, Craig, Dan, Planarwalk all need to put it in your “about” section and share it with the _globe_ in all of your chats 😂
It really is a fantastic statement. Don’t deprive society of this gem. 😂😂😂
I am devastated that I missed him saying this live as I couldn't make it to the stream. Wow Flatzoid, just... wow!
@@patinthechat6452 right?!? What a freaking statement lmfao I really hope this line gets forever tagged and associated with Flatzoid haha That’s one for the ages
@@Andy_Babbneed timestamp please.
1:53 Could see that Flatzoid was going to pull the "triangulation" garbage... What he fails to admit, even if that Star was 100 km's, or 50 trillion km's away you can still measure it's angle, and it can still have a GP...
He claims it's "perspective" that causes the "apparent" position of a celestial object to change depending upon the Angle of Elevation.
Mctoon found someone dumber that Flatzoid! Was not aware that was possible! 😩🤦♂️🤦♂️
There´s a reason why they call him Fail-zoid. Without that he´d just be 11frame-zoid.
Well done Mr S. Having watched Flatzy's devious ways on his channel (I currently seem to be shadow banned there), I thought it might not go well, but you handled him magnificently. He is not the "nice" person you think he is.
Different locations on earth measure different acceleration due to gravity values. If the flat earth was accelerating up, it doesn't give a reason for the difference in values.
Some ugly balding bloke made a presentation on his channel of this exact topic just one day ago.
Flatzoid showed his true colours when he edited out the incriminating frames. His motives for doing so are obvious.
He also edits out comments that disprove him. I am, along with many others, currently shadow banned on his channel. He is not the Mr nice guy Mr S thinks he is.
@@clivedavis6859I can attest to this, flatzois banned me specifically because time being an independent variable. He of course said it wasn't and was a controlled variable, I asked in his chat to Google "is time an independent variable" and "is time a controlled variable". He did, looked at the result of the IV search, called me a troll and banned me.
1:14 So, Flatzoid is claiming that a 3 hour tea light candle sat 10cm's under a 10 liter bucket of water, will boil the water. As "heat" (the candle) is the "cause" not a variable...
LOL, great point!
During a storm in Antarctica, we got tired of the emergency rations and found a tin of snails. We only had a candle and it took 4 hours to cook them.
@@clivedavis6859 Firstly I'm jealous as I applied to go and work on Australian Antarctica bases, Years ago, and was rejected😢
Secondly, how did you fight your way through the Ninja armed Penguins?😉
But seriously, that's amazing. I'm counting every cent now, as I've gone back to school and work casually (the end goal is Worth it), but I Fully intend to go to Antarctica on a tour once I can afford it. That and Alaska, I want to see the top and bottom of Earth before my time here is over.
As a professional maritime navigator I found Flatzoids attempt to explain the workings of a sextant both hilarious and shocking, but that said he is the man who claims celestial navigation is done with nautical charts. So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by his ineptness.
Good job Mr Sensible for being another to bring out Flatzoids stupidity.
Thanks Ade, I hope that as a seafarer, my potted explanation of the general principles wasn't too embarrassing! 🙂
@@MrSensibleHistoricyou pretty much had it covered. While flatzoid had his Dunning Kruger.
I watched the first part of word salad about 'independent', 'dependent' & then " control" variables with equanimity, & a few comments.
But, I'm surprised that you couldn't hear me screaming at the screen when he dared to get into celestial navigation. You stood up well, but I think we need to have a serious, sensible talk. I'll e-mail tomorrow.
1:30, No, the horizon doesn't rise to your eye level with elevation.
Never has, never will... but ask any Flattardia believing tosser, and they'll TELL you it does... lol
I love how Flatzoid is so close to realizing how gravity and buoyancy work but stops just shy of connecting all the dots. He acknowledges that buoyancy doesn’t work while in free fall, but instead of realizing that’s because free fall removes the force of gravity and that gravity is integral to buoyancy, he basically just says the magical interaction between densities (that’s totally not gravity) stops.
He won't answer me when I ask how clouds work. Clouds are water vapor which is denser than air yet they float but then rain falls. He can't because he hasn't thought up a good lie about it yet
Example of manipulating time. If I boil water for 10 secs, nothing happens. If I boil water for 10 mins, water will boil. Flatzoid is ignornant by choice.
That apple example he gave hurt my brain. He didn't need to add "manipulating the environment" to equat it to your test.
He's very sneakily adding shit like that in to keep his points valid.
He's a lying grifter too
This tragedy with the arc of the sextant "compensating" flatness or whatever is classic for Flatzoid:
He juggles around with numbers and dividing and multiplying them until he gets a number that suits him that is the correct result - VALUEwise.
But that he garbled up everything, that his units would be totally off, because he does not care what is what - that does not occur to him.
That was one painful experience. If you’re planning to watch it, go for maximum face palm protection 0:11
Well it's Flatzoid the Contrarian, so you go in knowing it'll be misrepresentations, dishonesty and arguing for arguments sake... That's all he does.
Gotta lie to flerf
Flatzoid is an expert in experiments, and in sextants.
Strange that Flatzoid never DOES experiments.
And especially, that he never does "experiments" where he SOLVES some problem. Calculates the geometry of something he constructs later.
People that did engineering in the widest sense have learned (usually the hard way, by trial and error) how to do something, what to look out for, what to regard and what you can neglect (and under which circumstances).
