Finally, a summary debunking Nathan Thompson’s
flat-earth flyer.
If this is the first time you are watching
my video; well, welcome dear viewer. This
is a series where I take a look at one of
the Flat-earth flyer, and discuss/debunk one
section at a time; and this is the summary
video.
So, for all ten points, it would be a quick
TLDR; and if YouTube allows it, I will have
all ten videos come up as cards; anyway, they
would be listed in description.
Each video goes into a lot more details: so
for any point you are unclear on, or want
more information: please check those out.
This also gives me a way to correct or clarify
some points I had made on my earlier videos;
and points that I have skipped due to time
constrains.
It’s all time coded, just in case you want
to skip.
Point one: “Water is a natural level. No
curvature is ever detected over bodies of
water. All liquids when undisturbed are flawlessly
flat.”
Well, 71% of the earth connected as one large
body of water. I’m assuming that sentence
means all these water is at the same level:
i.e. the same height.
However, in real life, we find water to have
different sea-levels around the world due
to gravitational pull. Water near Darwin Australia
has a different sea level than in Sri-Lanka;
we call this local sea-level, and not to be
confused with global sea-level, which is an
average of all water basins.
So No; all liquids when undisturbed are flawlessly
flat is not correct in this context.
Point Two: “Airplane level flights. The
FAA assumes a flat earth when training pilots
using their Target Generation Facility. An
airplane travelling 500 mph would have to
compensate for a drop of 2,777 ft every minute
to maintain cruising altitude and not fly
off into ‘space’”
On my original video, I explained how it is
not possible to fly off ‘into the space’
even if a pilot wanted to; followed by how
a plane works including altitude meter using
barometric pressure to calculate it.
Next: calling it a drop is very very misleading.
In essence, in a round earth: if the aircraft
is maintaining the same altitude: as far as
the people on board; there is no drop.
I talked about how on a small two-seater plane
like Cessna 172, without any autopilot feature,
we have to use trim to keep our plane level
using VSI or Vertical Speed Indicator; this
also uses barometric pressure to measure this
value.
Supposing there are no external variables
that can change our altitude: and we simply
go with 90 degree “nose dip” when travelling
over one quarter over the earth.
In my original video, I used an elevation
of zero. That was simply because, if I did
the calculation based on 30 km, some would
complain that Cessna 172 doesn’t cruise
at that altitude. Thus by using a zero elevation
only works in my favour; as the higher the
altitude, the longer the arc distance… thus
helping my equation.
Earth’s circumference is 21,639 nautical
miles; so about 5409 nautical miles in one
quarter. So without external variables, I
would need to adjust my trim by 1 degree over
60.1 nautical miles. On our trusty Cessna
172 at optimal cruise speed, that would take
around 30 minutes. Even a long-distance commercial
passenger aircraft typically cruises at max
500 knots, which means it would take over
7.2 minutes for this 1 degree change.
That was my original script. I want to clarify
it in this video. I am talking about a gradual
change.
On my Cessna 172, I am looking at my VSI through
out the whole 30 minutes to ensure it’s
zero. Now the actual pitch of the aircraft
at that point depends on many variables: including
air speed, flaps and so on. If there were
no other variables, this pitch would then
depend on our altitude.
Unless I am a really bad pilot: trust me..
you will not feel this gradual change.
Point Three: “Science says it’s “Stationary
Every scientific experiment has proven earth
is completely stationary. The sun, moon and
stars move around polar centre above us. Research:
North Star, Michelson-Morley, Sagnac Experiment
and Airy’s Failure.”
TLDR: we know Polaris was not always the North-Star.
5000 years ago, it was Thuban – a relatively
inconspicuous star in the constellation Draco
the Dragon – was the Pole Star. In year
4000, we would be calling Errai our north
star. Fast forward to 7500: that honour would
belong to Alderamin. We have observed the
constellations to move since ancient times.
And that was one of their point. We know from
the planets movement that sun, moon, and stars
do not move around polar centre above us.
