Пікірлер

• 
  @RegisTerSlow40 минут бұрын

  I find it hilarious that “gravity” is such a mystery to scientists, to the point they admit they don’t know really what it is, yet they’re so thirsty to know everything ever that they jumped on the incoherent ramblings of a furry headed crackpot madman and agree with his insane “cause” for the observation of 9.8m/s/s. On a flat Earth, it’s just one vector, much simpler. What’s the “cause” of entropy??? I chalk it up to a natural law and it happens to work by the design of a higher powers intention. This is by far a much simpler and million times more realistic explanation than bendy space time. Straight paths through curved space??? Bahahahahah. Bizarre little white headed freak who had relations with family members, yeah, that’s who we will listen to. What a joke

• 
  @FlatEarthMathСағат бұрын

  I don't think you understood a single word of a single video you watched. You also ignored the elephant in the room: Flat Earth folks have NO explanations, no model, no theories, no equations for gravity. THAT'S NOT AN IMPROVEMENT from what we see here: disagreement at the bleeding edge of General Relativity. In your next video you can address Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Disagreement by PhDs in astrophysics about what binds superclusters of galaxies together, while Flat Earth folks say, "Ooooh! Pretty lights in the sky!"

• 
  @jesusislukeskywalker42942 сағат бұрын

  thumbs up 👍🏻 number 8

• 
  @jesusislukeskywalker42942 сағат бұрын

  hope y’all doing okay in the good olde USA 🙏 it’s all a bit funny 🙈

• 
  @bogganalseryd23244 сағат бұрын

  We still know earth isn't rising anywhere, interferometry proves that.

• 
  @marcg16864 сағат бұрын

  Given that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, I would expect Earth to be moving at several multiples of the speed of light by now.

• 
  @bogganalseryd23244 сағат бұрын

  @@marcg1686 yup, wooosh 😂

• 
  @bogganalseryd23244 сағат бұрын

  @@marcg1686 That isn't a given by any stretch, look up the great unconformity, missing billions of years of layers lol 😂

• 
  @space_audits4 сағат бұрын

  "All of KZread got tricked by a coordinate system transformation" GG.

• 
  @bogganalseryd23244 сағат бұрын

  Nailed it Brian

• 
  @Petey1944 сағат бұрын

  I don't think the observer "rushes up" or is "moving" towards a stationary apple. Is that what you think is happening Brian? Or could it be that the observer on the surface can accelerate without actually moving while the apple can be moving without actually accelerating? I don't mind saying that I've never studied physics and perhaps that shows but I think the narrator in the video is just trying mislead us a little bit and sensationalise for clicks and views. It's like in the double slit experiment videos where someone will say the electrons know we've got one eye open, peeking around the corner at the apparatus, making the electrons go through just one slit. It's misleading and there's more to it than just passively observing. What does it mean to "observe" in this example? Could it be that the electrons are being physically interfered with during the observation causing wave functions to collapse? I see no difference to this and the "rushing up" wording to meet the apple. All interesting stuff and food for thought but none of this makes me believe the planet I live on is a pancake.

• 
  @jesusislukeskywalker42942 сағат бұрын

  snowflakes prove flat earth 🤠 ive done a video on it

• 
  @andrewjohnston66315 сағат бұрын

  I’d be a little more interested if you could use something from flat earth to predict the downwards acceleration, specifically the magnitude.

• 
  @beyondtheimaginarycurve79245 сағат бұрын

  there is no physical downwards acceleration, its a visual interpretation, provide a physical measure of actual downward acceleration, not a visual interpretation of change in the vector, you cannot provide it, all tests show no actual physical downwards acceleration........oops

• 
  @andrewjohnston66315 сағат бұрын

  @@beyondtheimaginarycurve7924 So… no mechanism to predict the downwards acceleration, specifically the magnitude. Got it.

• 
  @beyondtheimaginarycurve79245 сағат бұрын

  @@andrewjohnston6631 are you finding it difficult to comprehend?, pay attention, there is no physical downward acceleration, now if you keep asserting there is, provide the physical measure of it and not a visual interpretation of a change, do you comprehend the difference between apparent and actual? or are you just avoiding the fact?, chop chop wheres the physical downwards acceleration

• 
  @marcg16864 сағат бұрын

  ​​@@beyondtheimaginarycurve7924 Drop an object from a given height and it will accelerate towards the ground. This is observable and measurable. Our understanding of Newtonian gravity lets us put satellites into a geostationary orbit. It lets us determine where a satellite will intercept an asteroid. You have nothing.

