Flat Earther Thinks She Knows Science

追加: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00][music] [music] >> Know where you stand with this, right?

[00:00:09]So, for something to be considered science or scientific, falsifiability, right, is a key component of that. But yet, can you point me in the direction of an experiment in which gravitational orbit, I'm not talking about gravity as a whole, I'm not denying a force acting on physical matter, is being verified as a scientific phenomenon other than the claim, right?

[00:00:33]So, like, oh, there's satellites in orbit, that's gravitational. Okay, well, that's the claim that that's what's happening. Is there an experiment in which it's verified or that you can think of in which it could be falsified?

[00:00:45]>> Uh yeah, like when we launch new satellites, they're launched according to uh all of the math and science behind gravitational orbits, and those launches are done hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times, and they are successful.

[00:01:01]So, but uh what I what I could do what I could point to I think a a far superior one would be uh the discovery of Neptune.

[00:01:13]Because we knew about uh the planet Uranus, and we had our equations for its orbital mechanics, but what people discovered was it's not following an orbital path perfectly. So, when you model a planet's orbital path, like with the sun, what you're really just doing is pretending the sun and that planet are the only things that uh exist.

[00:01:40]Because anything else with mass is going to be able to influence it, right? So, initially it's or it it's modeled that way, but then people saw that Uranus wasn't where it was supposed to be uh for its predictions in the future.

[00:01:57]So, what they said was, "Well, gravity's been so like the the model for gravity or whatever, our solar system model's been so successful, it predicted Halley's Comet perfectly.

[00:02:10]Um so, we know that this science works.

[00:02:14]Now, we also know, based on a gravity model, what would make the model misbehave slightly. And that would be another object with a lot of mass, like a planet, uh tugging on it. So, you the sun has by far the most gravitational influence, but other nearby objects can mess with it, too. So, I said, "Well, a planet in this location would do this."

[00:02:40]And then it was it was discovered literally the same day they they did the math on it. I always forget, there are two guys that discovered it. I can never remember either of their names, but so, yeah, the theory was put into practice based on all of the of the data and whatever you want to call it, and it was just 100% confirmed. Something we didn't even know existed yet was discovered based on that.

[00:03:06]>> Wow.

[00:03:07]And sure, so if you want to go with that, okay, so does observations, do they match the math? Then it would have debunked itself in 1933, right, when uh observations of galactic orbit didn't align, didn't match up with the math, right? And hence forth >> Talking about Mercury. 27 >> No, I'm talking about dark matter.

[00:03:27]Uh and how that was >> Dark matter wasn't discovered in 1933.

[00:03:30]>> No, no, no, not discovered, but I believe it was 1933 when the initial observations showing that >> That's the year Pluto was discovered.

[00:03:38]>> Mm hold on.

[00:03:40]19 Okay, 1 second. Let me verify. I could be wrong about the year, so if you don't mind, 1 second, let me see.

[00:03:46]>> Dark Dark matter, that was discovered by Vera Rubin and Fritz Zwicky in the There was either the late '50s or early 60s.

[00:03:53]>> No, um no, absolutely. So, I was correct. Yeah, Fritz, you are correct.

[00:03:57]Fritz Zwicky in 1933 studying galaxy clusters. So, no big deal. Yeah, um sure, and then supported by Vera Rubin's work, da da da da. Right, so >> Pluto was discovered in 1930. Okay, that's just that's way earlier than I thought. Okay.

[00:04:13]>> No, it's all good.

[00:04:14]No, I'm sure you have a lot of like numbers in your head and and information about history. It's easy to because it does say here that somebody else in like the 70s like confirmed it. So, no big deal. Um But yeah, the point being uh so, >> [clears throat] >> 27 What does dark matter account for?

[00:04:29]27% of the universe. So, wouldn't that have debunked itself in the theory?

[00:04:33]Because the math is If the math works out, the math works out, right? The theory should have been reevaluated or redone, but we're still using 1915 general relativity. And that's not that that on top of the fact that there's no experiment verifying gravitational orbit as an actual scientific occurrence, you're okay with that. Just band-aid it up >> There's nothing but I don't know if I don't know if I would call um like we've sent orbiters to the moon.

[00:05:02]Uh if that's not an experiment, then I don't know what counts as an experiment.

