*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« on: May 12, 2018, 11:54:48 PM »
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 01:43:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

TID

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2018, 01:01:47 AM »
this is an awesome video.

this one will also make you think


Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2018, 01:42:03 AM »
tbh i'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2018, 01:57:46 AM »
this is an awesome video.

this one will also make you think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE

Thank you. You are right, that is an interesting video. It really makes one think.

tbh i'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."

Go ahead, then. Quote or reference the literature where his questions are explained.

TID

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil Degrasse-Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2018, 02:08:17 AM »
tbh I'm not sure why this video would merit a response.  the author mostly just displays a lack of understanding of the model he's polemicizing.  points 1 and 4 are especially bad.

as a wise man once said: "Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites."

You can't deny something without giving a reason why you think this, that's stealing.

Give your points, it's ok no one will ridicule you, this is a healthy discussion.

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2018, 02:38:46 AM »
Go ahead, then. Quote or reference the literature where his questions are explained.

i mean tbh the onus is on the author to demonstrate that he understands the position he's criticizing.  it's no different than the noobs who demonstrate that they haven't read eang.  how seriously do you take their arguments?

but okay.  to point #1, the author has apparently never heard of plate tectonics.  the basic story goes like this: first a rocky crust formed; next, we got oceans; finally, continents formed because mantle convection and plate tectonics and such.  the continents have moved around since then.  there's nothing in modern physics that says continents can't form at, or migrate to, the equator.

to point #4, this is basic physics of motion stuff.  the atoms simply don't have enough velocity to escape.  i can't throw a baseball fast enough to escape the earth, but i can still throw it in the air.  i can still accelerate the baseball in any direction.  it just won't ever escape the earth's potential well.

also fwiw i actually totally sympathize with you about ndgt.  i genuinely can't stand him.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 02:56:56 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2018, 03:41:34 AM »
Quote
but okay.  to point #1, the author has apparently never heard of plate tectonics.  the basic story goes like this: first a rocky crust formed; next, we got oceans; finally, continents formed because mantle convection and plate tectonics and such.  the continents have moved around since then.  there's nothing in modern physics that says continents can't form at, or migrate to, the equator.

I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land. There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water? In RET the difference between the earth's diameter between the pole and the equator is 42 kilometers.

Quote
to point #4, this is basic physics of motion stuff.  the atoms simply don't have enough velocity to escape.  i can't throw a baseball fast enough to escape the earth, but i can still throw it in the air.  i can still accelerate the baseball in any direction.  it just won't ever escape the earth's potential well.

Murphy's response to this rebuttal is that it is already accepted that the atmosphere does leak out into space.

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html

Quote
Every day, around 90 tonnes of material escapes from our planet's upper atmosphere and streams out into space

If some atmosphere can leak out, why doesn't it all leak out?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 04:34:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2018, 04:45:01 AM »
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?

there is a bulge of water at the equator.  so what?  continents build up from the seafloor.  there's no reason they can't build up higher than sea level at the equator.

If some atmosphere can leak out, why doesn't it all leak out?

because not very many atoms in the atmosphere are ever accelerated enough to escape.  it's possible to hit a baseball hard enough for it to escape the earth, but that's no reason to assume we should be running out of baseballs.

also your article says that the cause is acceleration by magnetic fields at the poles.  it makes clear that the loss is minuscule.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2018, 07:09:15 AM »
There should be a very high bulge of water there; so how does it make sense that there is land sticking out of the water?

there is a bulge of water at the equator.  so what?  continents build up from the seafloor.  there's no reason they can't build up higher than sea level at the equator.

It certainly does seem very odd that the lands at the equator can build up so high in comparison to the other continents.

We should expect, then, that the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. But the average depth of the Pacific is only 2.65 miles and the deepest part of the ocean in the Pacific at Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is only about 7 miles. It appears that you have a lot of explaining to do.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2018, 07:29:07 AM »
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.
There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2018, 07:49:14 AM »
I believe his argument is that if there is a bulge to the earth, because of centripetal acceleration, then naturally the water should have gone to the equator since that is easier to move than the land.
There's a bulge because as the earth cooled it was spinning, the centripetal force made the earth bulge slightly.
But at that stage of the earth's history there was no water, the crust was just cooling molten rock.
I haven't watched the rest of the video but the first point is pretty silly and shows no understanding of the theories about the history of the earth's formation.
He seems to imagine an earth as it is now bulging because of the centripetal force, that isn't what happened.

The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2018, 07:51:59 AM »
Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.