• 
  @beyondtheimaginarycurve79244 сағат бұрын

  @@marcg1686 attach an accelerometer to the dropped object,it registers zero , the vector is demonstrably upwards, now stop peddling your silly little bias, you are actively denying the actual reality, i expect nothing less from globe zealots, you can cry and whine all you like, it wont change the reality

• 
  @tomfromamerica80425 сағат бұрын

  Brian, you may well be overthinking the problem. It is interesting to try to surmise the the *cause* of gravity, but who cares? You simply cannot deny the *effect* of gravity. It doesn't make any difference whether gravitation acceleration is due to a curve in space-time, or the surface of a mass accelerating away from its center, or anything else. The effect is the same. Things accelerate downward at 1 G on the surface of the Earth and about 1/4 G on the surface of the Moon. Whatever the cause, gravity still exists and that means the Earth cannot be flat. All the gaslighting and cherry-picking that you do will not change this truth, Brian. Would care to continue defending your flawed model?

• 
  @marcg16862 сағат бұрын

  Well said.

• 
  @tomfromamerica804225 минут бұрын

  @@marcg1686 , thank you! Do you figure that Brian might find the courage deep in his soul to accept the challenge and continue defend his flawed model? I doubt he has the guts to respond to my comment, but maybe I'm wrong.

• 
  @masteragario33356 сағат бұрын

  Good call. Flat earthers can't handle this truth or observable science and are too intent on chanting the Witsit mantra. Undeniable science.

• 
  @Yin1177 сағат бұрын

  Racial Slur...how nice from someone trying to oppose Science 11:56

• 
  @DazzaOnGoogle7 сағат бұрын

  Did you know that general relativity can be used to derive Newtons gravitational field equation Brian?

• 
  @flatearthtests97087 сағат бұрын

  The whole point in that video was to show that GR and Newtonian gravity are fundamentally incompatible.The math similarities are meaningless

• 
  @DazzaOnGoogle6 сағат бұрын

  I just went back to Dialects original. In the very next segment, he states that Einstein an Newton essentially agree. You truncated the video a bit prematurely

• 
  @DazzaOnGoogle6 сағат бұрын

  @@flatearthtests9708 I think the short form summary of Dialects video is that GR is complicated. It's hard to explain in intuitive terms in a non mathematical way. In no way are any of the referenced videos in Dialects original dumping on flat earth, as flat earth is even more fundamentally incompatible with any of these theories. You can choose any alternative cosmology, but NONE will be consistent on a flat earth

• 
  @tomfromamerica80425 сағат бұрын

  @@flatearthtests9708 , I was wondering what the point of this video was the entire time I was watching it. TBH, I think your video missed your point, but it is all a red herring, so who cares? You admit that the effects of gravity exist, thus you surely admit that this invalidates the flerfer conjecture. The Earth is a globe because gravity exists. Thank you for your help, but going forward could please just support your own position and leave supporting the globe to people like me, Brian?

• 
  @tomfromamerica80425 сағат бұрын

  @@DazzaOnGoogle , I find it amusing that Brian, by cherry-picking a video that denies other theories of gravity, must accept a theory of gravity that *completely invalidates* the flat earth conjecture. Oh, the delicious irony! 😂😂😂

• 
  @Yin1177 сағат бұрын

  Notice how the source videos are not shared in the video's description. Also what is with the shitty slowdown and repeat sections, utterly jarring.

• 
  @Petey1946 сағат бұрын

  The narration voice used reminds me of a channel called AntsCanada, Mikey Busto. Was it him or an AI version. Who knows. The slowed down parts is done by Brian when he thinks he's scoring a point.

• 
  @Petey1946 сағат бұрын

  Just found it. "The TRUE Cause of Gravity in General Relativity".

• 
  @poopytowncat7 сағат бұрын

  Please get back to the "ray gun and mirrors" videos! I want to know about "globe earth fudgery"!

• 
  @mmixlinus7 сағат бұрын

  For your own sanity, I think you'd be fine with just Newtonian mechanics. Never mind Einstein and GR.

• 
  @marcg16867 сағат бұрын

  Stick to celestial navigation.

• 
  @FlatEarthMath14 сағат бұрын

  First question: how far to tilt #4 down so ray goes back to #1 (actually it will go all the way back to the ray gun): 4º down from its horizontal. Second question: If mirror #5 were to be added, how far should it be tilted down to go back to #2 (actually all the way to the ray gun): 5º down from its horizontal.

• 
  @poopytowncat19 сағат бұрын

  I don't think there is anything about the shape of the Earth in this quiz. Take two facing mirrors a few inches or feet apart angled 1 degree from parallel and figure out a light path. You could perform a "Flat Earth Test" using three mirrors, a laser pointer, and a speck of smoke . The third mirror would be the last one where you can adjust the angle.