Fz conflates the independent variable with causal factor. He thinks you have to manipulate the causal factor, otherwise it's not science.
Wow that was nonsense from flat earth on steroids. Your exasperation was palpable.
Thanks phil! Was difficult! 😂😂😂
@@Mr-Sensible haha 😂 well done. You are the third person in a few weeks that got flerfs to listen to actual facts.
Of course we all know FE is just a fantasy and represented by teams doing their best to out do each other. Only silly people actually think FE is true.
@@profphilbell2075 I am still in suspense to see what he is going to present on thermodynamics. I could do with some more comedy gold. I am now shadow banned on his channel.
@@clivedavis6859 I suspect he will read a bunch of stuff from a textbook, then giggle a bit and declare that it’s simple without realising it contradicts his position. Then he will lie, and say that I said something contrary to the textbook. His panel of donkeys will bay in unison.
1:06:40 The more time you allow Flatzoid to talk about what science is, the more you realize that he doesn't understand what science is...
Does Flatzoid still lie about how camera zoom works and think objects get physically smaller due to perspective? *I haven't watched this yet, but I'm guessing he gets everything wrong or lies as usual.
When has any flerf ever gotten anything right?
@@Matuse When they became an Ex-Flerf, like Ranty etc...
I always wonder something about the zoom claim;
Ok, so good for you. You’ve watched a ship sail out of view and zoomed in with your little P1000. Fantastic. So what happens when you CONTINUE to stay zoomed in on the ship? Will it _NOT_ disappear again from the bottom up??
I mean, it’s the dumbest argument and I never hear anyone say “ok what happens when you stay zoomed in and watch?”
If he's having a discussion with Toon about CN, then Toon needs to make (force) him go through the calculations to find the GP of a star and his distance to it, using only his FE nonsense - and not move on until he has done it.
He still needs to explain where Toon, in his previous debate with him, was wrong with the orthographic view of FE sunsets and what should be done to correct for perspective.
Water can be caused to boil by microwave radiation, sound frequency and cavitation. Thermal energy (heat) is not the only way to cause water to boil.
Pressure even
@@mikedrop4421now flatzoid knows better than everyone else and it can’t be pressure without heat. It has to be heat since it’s somehow out gassing when you reach some unspecified low pressure and not boiling because it’s a phase change only with heat.
Why he thinks a phase change doesn’t occur when the pressure is lowered as well and how it can be outgassing when there is no liquid left behind once his outgassing is complete is beyond me.
Loving all the content again lately Mr.S! But Flatzoid is quite intellectually dishonest. How can you expect a scientist to be able to manipulate the IV to confirm a cause in the freaking hypothesis?! If we could do that, we’d already know everything and there would be no need for a scientific method.
Way to go and show you have no idea what independent variable is.
I noticed 13 people liked this comment so take it that they are also ignorant to this subject.
I will try make this simple for you. Your first step in the scientific method is to observe a natural phenomenon.
Then you step back and do background research to find out if anyone has attempted to figure out the cause for the phenomenon observed.
You then take the data and create a hypothesis based on what you assume the cause to be.
This would be the IV aka independent variable. This is the cause for a effect. In other words this will be the cause always for the effect you try to replicate.
Now that you had set up your hypothesis of let’s say example:
IV: heat
DV: water is boiling
Null: heat did not cause the water to boil.
Great so now we can move onto the systematic experimentation.
You take your hypothesis and the data collected and experiment.
Let’s test this.
I now introduce controls into the experimental stage so I can know without a doubt that there is only one cause for the water to boil. Note using different subjects with different values.
So we can have let’s say three containers the same with same amount of water and have a difference in time duration of heat been applied.
You get the point you keep experimenting using the cause as
We vary and manipulate the cause aka heat! How much heat is induced to cause the effect.
We get a result. Either it was validated aka proven that water was boiled due to heat or it was not. You either proven your cause or your null!
You carry on doing more systematic experiments changing the parameters using the cause until you prove your hypothesis true! If you do not prove it then you can move onto another cause. This does not discount that cause unless you have exhausted all the possibilities to reach the result!
Now what is the main take of this? Using scientific method! You absolutely do have to manipulate the IV otherwise you will never know what the cause is for the DV!
@@FlatzoidsPerspective15. It's quite clear from your comment that you've never studied science nor been involved in any scientific endeavour. Stick to car painting which I assume you have some degree of competence in.
It's not that simple Flatzoid. Lets make a simple example: the ideal gas law. There you have 3 variables: pressure, absolute temperature and density. All 3 variables depend on each other. There is no simple cause and effect. You can conduct 3 experiments:
1) P = Rs * T * rho
Here is P the dependent variable. It depends on T and rho. So there are 2 causes of P.
2) T = P / (Rs * rho)
Here T is the dependent variable. It depends on P and rho. So there are 2 causes of T.
3) rho = P / (Rs * T)
Here rho is the dependent variable. It depends on P and T. So there are 2 causes of rho.
So each of the variables depends on each other. There is not always a simple cause/effect relationship or dependent and independent variable. It depends on the circumstances.
@@WalterBislin gas law is not science. It’s natural law.
@@FlatzoidsPerspective "gas law is not science. It’s natural law" LOL!!