[00:05:08]We have a like and we've sent countless orbiters to Mars. So, like we've we've built things and put them in orbit and they behave exactly uh the way we plan for them to behave. So, that is just an absolute confirmation that gravity and orbits work the way we think they work. Like we we put things into orbit literally all the time. We've done it thousands of times.

[00:05:35]>> Except for 27% of the observable universe, which dark matter accounts for, because that's where it comes >> that's That's super That's super irrelevant because uh you know that quantum mechanics and classical mechanics don't work together either, right?

[00:05:52]>> Sure, if you're talking Newtonian versus yeah.

[00:05:55]>> Versus quantum, yeah. But all the all the all all of the quantum science is true and accurate and all of the classical science is true and accurate.

[00:06:07]I would argue general relativity it it is better than than classical because but it but it's only better in reference frames where you have where you're extremely close to a massive object like Mercury with the Sun.

[00:06:24]GR had to had to fix that or for things that are going at incredible speeds.

[00:06:31]But no, so like the the fact that we know that quantum mechanics behaves differently than gravity or classical mechanics doesn't make either of them false.

[00:06:43]And the fact that dark dark matter is out there doesn't make anything that we currently know about gravity false. It reveals it reveals Well, we don't really know what the deal with dark dark matter is.

[00:07:00]But like all this stuff we're talking about is just we have models, equations, whatever that all work. They will still work even if we figure something new out. Like when GR replaced classical mechanics or with gravity or whatever.

[00:07:15]The Newtonian stuff still works perfectly well.

[00:07:19]>> Oh yeah, I'm not negating like Newtonian I'm on board for right locally observed not deny A. I'm fine with that. That's the law of gravity. It's what's observed. Hey, this is happening. Sure, I'm all I'm all about that but to say that the equations for relativistic gravity all work out. Well, no, that's not the case cuz again we goes back to what was observed with galactic orbits.

[00:07:40]The math the didn't line up with what hey, so there must be mass that we're just not seeing here.

[00:07:46]>> Yes, on on a different scale, it doesn't work. Just like you can't use quantum mechanics for large scale objects. It doesn't work. You have to use something else. So, whatever is going on, but >> Mhm.

[00:07:59]>> the dark matter uh it it actually does work. It's just that the amount of the amount of gravity isn't accounted for in the observable matter. That's the only problem. It still follows uh gravity perfectly well.

[00:08:18]>> So, that that's not bothersome at all to you uh be Like, I'm not saying, "Hey, it doesn't work in other situations." But, 27% of the observable universe is a significant amount and it also brings about a problem, right, with the cosmological constant uh and because of general relativity um and I I wouldn't consider general Maybe I'm missing something here. General relativity on a quantum uh I would think that's more Newtonian, right, than general relativity. What's the quantum on in general relativity cuz it's I thought that's why it's not used in the standard model of uh uh >> [snorts] >> particle physics because there's no quantum gravity yet.

[00:08:54]>> Uh no, not yet. We haven't figured out how to marry them together, but neither neither Newtonian physics does not work with the quantum world.

[00:09:05]Relativity does to a certain extent because it actually tells you why mercury and gold have their properties because the electrons are going But, this is special relativity, not general.

[00:09:16]The electrons are going so fast to the speed of light that it gives mercury and gold different properties than you would otherwise predict.

[00:09:24]>> That's my apology. So, yes, Newtonian also doesn't work with my quantum. Okay, so that was my misunderstanding. Yeah, you're correct on that. Um Right, so I just didn't know what could I I'm myself. Like, quantum mechanics and quantum physics that I was I I didn't know what you were referring to cuz I would say definitely general relativity wouldn't fit that bill.

[00:09:46]But um but yeah, so then that's fine. I get again using the claim that hey, what's putting those things into orbit above us like satellites, whatever the case may be, the planets, it's all gravitational it's to me is the claim, right?

[00:10:02]Wouldn't that need to be verified as reality? Like that's an actual scientific happening. At least for me based on what science itself requires for something to be considered scientific for something to be even become a scientific theory.

[00:10:16]And that's kind of bothersome because there are other means of having orbit, right? Like for me, quantum locking is a possibility. Do you know what I mean? Um it's just unusual people in the field who subscribe to something as scientific with less than evidence supporting that, especially with the issues with general relativity.

[00:10:37]>> I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:10:41]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links.

[00:10:51]Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[00:11:10]>> [music]