In face, geocentric model even came up with
the concept of epicycle to explain retrograde
motion before giving up.
We talked about all the three theories mentioned;
and how they were trying to prove the existence
of Ether. In fact, one of the experiment they
mentioned: “Sagnac Experiment” is the
basis of our Laser gyroscope. The same technology
Flat-Earther tried to use to prove that the
earth didn’t rotate.
>
Now, who wants to guess what the response
would have been, if the gyroscope returned
zero. It’s funny how they are willing to
accept science when it fits their narrative.
Point Four: “Horizon is always eye level.
Not only is the horizon is always flat to
the observer but it rises to eye-level. High
altitude amateur balloon footage without a
fish-eye or GoPro lens always shows a flat
earth.”
Well, yes, horizon is always eye level; I
have explain why it is; and how it is applicable
to both globe and flat-earth. So it neither
proves or disproves. I have also talked about
why wide viewing angle is necessary to view
the curvature and how lens distortion works;
And finally, the statement is false, as there
are balloon footage with lens that is not
as wide as GoPro lens.
Point Five: “We see too far. Mt. Canigou
in France is seen 175 miles away – according
to the curvature formula of earth (8 x mi2),
the peak should be 3,000 feet below the horizon.
Infrared is very revealing!”
So: yes, it is true; but at the same time,
you only get to see it less than three months
in a year under certain weather condition.
Refraction is how this magic happens. That
is the reason why we see sunrise or sunset
before or after it actually happened. You
can see similar phenomenon like Corsica being
seen from Monaco during early morning.
If you don’t buy it? Well, I ain’t selling.
But do ask yourself the following question.
If something looks the way it does only at
certain times under a certain condition: can
there be some other explanation why it looks
like so. If not, what is the explanation for
how it looks like the rest of the time?
Point Six: “The Dome is Real. There are
lots of proofs we live under a dome. Sundogs,
halos, rainbows, & star trails all prove this.
You can’t have a vacuum resting next to
a pressurized atmosphere without a barrier.
Even NASA admits they can no longer leave
low earth orbit. But they could in 1969?”
Well, yes, you can have an atmosphere next
to a vacuum; as we clearly have. The problem
is, you think full to nothing in one step,
where it is more a gradual change that involves
gravity and escape velocity of object.
Sundogs, halos are refraction and prism effect
from a specific type of shape formed by ice-crystal.
And thus, we don’t see it all the time…
it has a certain requirements. Where rainbows
are due to prism effect in water droplets.
Appling that to your dome model: Well, I would
say sundogs are only possible where the light
is shining from outside the dome, and the
side lights are reflection from dome sides.
In which case, are there people living outside
that dome? And do they know that they are
outside the dome.
Sundogs, rainbow and such depends on the environment
from your perspective. Thus the way a rainbow
appears to you is not the same to someone
else in a different location. If it was all
due to a dome, and these two people were close
enough compared to the size of earth, it would
look the same. But in reality, it looks different.
Star Trails: well, some stars we only see
in northern hemisphere; and during the year,
they appear at different position. We have
the same in southern hemisphere: looking at
you… southern cross.
Over time, we see different constellations.
Please give us a flat-earth model that can
explain all that. On a heliocentric model,
it all works out perfectly.
Nasa statement is just wrong, and my inability
to summaries it means… well, please check
my full video. Sorry.
Point Seven: “Moonlight is Cold. A laser
thermometer proves moonlight is colder than
in the shade. This fact indicates that the
moon is not a reflector of the sun’s light,
but rather a light source in-and-of itself.”
Well, no it’s not. In my full video, I explain
the issues with the so-called experiments;
followed by how to do it correctly with all
the control variables, with my prediction.
TLDR: It’s called radiative cooling. In
essence, the shade you are measuring. Well,
during days, it is what keeps that area cool;
and at night, it helps less heat from escaping
into the space.
So, if you do the same test on a moon-less
night, you would get the same result. Thus
it shows nothing.