Behold the fifth horseman of the apocalypse; a fkat earther trying to understand the scientific method!
Also, for Flatzoid:
Time is a common independent variable, as it will not be affected by any dependent environmental inputs.
This is high school level learning!
Please note that time can also be a controllable constant. For example, I want to see what amount of heat it will take to boil water in exactly 2 minutes. In this case time is constant, as we will always be using a 2 minute interval. Heat would be the IV.
However, if we know that we are going to keep the specific heat constant, then we would have time as the IV.
The confusion seems to come from how poorly Flatzoid, and other flat Earthers, try to explain this experiment. They seem incapable of looking at the big picture.
There would, of course, be other constants too. I'd be interested to hear all of the controls that Flatzoid would use.
Flatzoid - ”it's just really frustrating that he refuses to accept the science when you explain it to him."
...
...
...
Yes flatzoid, that would be frustrating, wouldn't it? 🤨
Flatzoids 15 minutes are up.
WORD SALAD ALERT: The rotting of the apple is due to " the breakdown of the enzymes" .... It's not the enzymes that breakdown. There are enzymes present within the apple's cells that ultimately lead to the breakdown of sugars. Bacteria will introduce their own enzyme solutions to further the breakdown. He clearly knows as much about biology as anything else.
He's learned a few phrases, & wants to play barrister's tricks to try and bamboozle you. [ qv Nothin' Oakley ]. Twist your words and put them back to you, get you to agree to their twisted version, then "Aah! Aah! So you're wrong, AND everything else you have said & will say is wrong ...... "
Sorry mate but the intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation by Fletzoid is making my brain hurt.
Nearly brain liquifying
It's amazing how much smarter flerfs think they are than literally everyone else ever. Time is absolutely 100% a variable. When we say we "manipulate" a variable we don't literally mean we touch it and fondle it. Flatzoid doesn't get what a control is. He says time is a control in the boiling water example. Wrong. A control is an aspect that doesn't change in the expirament. It cannot be effected by the other variables. Time is a very big variable. Not only is it the amount of heat applied, but the amount of time it's applied for. Therefore, variable.
@MrSensible, I applaud your patience, I just couldn’t do this, it would drive me up the wall! Hats off to you!
"Time is a common independent variable, as it will not be affected by any dependent environmental inputs. Time can be treated as a controllable constant against which changes in a system can be measured."
Mass also "just concept", speed also "just concept" all thing in science "just concepts" representing reality.
The bending of the light by mass is not the only consequence of relativity. Time dilation is another. Also mathematically verifiable.
Flatzood moved the goalposts so many times they're outside the stadium and in the parking lot by now. By fixating on his made-up requirement of manipulating the independent variable for an experiment to be valid, he shows us all just how little he actually understands about science. An independent variable does not need to be actually manipulated as long as it can be measured or observed. Time is a perfect example of this, as you can't manipulate time, but you can observe its effects, and it is very often used as the independent variable in many different fields of science. Furthermore, when using time as the variable, (depending on the hypothesis), the control is when no time has passed, not when the measurement that shows a change has taken place. Again Flatzoid exposes his truncated understanding of how science actually works.
It's not "his" understanding of how science works, he's just parroting the likes of Nathan "Slappy the Clown" Oakley and Riley.
Ahhh I love it when you debate these mouth breathers 😂
I have Covid. I am currently a mouth breather 😔
Get better soon!
Thank you@@MrSensibleHistoric! I appreciate all the hilarious and educational content, it’s been keeping me entertained lol it also gives me fuel to convince my flerf cousin that he’s actually the idiot in the room.
Thanks brother. Best wishes back at you.
Degassing and boiling, lol!😂
Flatzliod is trying his very best not to admit that you don't need to physically manipulate the apple in order for it to rot.
It would only take 353.7 days to accelerate to the speed of light at 1G (9.81 m/s^2). We’ve been going for quite some time now.
I call ballocks on the constant acceleration assertion. Rachie is a Poe.
Flatzoid: if you can’t explain something in 10 different ways then it’s not reals
It’s funny, a flerf hears the word ‘angle’ and they straight away think SOHCAHTOA and triangles 😂
Weird listening to Zoid explain how Dell doesn't understand gravity! Not hopeful that he will keep saying anything sensible. But Mr. S will!!!!
@1:07:30 if I did an experiment trying to get a stronger tea and i use 2 cups the same size with water from the same source and 2 of the same type of tea bags and all I did was let the one sit in the water longer what did i manipulate to get a stronger tea?
Time was your IV, and you only need to observe it or measure it, not actually manipulate it. Flatzood doesn't understand science.
FailZoids 'perspective' argument is litterly the Reification Fallacy. Why, because the close object is drawn PHYSICALLY larger then the far object that is drawn PHYSICALLY smaller, the smaller line will be Geometrically hidden by the larger line. Yet in reality both are the same size.
Text book Reification Fallacy.
Brilliant catch. Well done, I'm putting this in my back pocket for later
I am glad Flatzoid has applied some form of logical and reasonable thinking, at least on few of the acceleration and constant velocity differences. In due time, there is a strong chance, he will act as logical and reasonable for the remaining. Perhaps, I dare say, he may embrace the real global world.