• 
  @pablosdog280823 сағат бұрын

  There's T & P vs altitude data (modeled) for the location just west of the Whidby Island NAS updated hourly as well as buoy data nearby. Jesse should correlate his observations to this data....would be better than nothing. Certainly we're only interested in the lower gradients.

• 
  @theubercasteКүн бұрын

  Why? Why are you asking for an explanation of lalalandia?

• 
  @curious1585Күн бұрын

  So a horizontal line from mirror 4 over the mirrors 3 and 1 will have an elevation h_level of 8*69^2 = 38088 in or 3174ft plus the elevation of mirror 4 (actually a little more but again small angle approximation applies). I use an initial beam height of 0ft instead of 1 mile btw. Referring back to the answers I gave to one of the responses in the previous video the heights h1 and h4 of mirror 1 and mirror 4 are: h1 = 3174 ft h4 = 50836 ft So the right triangle with an opposite length h_level - h1(again not exactly but approximated due to small angles) = h4 And adjacent 69 miles has an angle of (also not exsclty but you've shown the difference between chord length and arch length is very small) 7.9° at mirror 4. The light comes in at 4° so you need to rotate it by 4° for alignment and then 1.95° further to reflect it a total of 3.9° off axis. So you'd need to tilt mirror 4 by about 6° to reflect the light directly back to mirror 1. Mirror 1 would reflect the light back into the ground.

• 
  @JonathanMBardsleyКүн бұрын

  Just use curved mirror lol

• 
  @pfinkpfloydКүн бұрын

  When you say the mirrors are 69 miles apart, you might think you’re simplifying math, but you’re really not. 69 miles is the arc curve between 1 degrees. Maybe try one more time and be really really specific. Draw some lines and measurements so we don’t have to guess what you mean

• 
  @andrewjohnston6631Күн бұрын

  Are we ignoring refraction? My quick guess is that the light will leave mirror 4……. …..8 degrees above horizontal.

• 
  @bluemarblescienceКүн бұрын

  Did you just now discover the law of reflection Brian? If I told you Θi = Θr could you work it out from there like a big boy? I put a diagram in MMM for you. Now here's a quiz for you. Make the mirror surfaces curved and tell me what happens. How do you work that out?

• 
  @rupertcowКүн бұрын

  I sent you a dm in Discord I set this up as a simulation. Mirror 4 will need 6 degrees tilt to hit mirror 1. Mirror 3 will need to be tilted back 1 degree from perpendicular to the surface at that point to hit mirror 2

• 
  @laurilehtiaho96183 күн бұрын

  Problem: close stars would deviate from each other near the Equator, ones veering left, the others to the right. This does not happen in reality - so your model does not work, sorry to say.

• 
  @curious15854 күн бұрын

  The light will be 4° off normal the fourht mirror. The mirror is 1° tilted to that at mirror1. Input angle equals output angle so it the exit at mirror1 is 1°up. Mirror2 is tilted to that by 1° again so input = output is 2° off normal and so fourth Tilting the mirror4 down by 1° would make it parallel to mirror 3. The light would still be reflected up further by 3° instead of 4°. So no, the light would not by reflected down to mirror1. To reflect the light back down the same path it came from mirror 4 would need to be titled down from vertical by 4°.

• 
  @poopytowncat4 күн бұрын

  *I'm guessing you left out some important specifications. You specified all items - including the ray gun - is level.* However, your sketch and animation seem to imply the ray gun is elevated and shooting across the "hump" at an equally elevated Mirror i and the initial ray path is parallel with level at the center of the hump. If that's the case, the ray gun cannot be level at its location.. Edit: Deleted erroneous mirror height calculations!. Check replies for correct heights. .

• 
  @curious15854 күн бұрын

  That's not what he was asking about and incorrect for all but mirror1.

• 
  @poopytowncat3 күн бұрын

  @@curious1585 -- _"incorrect for all but mirror 1"_ My comment with the answer is not showing up - probably with 100 other answers. What is is your calculation of mirror heights?

• 
  @curious15853 күн бұрын

  @@poopytowncat he did not ask about mirror heights at all actually. Hence why I didn't do that. Though the mirror heights should be (with small angle approximation). First mirror: drop from horizontal plus original beam height (let's say 0ft for simplicity) is at the height equal to drop from horizontal at 69miles so 3174ft (or roughly 3200ft as you stated). The second mirror will have that drop additional to the new 'observer height' of the first mirror. Plus the increase in elevation due to refelcting up by 1°. So 3174ft * 2 + 68mi sin(1°) *5280ft/mi = 12706 ft Third mirror height of second mirror plus drop and slope of 2° = 28595 ft Fourth mirror height of third mirror plus drop over 69 miles plus slope of 3° upwards as it travelled from mirror3 so 50836 ft Seeing how this works out I'm guessing the quessing one of his points is going to be how fast the heights of the mirrors would go into multiple miles. Then again this if over a length of 69 miles, without refraction and a perfectly colliminated beam. We don't have access to that kind of optics over this kind of distance.

