then he can't be very good.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 1:04, Reply)
it all just comes down to clicks and egos.
edit: oh and i appear to be aflame. but please don't be alarmed. i should be able to put it out with my explosive, post-covid coughing
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 12:24, Reply)
If flat-earthers can't grasp maths from Ancient Greece they're either trolling you or too bloody stupid to ever change their minds.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 5:37, Reply)
who had previously called me ignorant of flat Earth theory and ridiculed my belief in the history of spaceflight, moon landings, knowledge of how a fucking orbit works, etc.
Now, years later, he seems to have rejected flat Earth ("Don't talk to me about that crap") but now believes that Hunter Biden should be locked up for all the crimes he did (but cannot actually name one of them), and that all the various cases against Trump are part of a witch hunt.
Too bloody stupid. Radicalised. Also a prick.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 13:47, Reply)
When he referred to the flat-earther's yet-to-be spoken comments as bullshit.
It was going to be BS of course, but that's not the point.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 9:31, Reply)
Dave knows all of his bullshit in advance and gives no quarter. I approve. Fuck conspiritards.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 10:15, Reply)
I've never heard of Professor Dave and so came to this video with absolutely no preconceptions of the guy. Just came across as an unbearably smug, arrogant cunt.
Entertaining and engaging discourse is not born from one guy sitting there gormlessly going "LOL, you're such a thick twat, aintcha?"
From the few minutes I could bear to put up with Professor Dave, I have to say that 'Flat Earth Dave' conducted himself in a significantly more professional manner. Especially considering how hostile the environment was.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 16:50, Reply)
take the orbit of the moon, a curved ellipse I hear you say? Wrong. Einstein showed that objects with mass curve spacetime, the very reality that they move through, so the moon is following a straight path, the shortest distance between two points, but the spacetime it moves through is curved by the planet. Likewise what you see as the curvature of the earth is merely a function of your tiny human brains not being able to conceive that they are in a falling inertial frame of reference of a curved spacetime paradigm, moping about the surface of your watery rock, what we label gravity. Ah, but I see a ship sinking below the horizon I hear you say. How do you explain that? And again, your petit bourgeois anthropocentrical egotism makes me want to vomit. Does a man in a river running on a spinning barrel follow a curved path? No, he stays on the same flat tangent. It is just the view of the ship relative to the observer that makes it seem to follow a curved path, and as Einstein said, "observers don't mean shit in relativity, homes". The ship is on the flat, the world moves beneath it relative to the ship. all motion is relative. The earth is flat. QED.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 11:50, Reply)
that the earth was getting bigger (less dense) and this was driving continental drift and other things. Despite it having almost nothing to commend it, it wasn't until around a decade ago where geodetic measurements were accurate enough to falsify it completely.
(, Sun 14 Aug 2022, 2:34, Reply)
Then I stopped caring.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 15:33, Reply)
These 'Academics' spoonfeed Globeheads with information which is patently false and easily dismissable with only the most basic of critical thinking:
If the earth truly was a globe, then the curvature would mean that no matter where you stood, the apex of said curve would always be just ahead of you. Geodesists account for this imaginary 'curvature' in their trigonometry formulae when estimating the heights of mountains and other large natural features. After true height is calculated, these so-called professional (government funded, usually) Geodesists then skew the figure by accounting for their distance from the base of said feature, calculating the sea-level mid point, and adding extra elevation calculated by how much they claim the earth curves between these two points.
You theoretically could see Everest from San Francisco. However as its true empirical elevation stands at 437ft, line of sight is understandably obscured by a number of man-made structures.
Obviously, there are plenty of pictures of Everest which make it appear to be significantly taller than its true height, but this is simply an optical illusion/trick of perspective. Best example I can think of is if you've ever approached a reasonably long hill at the end of a straight stretch of road. As you approach the hill, the road can often appear almost vertical - at first glance the gradient appears so steep that it would be near impossible to drive/walk up. But as you continue, you realise that you're already on the hill and the incline is barely a fraction of how it first appeared. Same thing, basically.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 16:32, Reply)
It's more thought out than the replies I've seen. I think someone argued that you wouldn't be able to see it due to atmospheric obscuring. I've learned to stop caring for a lot of things. I don't even fear Trump.
(, Sat 13 Aug 2022, 17:23, Reply)
Well it ain't, even without pollution and dust I bet water vapour would set a limit.
I guess if you could see it then it would be red for the same reason as sunsets/sunrises
(, Sun 14 Aug 2022, 8:17, Reply)
So maybe Mount Everest is on the opposite side. I guess I do fucking care.
(, Sun 14 Aug 2022, 14:44, Reply)