Concerning the boiling water issue:
a) It would be interesting if Flatzoid could define the difference between degassing, boiling and evaporating.
b) does Flatzoid understand the meaning of manipulating?
c) there are several possible variables in the water boiling experiment, such as temperature, heath quantity, pressure, salinity, etc., A controlled environment means that the operator decides and defines each single parameter of the variables.
Celestial navigation:
A forethought, I must thank you very much for your clear explanation on the subject. I had no idea it was so theoretically simple. Why would Flatzoid find it difficult to grasp, is a mystery to me.
Great effort and best of luck for your channel.
The problem is that he consistently uses fallacies and cognitive biases. Like, for EVERYTHING. But he thinks he's being logical. And since he likes to try and assign fallacies to others (especially Toon for some reason) he's doubly fooled himself into thinking that he understands logic, so he relies on that misplaced confidence to reassure his biases. So he's unlikely to actually come around until he can get over his extreme levels of DK top leftiness. And until he gets humble. And until he drops the confirmation bias. And until he recognizes his own fallacies. It's a lot to expect of him, unfortunately.
Flatzoid is deceitful. I have e-mailed him links to my Antarctic trips that I have posted on Facebook as well as the red carbon copy ticket stub of my return flights Johannesburg to Sydney. I asked him to share the links, but he hasn't. I also have tried several times to comment about sunset times in South Africa at places near the Tropic of Capricorn and those further away on more or less the same longitude. The sun sets first at the place nearest the sun than from the one further away. This debunks the sun setting because it get too far away to see. Every time, these comments get deleted. I am currently shadow banned on his channel. For those interested, I have left instructions on my channel as to how to access my FB posts.
I wonder where Flatzoid has come up with this angles in succession thing from? Maybe from moving the index mirror so light reflects from each mirror in succession which seems to be mentioned on some basic sextant websites explaining the principle behind the angle between the mirrors being half the angle of the reflected light and the original incident light?.
This would also explain why he says the sextant principle when he says this.
@FlatzoidsPerspective independent variable
Time is a common independent variable, as it will not be affeced by any dependent environemental inputs. Time can be treated as a controllable constant against which changes in a system can be measured.
A control variable is anything that is held constant or limited in a research study. It’s a variable that is not of interest to the study’s objectives, but is controlled because it could influence the outcomes.
Hurt just reading the sub line… are there pain meds powerful enough to get you through, Mr A? 😱
Was that a tortured version of the hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy?
No Flatzoid, water molecules that are in a liquid state and suddenly become gaseous are not degassing. They are changing states. You can't say that the gaseous water molecules are trapped inside the liquid water molecules. They're all water and they all eventually transition to gas. This is boiling. IT IS A PHASE CHANGE.
Degassing would be if there was oxygen saturated within the liquid water, and the oxygen escaped out of the water. It was degassed from the water. They are separate molecules in different states of matter, and one is separating from the other.
If the only variable changing is the pressure, and the temperature remains the same, and the liquid stars to boil, then yes it was the change of pressure that caused it to boil. Because it reached a point at which the heat present was enough to cause the phase change. Both variables matter, they are both part of the equation. The heat by itself is not sufficient, nor is the pressure. You can isolate for or CONTROL either one. You can manipulate either one, which would make it the INDEPENDENT variable in that experiment. In fact the temperature at which water boils at a given pressure could easily be the DEPENDENT variable of such an experiment.
It all depends on what you're testing.
As i TRIED to explain to him!
This is a very typical example of a "denier" of almost any variety - he lacks all sorts of the basic knowledge required to understand what he's talking about.
@@Mr-Sensible Indeed, but he literally said (or maybe read) that boiling is when it changes states. He somehow seemed to miss that point, even though he said it himself. Yes, the liquid water is becoming a gas. It's changing states. But somehow still didn't get the difference.
1 hour in... Nostradamus, ffs
Well tjat wasn't predicted.... no wait!
2:04:59 you could possibly triangulate the distance to the star but not with a sextant.
He’s brought a chewed crayon to an intergalactic war.
And thinks he’s piloting a corellian corvette
I decided to read up a little more on the difference between outgassing and boiling. Typically it does refer to a gaseous material separating from a solution or even a solid. But it can technically refer to something like evaporation.
The main distinction seems to be that when boiling, the gas is at a similar or greater pressure to the surrounding atmosphere while evaporation occurs when the vapor pressure is lower than the atmospheric pressure.
I can basically assure you that water in a vacuum is at a higher pressure than the vacuum. Therefore it is boiling.
2:10.23 A new concept is born: the "linear arc".
Go figure.
Mr S. You should have gone through a calculation with flatzoids 90° GP to determine distance to GP with information available
I have a horizontal and I have an elevation star angle 60°
What is my distance to gp. Flatzoid solve the triangle .
With Eddington, the time is the IV. Observe (no movement of stars), wait, observe again(stars moved), wait, observe again (stars returned to original position).
With the boiling water, time is the IV. Observe(not boiling) , wait, observe(not boiling), wait, observe(water boiling).
Come on Failzoid, get with the system.
Flatzoid, THE MAN who knows what science is.
How is flatzoid going to get an angle measurement in degrees or radians without an arc and why does the angle measurement work with objects like triangles and for working out the distance or height of objects above a flat plane we can actually measure?
Great, now i will have to make even more videos on Flatzoid ._.
Great stream though :D
@2:07:20 - You needed to ask the idiot to calculate and put in the distance measurements between the vertex's in the triangle.