EDIT: By the way. You really really should go on a simple science course. It may not change any of your views but it would help you debate stuff armed with a bit of knowledge about what our current scientific models say. You repeatedly show on here you don't know much about that. And there is nothing wrong with that in itself, not everyone can know everything, but arguing in such a condescending way from a place of such ignorance does you no favours.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 08:05:36 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2018, 08:07:58 AM »
Again, the bulge of the earth was caused because the earth was spinning at the time it was hot and malleable and the force could cause it to change shape.
Since then the oceans formed and there's been billions of years of tectonic page moving.

It doesn't matter. The water still needs to collect and bulge at the equator due to centripetal acceleration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge

Quote
Similarly, there is a bulge in the water envelope of the oceans surrounding Earth; this bulge is created by the greater centrifugal force at the equator and is independent of tides.

Are you saying that the ocean maintains its average depth between the poles and the equator and there is no bulge detected, in contradiction to the above quote and what we should expect from calculations?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 08:15:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2018, 08:14:06 AM »
I'm saying I don't know if any scientific reason there can't be land at the equator.
But I'll admit there are some scientific areas here I'm not an expert on, but neither are you.
I suggest you take my advice about a science class
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2018, 08:34:48 AM »
Take a look at this website: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

This website calculates that the water bulge at the equator. Do a find for "water" on that page to find the sections where it is computing what the bulge of the water should be. The calculations assume an earth with rock mass that bulges outwards. The conclusions are that the water should bulge out as well.

From the link:

Quote
This gives us a surplus energy of ½ mR² w ² , or ½mv²  for the drop of water, which is enough to carry the drop of water to a height of 11.035 km against the force of gravity at the equator, the same value we calculated earlier.

That's 6.85 miles. Basically the depth of Challenger Deep.

Why isn't it shown that the deepest parts of the ocean are at the equator?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 06:02:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2018, 08:46:53 AM »
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.



I think Mr. Sargent should first get some basic facts right. In his first question he stated the curve of the earth over the length of Lake Baikal of, just under 400miles to be 20 miles. I think his calculation of the curve needs to be checked, what do you think Mr. Bishop? Do you agree? Second point, he states he can see a distance of 5 miles in any direction over a flat surface. For this to be the case he would need to be 18ft tall! Do you think Mr. Sargent is 18ft tall?

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2018, 03:11:40 PM »
In 2016 the Flat Earther Dave Murphy, who is a notable figure in the greater Flat Earth community, had a few questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson has still not responded, although he has most assuredly seen it. There are a few good points to think about in this video.
I wish such notable figures would participate in forums like this. I'm not Neil, but I'll try to answer Dave's questions. I'll send him an email, pointing him to this thread. Maybe he'll join us and respond?



1. Why is there land at the equator?
Water does contribute to the bulge of earth's oblate shape, but rock is subject to the centripetal force of earth's spin too; and the effects of that centripetal force are smaller than other tectonic forces that cause rock to rise above the bulge of water. The "oblateness" is very small relative to the size of the earth. Forces causing movement of land masses are greater than the 1/3G force of centripetal spin.

And the condition is not constant. Changes occur over long periods of time. Sometimes the land does bulge less and water, if melted, moves due to the spinning force and covers more land. It's dynamic.


2. Am I able to see the curvature or not?
Curve in the lateral frame? (Across the horizon left to right or right to left?) No. You cannot see that curve. That curve would be the circumference of a spherical cap of the earth, which is too gradual at low elevations to detect.

Curve in the transverse frame? (Toward and away from the horizon?) You can "see," but only by inference. You can't see curve away from you directly. You see along a line tangent to the surface. But you can deduce that there is curve away from your vantage point.

3. Why haven't we ever seen curved water?

By "see" I assume you mean "detect." The curve is too gradual to see. But it can be detected, and has been.

4. How are we breathing?
Gravity.
Air, whether warm or cold, has mass. Some actually does "leak" away into space, but not due to the vacuum of space. The gas in a bottle analogy is not a correct model for the atmosphere of earth. In the bottle example, gravity exists both inside and outside of the bottle, so locally, the gas will seek equilibrium and the "vacuum" effect will occur. But the earth's atmosphere is not contained by boundary between vacuum and non-vacuum. Gravity creates a virtual boundary of sorts that causes the non-vacuum state of air to even exist. If gravitational force suddenly disappeared, the atmosphere would get "vacuumed" away. But were it not for gravity, there'd be no atmosphere at all for there to be vacuum and non-vacuum.

