sovereignbull on Nostr: I mean, the video shows exactly that. You're suggesting the bottom of the rc boat ...
I mean, the video shows exactly that. You're suggesting the bottom of the rc boat isn't disappearing first? Even the guy conceded that point. This doesn't have anything to do with scale, it is done over a short distance to eliminate the variable of curvature. You can also recreate this effect over a flat, solid surface too, you could try it yourself. Boats are just one example, lasers are more definitive. Look up the FE CORE laser tests.
The only time there is curvature in a body of water is in your imagination, because it never exists at any scale - whether it be a glass of water, a pool, or a lake. Somehow, you think it's different in an ocean, but you have no photos of the curvature because it doesn't exist. This is simple cognitive dissonance that most people can't or don't want to overcome. It's the same as thinking that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning, everything would be flung in one direction at a 1000mph, even though we feel no motion. Completely ridiculous once you reconcile the absurdity.
If you cleared the slate and pretended you woke up for the first time today, then the default position is the Earth is stationary because we feel no motion. The claim that the Earth is moving is a positive claim, since it opposes our everyday experience, which means that evidence has to be provided for the claim.
The reason science came up for this was that it is all relative motion. After the MMX experiment failed to provide a positive result, Einstein stole most of 'his' work and combined with the work of Lorentz, created relativity, and then refining it further after more failed observational experiments into special and general relativity. Indeed, there are no experiments one can do to prove the motion of the Earth, which is why relativity exists in the first place - to explain away the lack of experimental results.
Where has that ended up? Oh, yeah, 'dark' matter. Something that cannot be seen or measured, but it 'has' to exist or else the whole theory is dead in the water. This is theoretical bullshit, no wonder many physicists are distancing themselves from that shitshow.
What you don't understand because you haven't examined the topic is there are dynamic and kinematic equivalences between the models, and that it is just a matter of how one chooses to interpret the observations.
I understand most people don't care about the topic, but having a hard opinion on a subject without examining the other side is no different to people who claim Bitcoin is a scam, but have put zero effort into understanding it.
The only time there is curvature in a body of water is in your imagination, because it never exists at any scale - whether it be a glass of water, a pool, or a lake. Somehow, you think it's different in an ocean, but you have no photos of the curvature because it doesn't exist. This is simple cognitive dissonance that most people can't or don't want to overcome. It's the same as thinking that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning, everything would be flung in one direction at a 1000mph, even though we feel no motion. Completely ridiculous once you reconcile the absurdity.
If you cleared the slate and pretended you woke up for the first time today, then the default position is the Earth is stationary because we feel no motion. The claim that the Earth is moving is a positive claim, since it opposes our everyday experience, which means that evidence has to be provided for the claim.
The reason science came up for this was that it is all relative motion. After the MMX experiment failed to provide a positive result, Einstein stole most of 'his' work and combined with the work of Lorentz, created relativity, and then refining it further after more failed observational experiments into special and general relativity. Indeed, there are no experiments one can do to prove the motion of the Earth, which is why relativity exists in the first place - to explain away the lack of experimental results.
Where has that ended up? Oh, yeah, 'dark' matter. Something that cannot be seen or measured, but it 'has' to exist or else the whole theory is dead in the water. This is theoretical bullshit, no wonder many physicists are distancing themselves from that shitshow.
What you don't understand because you haven't examined the topic is there are dynamic and kinematic equivalences between the models, and that it is just a matter of how one chooses to interpret the observations.
I understand most people don't care about the topic, but having a hard opinion on a subject without examining the other side is no different to people who claim Bitcoin is a scam, but have put zero effort into understanding it.