Time causes an increase in entropy in an isolated system. It causes disorder.
I can manipulate the length of "time" a second lasts by increasing a reference frame closer to the speed of light.
When water boils, it changes state into vapour. Therefore, just like the sea breeze or air humidity or general evaporation are caused by water molecules leaving the body of fluid over time, without having to "heat" the water.
Objects cooling is caused by time.
Yes it is boiling if you observe the liquid water rapidly become vapour. It usually is refering to temperature but the boiling point is the amount of energy required to change state. If i managed to maintain a adiabatic process in which the fluid maintained its temperature and number of molecules is conserved, then the change from water to vapour would be caused by the increase in volume the molecules take up, which is a decrease in densities. Remember, liquids are just really dense gases.
When did people start saying "minusing" or "plusing" or "timesing" when they mean subtracting, adding or multiplying? I cringe every time I hear such language. Curiously, dividing seems to have remained "pure."
But thank you both for paying careful attention to each other and the geometry.
At about 32:25 where Flatzoid starts his argument that Eddington (1919) is not an experiment. Now, to be honest, I am not an expert on this experiment by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have a masters in comp sci and a pretty solid working knowledge of philosophy of science.
Firstly, even if we accepted that Eddington is merely an observation and not an experiment, this observation would clearly comport to an Einsteinian model for gravity - the strongest claim Flatzoid can make in this case is: we don’t know that there isn’t perhaps some other reason why light rays bend in the presence of massive objects. But it offers Flatzoid no ability to reject the model, nor does Flatzoid have any other evidence supporting some other explanation for why the light bends in the presence of massive objects. So, without saying anything else, this is already a very weak argument.
But it gets much worse for Flatzoid. By manipulating the time variable - namely, when to take measurements and the duration of those measurements - we can directly control the magnitude of gravitational effects affecting the starlight rays passing near the eclipse. So, in fact, there is an independent variable that we can manipulate which has a direct impact on our dependent variable: the deforming of the trajectory of starlight rays. It seems to me like Eddington easily fits a textbook description of a scientific experiment in this regard. By controlling time, we can control the light rays’ exposure to mass, and by manipulating magnitude of mass, curvature of light is affected. There is no ‘missing piece’ here.
I do think Flatzoid misunderstands what makes science *work* on a more philosophical level, though, and I think that misunderstanding is the greater catalyst some of these issues. It sounds like Flatzoid believes that, ordinarily, manipulating the IV is important because that’s what enables us to isolate a causal relationship. This is only half-true - by manipulating variables we can certainly rule out some hypothetical causal relationships, so we can use this technique for falsificationism, but manipulating variables never gives us the power to rule out the possibility of chance and coincidence. In epistemology, this is due to the Gettier Problem. So it is a mistake on Flatzoid’s part to presume that it is the manipulation of the IV that enables us to conclude causal relationships - no, that is a much more complex question in the field of Scientific Realism, where some folks doubt whether it’s even possible to overcome Hume’s problem of induction. No amount of manipulating variables can get us out of that problem. Instead, the primary mechanism of importance for enabling science to discover truth has to do with a philosophical concept called “Explanatory Power.” Explanatory power very specifically requires that a theory make novel, testable predictions, based upon falsifiability, measurability, quantifiability, and accuracy. Put plainly, it is a theory’s ability to make predictions that supports the conclusion that a causal relationship exists. In this regard, the best evidence for the causal relationship described by Einstein’s theories of relativity is its capacity to predict things like gravitational effects, with Eddington (1919) representing one of the best examples of predictions that distinguish Einstein’s theories from Newtonian physics. Altogether, Eddington is therefore about as perfect an example of science, and the philosophy underpinning it, that I can think of.
I’ll expand on why Gettier cases pose a huge problem for Flatzoid’s model for drawing conclusions about causal relationships from manipulating variables, and specifically his boiling water example.
In classical philosophy, we thought that the key to true *knowledge* was this concept of a “justified true belief.” If you met three conditions: (1) you believed a claim, (2) you had justification for the belief, and (3) the claim was true, then you could conclude that you know the claim is true. This is the model Flatzoid needs to use in his example of manipulating the heat and other variables to draw conclusions about when and how water boils.
Gettier cases demonstrate that these kinds of justifications are not possibly sufficient. Here’s an example Gettier case:
Let’s suppose I make the hypothesis that, every night, if I flip a coin and it lands on heads, the next day will have rainy weather, and if it’s tails, it will not rain. In Flatzoid’s terminology, I say that my IV is the coin flip, and the DV is the rainy weather. I decide that I will do an experiment, where, for the next 12 days, I will flip my coin each night and record the weather the following day. Now, let’s say it just so happens, that, each night I flipped heads, it did, in fact, rain the next day, and each night I flipped tails, it did not. By the justified true belief model, I have a belief: that my coin flips can affect the weather, I have a justification: my test results, and clearly the belief came true. By Flatzoid’s model for science, I manipulated the IV to isolate the cause. But hopefully it’s obvious that coin flips really don’t affect the weather, so what went wrong?