Now, my background is not physics. And to
be brutally honest, I do not know enough about
thermodynamics to be confident enough to talk
to you about it. From a laymen perspective,
it has something to do with entropy which
means cold can never travel to hot.
The only thing I know about thermodynamics
that you can’t cheat it. It’s as certain
as taxes and death – though not as catchy.
If you want to know more: well ThunderF00t
is a YouTuber I can definitely recommend.
Point Eight: “Crepuscular Sunrays… The
sun is smaller than earth and very close.
We can trace the angle of rays back to their
source above the clouds. The sun is clearly
not massive or 93 million miles away, but
small and relatively close.”
Well, you can’t calculate the distance from
the variables presented; in my original video,
I have shown various images of god-rays. There
is one taken inside a cave, and one taken
in a forest. Now if you decide to draw a line
from the rays to a point; you will find that
you get a different height for the light source.
Now let’s go with option one. That is, your
method is indeed correct. So when you see
the light source closer, the sun is really
closer to you; but not only you, but everyone
else around the planet.
Question: did the sun came close in just that
one occurrence, or is it repeatable? So when
you are seeing that god ray, someone else
is seeing a really large sun.
Now, when the sun is closer, in a flat-plane,
would that not mean the light will spread
less; meaning the place that would be getting
sunlight is no longer getting it? Also what
happens with the season? Does it get warmer,
or does sun have nothing to do with season?
Simply put: sun being so far away, the rays
are almost parallel, as seen from outside
the earth’s atmosphere. Now blame your viewpoint
and the earth’s atmosphere for what you
are seeing.
You are seeing a photo on screen, where I
assumed the cave height to be 1km, and the
photographer to be very very far away. I know
that I over-estimated; but that was just to
satisfy the believers; guess how far the light
source is?
In my original video, I didn’t talk about
the actual distance to sun. Well, it was a
video talking about how god-rays can’t be
used to measure the distance.
The distance from Earth to Sun is 150.98 million
kilometre;
Now from my understanding, Greek Astronomer
Hipparchus in 2nd century BCE used the method
known today as parallax to calculate the distance
to moon. He did a remarkable job, and came
to within 7% of today's calculated value.
Another Greek astronomer Aristarchus around
the year 250 B.C. hypothesized that a half-moon
would mean all these three bodies would form
a right-triangle. The problem was, we only
knew one value, and we need one more to figure
out the triangle.
Aristarchus decided to estimate the angle
between moon and sun, and he came quite close:
87 degree, where in reality it's 89.83 degree.
Because of the huge distance, this small error
got magnified and his results were off by
a factor of more than a thousand.
Finally, in 1653, astronomer Christiaan Huygens
calculated the distance from Earth to the
sun. He used the phases of Venus to find the
angles in a Venus-Earth-sun triangle. The
advantage Venus had over moon was: well it
was going across different part of the sun;
giving us enough data points for our final
value.
Point Nine:
“Gravity is Magic. Newton’s theory has
never been proven. Gravity is easily explained
by density and buoyancy. Things rise or fall
based on their density and the medium in which
they are travelling through.”
So yes; the theory has never been proven.
No; gravity can not be explained with density
as it’s a property and not a force; ie.
a vector with magnitude and direction. It’s
not buoyancy either; as you might claim air
to be the fluid to cause the force buoyancy:
but that doesn’t explain why it is falling
what we call ‘down’; furthermore, in a
vacuum, where there is practically no air:
why does a feather and a bowling ball falls?
There is no medium. Furthermore, why do they
fall at the same rate?
Gravity is not magic, but yet it can explain
it all. And that theory can never be proven
due to… well check my full video for that.
Things that I have missed in my original video.
Well I talked about things dropping, but not
about things that happens to float or fly.
How come a helium balloon or a bird flies;
or a dandelion or a feather float… is that
not buoyancy?
Well, No. Just for simplicity, let’s separate
those into two groups; one is the one we can
visibly see making an effort to remain afloat;
like bees or birds flapping it’s wing, or
aircraft using thrust; on the other group,
we have things like helium and such: things
we can’t visibly see.