• 
  @poopytowncat3 күн бұрын

  @@curious1585 -- You are right! I started wrong at Mirror 1 and kept going. It's obvious to me (now) that from Mirror 1 point of view, it's horizontal plane is 3200 feet above its surface and 6400 feet above the ray gun, and its horizontal plane bisects the ray gun, Mirror 1 and Mirror 2 triangle. Thanks for the good help or I would be claiming something wrong forever!

• 
  @QNFee5 күн бұрын

  the ae map generator uses globe raduis , i hope that explains it

• 
  @flatearthtests97085 күн бұрын

  True,but I found a pretty interesting way to aquire it using planar trig.I like your shit man.I would love to have a chat sometime cause I have some questions

• 
  @CrowManyClouds6 күн бұрын

  Hey Florida boy? Better watch those "cracker" slurs.

• 
  @fedogma84077 күн бұрын

  Wow, so much nonsense packed into 9 minutes. Sorry to be blunt, but your ignorance of this subject is off the charts.

• 
  @Rachie-nj3oi7 күн бұрын

  Lol i respect you and like your content too, but the video was made 2 years ago lol. 'Something's curving' yep the earth brian. 🌎 How are you determining the height to the cloud? Why so close to horizon where refraction is more of an issue? Cmon brian you know better than that.

• 
  @curious15857 күн бұрын

  So it's just a huge CoInkiDinK that geometry still works if the premise of a flat earth gets thrown out? At what distance does geometry stop working? Do you have any explanation with predictive power for the 'celestial refraction' magic you're proposing? Looks like you're just doing math to make retrospectively fit the unmatching model to reality.

• 
  @FlatEarthMath7 күн бұрын

  I decided to dive into his "Celestial Refraction" and it's quite ingenious, I'll give him that. b is the angle at Polaris of the Flat Earth Right-Triangle where the north pole is at the right angle and the observer is at the other angle, a B is the FE distance from observer to the north pole, calculated using the Right Triangle trig (not accurate) The "celestial refraction" is b^2 * B / 9000. After this is subtracted from B, the resulting distance from the observer the north pole is about 1% off for almost all northern latitudes, down to within 20º latitude of the Equator. Then things (ahem) go South.

• 
  @mmixlinus8 күн бұрын

  Hey Brian. There's only ONE thing you need to do. Wherever you are, just measure the angle to Polaris. Start at home. When ever you go somewhere far away enough, say holiday in the Northern hemisphere, measure the angle to it. Keep records. You only need a plumb bob and a large protractor. Notice how you can't triangulate Polaris if you assume it is close, or the earth is flat.

• 
  @CrowManyClouds6 күн бұрын

  Having seen what Brian has used in the past as a protractor . . . that ain't gonnna work!

• 
  @andrewjohnston66318 күн бұрын

  0:10 I realised that you just took this … challenge” From the description of the video that Rachie released *two days ago:* “so this was a video I made 2 years ago…”

• 
  @FlatzoidsPerspective8 күн бұрын

  Good video Brian. Yes she has become really late to this. And she can’t understand

• 
  @andrewjohnston66318 күн бұрын

  Rachie re-released a video of hers from two years ago. She’s not “late to this”.

• 
  @Rachie-nj3oi7 күн бұрын

  Flatzoid wrong as usual 😂

• 
  @StephenJarvis-pi5zu7 күн бұрын

  Mr 11 Frames has entered the building🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞 There they are found them 🐭🐀🐁

• 
  @robkihn45668 күн бұрын

  I think you're a great guy Brian.

• 
  @roohif8 күн бұрын

  Yup, reiterating what FEM just said - a theodolite and an ADSB receiver. You’ll see the trig works fine but you’ll have to adjust for earth curve ..

• 
  @slappingthebass22718 күн бұрын

  Geoid a hypothetical surface 😂

• 
  @marcg16868 күн бұрын

  @@slappingthebass2271 As long as the distance from the North Pole to the Equator is a quarter of the Equator's circumference we'll just have to settle for a globe. 🤡

• 
  @FlatEarthMath8 күн бұрын

  @@slappingthebass2271 All snark, not actually bringing anything worthwhile to the table. But at least you're on the _We Only Seek Truth_ side, right?