The problem is that causal relationships cannot be directly measured via empirical means, and to presume so because you manipulated a variable is to beg the question. There is no empirical method that can assure that we’re not confusing causation for correlation with certainty. Mr Sensible’s point about how atmospheric pressure affects what temperature water boils at touches on this problem; Flatzoid briefly attempted to get out of this problem by suggesting that “systemic experimentation” should be used to exhaust potential confounding variables, but this is very overt question-begging. There are an infinite amount of potential confounding variables - how could you ever be certain that you’ve done enough “systemic experimentation” to rule them all out? Maybe water boils differently on a bullet train, maybe water boils differently at exactly 11:02 on May 20th, 2027, Flatzoid couldn’t possibly know that those factors won’t have an affect on his hypothesis, nor can he be certain that the relationship between his manipulation of temperature and water boiling isn’t completely coincidental, and actually water boils because of some unknown reason that is highly correlative to temperature.
In “real” science, how would we address the issue? Well, we might do something like question the sample size of the coin flip experiment. We’d say we think, that, if we tried to make these predictions 100 times, the model would fall apart, and the coin flips wouldn’t actually be able to predict anything. The key to scientific evidence is predictions: we try to make real, novel, testable, repeatable, quantifiable predictions with a model. We then do statistical analysis to determine how likely it was for us to get our results out of pure chance. We conclude, that, if our result is statistically significant, this serves as a good reason (i.e., scientific evidence) to conclude that our model accurately describes some causal relationship about reality. Refuting such evidence subsequently requires justification for how we are able to make those predictions in spite of an apparent misunderstanding of the true causal relationship - again, in science, this typically comes in the form of a superior model for predicting the same phenomenon.
What does this all mean? It means, that, there is only one way for Flatzoid to actually refute Einsteinian gravity, and anything else is just sophistry: he must quantifiably demonstrate why Einstein’s field equations can make so good of predictions about reality if they’ve actually misunderstood the phenomena. But, obviously, Flatzoid, and the flat earth community, can’t do that - all they have are what-if stories; ad-hoc, post hoc, skeptical theories that are effectively unfalsifiable (i.e., have no *explanatory power*) with no evidence whatsoever to suggest that’s actually how things work. Flatzoid - if you want to really have something to talk about, take your what-if hypotheticals (like the giant magnifying glass), formulate a quantifiable model using them, and when you can truly predict future events using those models, then we’ll have something to discuss.
Flatzoid is just wrong about degassing boiling a liquid causes a change in a liquid to gas degassing is when you remove dissolved gas from a liquid when you put a liquid in a vacuum it will start to change states to a gas for example when you open a bottle of soda it degasses and allows co2 out of the liquid hence why it goes flat if I put water in a vacuum then I leave it at a low pressure the liquid will boil and if I wait long enough and check the volume of the water will have dropped I would use punction but this isn't work or school.
FailZoid hasn't been up many tall mountains, if any.
@@GeistView The highest in South Africa is only just over 11000ft.
@@clivedavis6859
Not very high.
@@GeistViewEven so, I live at an altitude of 4200ft. When visting my parents at the coast, I have to watch out when I drink my tea/coffee because I am liable to burn myself if I don't let it cool down first. At home, I don't have to because it has boiled at a much lower temperature.
I wish flatzoid and friends would take some university level physics and maths classes before proudly asserting they know better than everyone else and that if an experiment doesn’t fit their overly simplistic description it isn’t even science.
Even if the earth was accelerating up at say 9.81m/s/s it still wouldn’t comply with reality since gravity varies depending on where you are on the earth as per the globe model.
They'd benefit from middle school and high school math and physics.
@@d614gakadoug9 At this point we should be glad they can count to 100. It is just a matter of time and they will deny numbers have an order.
Ofcourse he is watching Dialect. They are not quite as dumb as Flatzoid, but just as stubbornly wrong.
I do suspect though that they might not really care about being correct, and that they just make stuff up that is clickbaity.
@ 48:29 - Mr Sensible puts it reasonably well. The independent variable is the magnitude of gravitational effects due to overall mass. In the case of Eddington (1919), by manipulating time & duration of measurement, the experimenters can control how much the target starlight rays are subjected to gravitational effects. The hypothesis is that the magnitude of gravitational effect due to mass will cause spacetime curvature and affect the light traveling through that space.
Perhaps most importantly, we can use Einstein’s work to repeatedly make predictions of these kinds relating to gravity and spacetime curvature. Flatzoid keeps saying we’re only dealing with correlations - the critical thing that *he* doesn’t understand is that predictive power is the critical element that distinguishes evidence as scientific, not his misunderstanding of variables. Manipulating variables can be used to falsify hypotheses, not verify. Eddington (1919) isn’t just important because we have a correlative explanation for an observation, it’s important because it was a prediction that came true. Flatzoid’s earlier example - the giant magnifying glass causing refraction - is just an ad hoc, what-if story, unless and until he could ever take that theory and start making novel, testable, quantifiable predictions with it. Our theories make predictions that real scientists are willing to put to the test, over and over again, Flatzoid has no predictive power, just ad hoc skeptical theories.
Mr sensible
A bug in the corner of my room is at 45°
So my room is 6000 miles long????😂
I have another one… it'll also be a bit long, unfortunately. 😉
So Flatz suggests that gravitational lensing in general relativity is no better of an explanation than "God put a giant lens there" (whatever kind of lens that would be).
Wrong. For one, the word God is generally understood to mean an all powerful being whose ways are "unfathomable". So… an all powerful being did it for unknowable reasons? That is not an explanation, that is a complete non-explanation because literally anything could be "explained" that way. The water in the pot boils? God did it. The water in the pot doesn't boil? God did it. Etc.