5. Is the Earth small or the Sun near?
I've never heard anyone give the "official explanation" being refraction for the phenomenon of crepuscular rays. The "official explanation" is they are nearly parallel and only appear to radiate due to perspective.

Since the suns rays are not divergent as they appear, but are parallel, the apparent disjunction re. Eratosthenes' shadow observation that you raised should be resolved.

6. How does a convex lens make light diverge?
It doesn't. You're right.  A convex lens doesn't make light diverge. The refractive index of earth's atmosphere causes light to bend (to about half a degree at most) toward the more dense medium. Explaining crepuscular rays as light bending toward area of less density would be in error and thus an incorrect explanation. (Who told you this "official explanation?")

7. Why doesn't the artificial horizon roll backwards during straight and level flight?
What manufacturer of attitude indicators did you talk to? There is no reason why they shouldn't have explained that the instrument is self-leveling, relative to the axis of gravity's force. They aren't merely a gyroscope with a fixed orientation in space. They do adjust, by design, for the change in axis due to gravity. (Speaking as a former aviator, I'm surprised the pilots didn't explain this to you also.)

8. Why is the Coriolis effect so selective?
Bullets are ballistic. Airplanes are not. The Coriolis effect is greatest in north/south movement and lessens as the east/west component of path increases. The effect is slight, but for gunnery over distance, accuracy requires accounting for the effect.

Planes moving over the surface of the earth will be affected by the earth's rotation under it, though it is slight and other influences (like wind) are much more impactful. Even at its greatest -- in an aircraft flying due north or due south -- the effect is not like having to crab into the wind as your video shows by false analogy. Planes (and bullets) retain the rotational momentum of the earth after taking off (or leaving the barrel). Planes, however, are guided. Bullets (mostly) are not. Either way, it's a misunderstanding to believe that the Corolis effect is selective.

9. What is the ISS flying over?
The view from low earth orbit is steeper than the view from an airplane cockpit near the earth's surface. It's the like how cruise at high altitude in a commercial airliner doesn't have the same "land rush" as flying low level like in a crop duster or strike fighter.

10. How can micro gravity be selective?
Gravity isn't selective. I can't offer a definitive explanation for that ketchup bottle. Looks to me like it's magnetized, but that's just my guess. Whatever the explanation, evidence of a hoax would be low on my list of possible solutions. For example, I might not rule out the explanation that a ghost is responsible for a sound heard coming from my attic, but I'm inclined to inspect and rule out other explanations first.

11. Why are there craters on the Moon?
The moon has no atmosphere and other eroding factors, so old crators remain in evidence. Earth's gravity does "protect" the moon to a degree, just as the larger outer planets and sun protect the earth from experiencing more impacts. But it isn't a shield. Some impacts will still occur on a satellite of a larger body. 

And as for the tidal lock, the moon wasn't always oriented to earth the way it is now. It takes time for that to occur. (The 'far side' of the moon does look more crator-impacted to me than the 'near side,' though I don't know if that's actually true.)

12.  Why don't we see permanent hills and valleys in the ocean?
I didn't understand what this question was asking until I saw the graphic of sea surfaces comforming to undersea terrain.

All things with mass are affected by gravitational force. But collectively, the force vectors combine to direct toward center mass. Terrain undulations have negligable effect compared to the earth on whole. The gravitational effects of localized masses like mountain ranges or deep sea rifts (lack of mass) are vastly overwhelmed by the aggregate gravitation of the rest of earth.



I welcome any response or rebuttals from Allegedly Dave (or Mark Sargent, who posted that video).

Offline isaacN

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2018, 03:18:09 PM »
Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2018, 03:35:40 PM »
Why would he bother answering these questions when the first couple are so ridiculus and clear examples of how ill informed and flexible wirh his facts Mr. Sargent is. If Mr. Bishop thinks they are good questions, perhaps he should take a second look. Its good and very healthy to question things but not in this ill informed embarrasing way.
Just a point of order:

Those are questions posed by "Allegedly" Dave Murphy. Mark Sargent is the video publisher.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2018, 05:12:07 PM »
I actually do agree with the first couple of minutes of the video.
As ridiculous as FE is, Neil deGrasse Tyson's response is not helpful and saying that we shouldn't challenge an idea because the answer has been established for hundreds of years is not helpful, I agree with the video that by that rationale Einstein would have been told to stop being ridiculous as Newton had already sorted it all out.
The way of tackling FE is to show the evidence for the globe, obviously some will dismiss that or call it fake, there's nothing you can do about that.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"