• 
  @slappingthebass22717 күн бұрын

  @@FlatEarthMath the anti flat earther is triggered 👆🏼🤣

• 
  @FlatEarthMath7 күн бұрын

  @@slappingthebass2271 please get help. All I EVER see from you is snark. I've never seen you make an actual point. Both Roohif and I (and many other globers) engaged Rachie in conversation using facts and logic. To her credit she listened (and disagreed) and learned. We are taking a similar tact with Brian, ad we do with other FE folks. People don't learn anything from constant snark other than your reputation, which you are personally crafting. Do better. 🙂

• 
  @FlatEarthMath8 күн бұрын

  Brian, you make some interesting points, none of which have any measurements whatsoever. You're just guessing, and then performing calculations on your guesses, and then concluding that trignonometry doesn't work with the sky. This is quite painful. Then you show planes, which are probably cruising level, but claim it's a dome? What about perspective? Look up at something flying level high overhead, and it can either be going "up" in your field of view or "down" (crashing into the ocean LOL). If you had BOTH a theodolite AND Flight Radar 24, you could take angle measurements of the plane, while getting the plane's actual data (altitude and speed) in real time. Repeat several times with multiple angle measurements, and you'll quickly discover that trig works just fine. None of this "pick a cloud about 2 sun-widths off the horizon" (this is 1º by the way). Precision trumps guesswork. 🙂

• 
  @slappingthebass22718 күн бұрын

  Word salad too long didn’t read

• 
  @marcg16868 күн бұрын

  ​@@slappingthebass2271 I can well imagine that you didn't read it.

• 
  @andrewjohnston66318 күн бұрын

  @@slappingthebass2271Nice to see SlappingTheSalami trolling under Brian’s bridge, waiting to hurl insults at anyone who walks by. Anything of substance to say instead?

• 
  @slappingthebass22718 күн бұрын

  @@marcg1686 human constructed dogma nahhh I’m good

• 
  @slappingthebass22718 күн бұрын

  @@andrewjohnston6631 Andrew is back again🤭

• 
  @antidope19629 күн бұрын

  Who the hell writes $50 like 50$ ?

• 
  @RidgewayMountainhauser9 күн бұрын

  i wonder why he didn't use that AE projection mapper to go out as far as antarctica. that has to be an intentional deceit.

• 
  @billbobhere9 күн бұрын

  4:23 ya it does if you used the right google earth where it doesnt have that issue at the north or south, but just claiming it doesnt work by using the wrong one does not make it wrong, also you can test this on a physical glob and i bet you dont get the same thing happen that you just showed, and claiming the AE map works has never been shown to work, and im willing to bet that at no point in this video will they ever show it working 8:50 and how are you meant to get an accurate fix if you cant even show an accurate FE map or place all of that on 😆you can only show parts of the earth at a time or else you will get all kinds of distortions, you do know this can be done in reality on a physical globe and get a accurate reading 🤔strange how you cant do that

• 
  @johnqpublic76089 күн бұрын

  this is simple. once you used the globe method to determine the distance to the GP of the star, take a compass and draw a circle that distance around the GP on the AE map. if the AE map is really the map of flattardia, you can check locations around that circle and verify that the angle of elevation matches all the way around. we already know that the angle of elevation won't match, because you used a localized globe projection map, not the AE map of flattardia. are you being intentionally dishonest or are you really that stupid?

• 
  @johnqpublic76089 күн бұрын

  "The Haversine formula calculates the shortest distance between two points on a sphere using their latitudes and longitudes measured along the surface. It is important for use in navigation."

• 
  @johnqpublic76089 күн бұрын

  he got the distance to the GP by subtracting the angle of elevation from 90 degrees and multiplying it by 60 nautical miles. that only works if the earth is a sphere where 1 degree of circumference equals 60 nautical miles and does not conform to a flat earth at all. a flattard has to use a method that conforms to a flat surface, like trig.

• 
  @mmixlinus9 күн бұрын

  2:45 What the heck? The Law of Cosines is a Straw Man? Er no, it's just a relationship between the sides of a triangle and its angles... It always works on a plane! You should be happy Brian, because in the form it's used here, it only works for FLAT triangles

• 
  @ZeteticAF9 күн бұрын

  Thanks Brian!

• 
  @wiard10 күн бұрын

  Earth is flat but not azimuthal, that’s just a globe projection with either north or South Pole in center

• 
  @slappingthebass22719 күн бұрын

  All maps are flat 💀

• 
  @wiard9 күн бұрын

  @@slappingthebass2271 that wasn’t my point, globetard