Which also means it fails another important test regarding scientific hypotheses: Claims like that lacks falsifiability.
But it also fails an even older test. Let's compare some hypotheses:
1. The mass of the Sun causes gravitational lensing.
2. There's lensing from an unknown cause.
3. God put a giant lens there.
Compared to 2., 3. fails the test of _Occam's Razor_ which essentially states that unnecessary assumptions are to be avoided. Assuming that the unknown cause from 2. is God is unnecessary, precisely because it doesn't explain anything (see above).
But 1. also makes more assumptions than 2., right? So why do we allow that? Because 1. explains *more* and is falsifiable because it has attached conditions (the presence of a massive body) and is even quantifiable and as of yet unfalsified. That's what Mr. S pointed out, not only does the lensing occur but it occurs by the right _amount._ as predicted by GR. Also, GR makes many other predictions that have been empirically verified. Even the motion of the bodies in the solar system is predicted by GR better than by Newtonian mechanics (see: precession of the perihelion of Mercury).
Once more, that doesn't mean 1. is right. It just means it's the best explanation we've found so far. That's all science aspires to anyway. The search for ultimates is the domain of philosophy and religion, and not so much science.
Boom! 😊
Oh no. A document that explains very basic trigonometry and somehow flatzoid thinks this applies to making right angles triangles using a sextant.
I haven’t seen the rest but I bet it goes into sin rules, cosine rules, latitudes and spherical trig for applying measurements to a globe and not right angles triangles like flatzoid says.
Sublimation vs boiling vs what? Heat watts + time + amount of water = time to boil. E=I/R stuff...or some algebraic formula. All are variables. The guy likes to argue about nonsense!
Mr S. About sextant topic. Both FZ drawings were absolutely wrong. If the elevation angle is 40 and GP is 50, then you can’t draw the GP line directly from the star, because the star is very very far away. Actually the GP should be also 50 degrees on the arc to the left from the measured point, but on that drawing is rather 15 :D so it means the actual GP of the star should be on the line, that starts from the centre of the earth and should be parallel with the measured line. It gives the same angle to the observers zenith and true GP position on the surface of the earth. Stars are far away and you can’t actually draw direct lines from the star :)
Yep
Flatzoid never fails to fail 😀
Great job mr s! 👏
Thank you kindly
@@MrSensibleHistoric do you know if you managed to get the point across about Triangles and celestial Navigation?
Prove that anyone can run a mile in under four minutes. What is the IV/DV. You did not manipulate the IV you just observed and waited for them to cross the finish line.
Or using Flatzoid's analogy with the boiling water, you dont apply any heat, come back and it is still not boiling. Okay, now your house has an electrical fire (you did not cause this) and now you look at the pot as your house is burning down, and see (through the agony of your face searing off) that it is boiling, the only thing that has changed is that it is hotter, what is the cause.
The derp in Failzoid is off the scale. I couldn't watch this.
Is there so much as *one* flerf who doesn't dismiss as not being science anything that doesn't follow "THE scientific method" as simplified so that it can be grasped by the average school child?
Flatzoid is, as always, demonstrating the arrogance of ignorance that underlies practically every aspect of flerfdom and the attitudes of its disciples.
--
"You have no bloody idea what you're talking about, Flatzoid ... at all!"
No truer words were ever spoken about Flatzoid.
It is a tragedy that hamsters were forced to work to move electrons bullied into conveying the drivel that Flatzoid spews.
This is the last time I'll ever waste time watching anything with Faltzoid. His arrogance of ignorance is extreme. He's fractally wrong about everything.
1:05:48 - causal relationships can be and often are complex and multivariate. Flatzoid wants to make the argument that boiling water is a simple causal relationship where it is solely the heat doing the causing, but clearly that’s not true. It’s a multivariate equation. The boiling point equation requires both heat and pressure. The heat required to raise a substance to its boiling point also does not transfer instantaneously, there is a causal relationship for thermal conductivity that can be described mathematically; you will not be able to cause a substance to raise in temperature without time. In this case, time seems like an indirect factor because the process of a liquid boiling and thermal conduction are atomically separate transactions, but time is directly important for thermal conductivity.
For a causal relationship to manifest, you need all the necessary ingredients, not just the ones you pick and choose. For boiling water, we might default to thinking one way to conduct the experiment would be to hold pressure constant and manipulate temperature, but you could easily do the converse and control boiling via pressure. That doesn’t suddenly mean that heat isn’t part of the causal relationship.
Time is almost always an essential ingredient for a causal relationship. By it’s very definition, causality implies some kind of state change from some temporally previous state A to a subsequent state B. You can always control this time variable by controlling the duration of measurement or when to begin/stop measuring.
This also gets at another frequent flat earth misunderstanding. Flatzoid wants to argue that there is something important about doing some sort of “hands-on” manipulation. But if that were true, then it wouldn’t be science for anybody else besides the person turning the knobs. And then there’s the question of, if I turn a knob, and that sets off a long chain of events, how many chained events does it take before it’s no longer “direct manipulation?” The answer is: that isn’t even remotely important. Flatzoid even said a couple times himself: the thing that allows him to conclude that heat causes water to boil is the fact that he can use a model to predict when and how water boils. The IV manipulation is not relevant in this regard. IV manipulation is good for narrowing down what sort of factors are related to the phenomenon, but our ability to conclude that we know something about how reality works is purely about the quality of our predictions.