Let’s start with what I know most, and is
my personal hobby: flying. Well, in first
group, they all generate lift in various ways.
Aircraft uses a wing design that forces the
air to flow faster below the wing compared
to above the wing, that generates the lift.
There are four forces of flight – weight,
lift, drag and thrust, When it comes to bird:
well they flap their wings to generate enough
thrust.
Some birds may use gravity (for example, jumping
from a tree) to give them forward thrust for
flight. Others may use a running take-off
from the ground.
And the other group: well, it really comes
down to the displacement.
For example, for helium balloon: as long as
the weight of the helium plus the balloon
fabric is lighter than the air it displaces,
the balloon will float in the air. As helium
is a lot lighter than air, if you were to
fill a 1-liter soda bottle full of helium,
the bottle would weigh about 1 gram less than
the same bottle filled with air. That doesn't
sound like much, but in large volumes the
1-gram-per-liter difference between air and
helium really adds up.
Now before you call bullshit: This is not
only limited to air; this displacement is
the reason of the famous Eureka by Archimedes;
which states that when a body is immersed
in a liquid, it experiences an upward buoyant
force, which is equal to the weight of the
liquid displaced by the body. In fact, buoyancy
explains why some objects float, and others
don't.
Point Ten:
“Boats over the Curve? It is a common misconception
that boats disappear out of sight because
of the curvature of earth. The introduction
of the Nikon P900 and P1000 have posed a real
problem for the supposed curve of the earth.
Just Zoom in!”
Well, we actually said “boats disappear
out of sight from bottom up because of the
curvature of earth.” So even when you use
a Nikon P1000, you will still have the boats
disappear from bottom up”.
On my full video, I do talk about perspective
and refraction; what causes us to see a certain
distance; and what zoom does and so on”.
TLDR: for our brains or optics to register
two different points: well they need to have
an angle that is more than angular resolution
for our eyes. Anything less than that specified
angle: well, we can’t tell the difference.
Zoom or magnification allows us to limit our
viewing angle; ie: bring the object closer
to our view, but has the same drawback.
Which basically means: you can’t see something
with naked eye; well, you might be able to
see it using a Nikon P1000; if you can’t
see it with a P1000; well, maybe one day you
will be able to see it with a P10000.
One of my examples were a floating pillar;
half painted red and the other half painted
yellow.
On a globe model, at one point, you will only
see the red with naked eye, because the horizon
and yellow/red marker is less that the angle
you can perceive.
At that moment, if you bring out a Nikon P1000:
granted, you will see some yellow – and
that’s the keyword… some. You will not
see the full yellow, where you will see the
full red.
After a while, you will see no yellow; bring
out your P10000; you have some yellow; rinse
and repeat.
At this point, I want to take a moment, and
explain my motivation behind these videos.
I don’t expect hardcore flat-earthers to
come across my videos, and all of a sudden
start believing in a globe earth.
Oh no. But I expect those sitting on the fence,
or wants to know more… to present them with
facts and logic, in a simple way.
Start with the basic questions: from what
we observe. From my home, I don’t get to
see the horizon – thanks to all the bloody
buildings in the way.
But I do experience day and night. I have
summer and winter: that’s about it in UK.
When I look at the stars, I know there are
some stars I am just not seeing. There are
some stars that I can only see during some
times of the year.
Let’s start with a model that can explain
day-night, season, constellations to start
with, right? Once we have achieved that, only
then… maybe we should look at other thing.
I have just the thing: it’s called heliocentric
model.
This whole series has been all about debunking
the claims of flat-earther, and not much about
the proof of a globe earth. I did mention
various experiment through out the series:
now all I can do is promise to you that I
will have a video soon with a completion of
all the methods you can use at home to prove
a globe earth.
Well, that’s all for this video. Thank you
so much for watching. If you have enjoyed
this content: well, a like and a comment won’t
go amiss. If you would also subscribe for
future contents like this: it would definitely
help my small channel grow and would be thoroughly
appreciated.
Have a safe day; signing off.