Finally, on that note, since Flatzoid brought up Nostradamus predictions, it’s clear that he really doesn’t know what makes science work at all. It’s not the IV manipulation that enables us to separate science from Nostradamus. No - scientific predictions should be novel, testable, quantifiable, accurate, falsifiable, and possibly a few other characteristics I’m forgetting about. Nostradamus predictions fail on almost all of these metrics.
Good one mr sensible
A problem with the idea that the ID needs to be manipulated personally: what if it is a blind experiment? Blind experiment? You have 2 people doing the experiment: a person that adjusts a variable, and another that does the observing/recording. The observer does not know what is being adjusted, or even if anything is adjusted, their job is just to observer and record. It can also be made into a double blind, where the person making the adjustments does not know the outcome of their adjustments. A great advantage to experiment like this is all bias is removed. BUT according to the logic of the observer has to directly manipulate the variable, this type of experiment is invalid. So most of all modern medicine doesn't work :)
2 hrs of nu ahh...
Before you can teach a flerth how a sextant works you have to convince them of a globe first. Otherwise they will willfully NEVER know how a sextant works and just claim they work differently to the INSTRUCTIONS (while not having a clue how a sextant works).😅 And they will NEVER read the INSTRUCTIONS of a sextant if they believe in a flat earth. 😂
18:16 🤨
Flatzoid is a potato.
How dare you insult such a magnificent vegetable! I mean the potato 😂
Use your sextant in your house and measure to your light fixture move backwards in 3 foot increments note every 3 feet results in decreasing angular change
does time not cause ageing?
Why after you telling him that you don't need a triangle, did he carry on with the triangle argument?
Flatzoid, time to change your name to curvezoid. You failed.
Heat does not ALWAYS cause water to boil. No heat can be added, but the pressure can be reduced, the water will boil. This is true as long as water is a liquid. So if they want to complain about ice not doing this as proof of temperature, ask for any natural solid that goes directly to a gas, without becoming a liquid. As far as I know, there is none. If no other examples exist, they are using special pleading for ice into steam. If they use a non naturally occurring solid, by their own definition, it can't be science as it isn't found in nature. So a fallacy or a contradiction :)
HUGE problem with the childish version of the scientific method: it is presented to get the concept of how to answer a question using facts. That is it. This is known, in part, due to the fact that it is ALWAYS quoted without the part of "see if anyone else has asked this question", because it doesn't fit with their story.
As I work in the Engineering field and use science daily, I feel like I can walk through a quick example:
1. I wonder if any plants have a "rainbow" coloration of the leaves normally? (As in the leaves are normally rainbow striped)
2. My hypothesis should have my question and criteria that are experimented for (THIS is what makes it an experiment and not just an observation) (If leaves are found with the color pattern of red, orange, yellow, etc, then the leaves are rainbow striped, leaves can not be stripped due to un-natural means, or during dying processes, etc)
3. Have I seen this in nature? Nope, But I can still question if it exists, So "Observe in nature" step is tossed.
4. Then, has anyone else ever seen it? I can use the internet, talk to people, check out books on botany, etc. to see if anyone has answered this question, and to see if it is even possible or if it is impossible (Per current understanding of the way plants work)
5. Then I could go find EVERY plant and check the leaves to verify the color.
6. After I have done all of this, and concluded that there are no plants currently or any known in the past to have rainbow stripes, can I conclude this doesn't happen, or can never happen? Not really. I can conclude that it currently doesn't happen, and the current method of photosynthesis requires it to be green, thus a mutation would have to occur.
So I can conclude that it is not currently natural and for that to happen, very specific mutations would have to occur. THAT is my answer. It should never be a 100% yes or 100% no. It should be conditional. Further research will refine this observation.
Christ. ANY variable can in independent, dependent, or controlled. It's about what you're isolating in the experiment. A CHANGING variable that is AFFECTING the result of the experiment is an INDEPENDENT variable. Variables which remain CONSTANT (or can be determined to not affect the result) to ISOLATE them from the result are CONTROL variables. The DEPENDENT variable is the thing is AFFECTED BY the experiment and CHANGES (or not, a null result is still a result if you expected the DV to change) when the independent variable has changed.
Are you testing the passage of time? Then you run the experiment with differing lengths of time. Otherwise you control for time (a control variable) by running the experiment for the same amount of time. Is the result dependent on the presence of an object? Then the lack of or presence of that object is an independent variable. In neither case do you have to physically manipulate a variable. You merely allow a given amount of time to pass or wait for that object to be present during the observation.
In this particular experiment, the dependent variable is the measured position of the stars, which are being bent toward the large mass. The independent variable is the presence of a large mass. And the control is the specific region of the sky / grouping of stars being photographed. You can control for time (and other variables) by making multiple measurements with and without the large object at different times.
How many ways did i try to tell him that!
@@Mr-Sensible You did try, but I don't think he fundamentally understands the basic definitions. You were giving examples, but he would just say it wasn't, or that it required some special extra flat earth touchy-feely sauce to be valid. But that simply doesn't exist in the basic definition of what these things are.
E is an inverse!