Transcription
Hello everyone, I am Andrea Dosatto. I urge you, >> remember to subscribe to my channel, to like my videos, to click on the little bell to receive all notifications, to give me the super like if you think I deserve it, to give me p and to buy my books. >> Today Super Tosatto is called to a mission of incredible difficulty, to establish with certainty what shape the Earth is. Yes, because I envy so much those who are convinced they have been to the moon, because those who believe in the moon landing have already smashed the problem, they have a beautiful photo that was taken in 1972 by the Apollo 14 astronauts, right from the Moon, which would testify to the shape of our planet. For those who, like me, instead, strongly doubt that man has ever been to the Moon, the situation becomes not a little complicated because the only two photos we have are this one, which is not a photo, but a composition in 16 shots of the Earth, and this other one, the Pale Blue Dot, a speck of shit taken billions of kilometers from Earth. You understand that it's a bit too little to feel sure about the shape of our planet. Since Tosato is not satisfied with the bullshit that is told and that would be fine for small children, like "Look at the ship disappearing on the horizon" or false information like "the curvature could be seen very well from a commercial airplane." Completely false information since science itself reminds us that the curvature could only be glimpsed at a height of 20 km, while commercial airplanes fly between 8 and 10 km in height. You understand that uncertainty is gaining ground, also considering the fact that independent sounding balloons have been launched high up and have seen that not only at 20 km the horizon continues to be flat, but also at decidedly higher distances. Does this mean the Earth is flat? No, not necessarily. It simply means that everything they tell us is not true. Videos of lacquered hair and images taken with a fisheye lens. And so here come the know-it-alls who tell me, "Tosto, you are ignorant, you have no technical knowledge, you should inform yourself about Eratosthenes' experiment. You should observe eclipses, you should consider the seasons, the day or night phenomenon. But what do you know with your philosophy degrees? You should ask someone with a technical degree who could solve your doubts in a jiffy." I, who admit my ignorance, despite finding it quite surreal that in 2025, while they tell us they are going to Mars, that there is a Tesla in orbit towards the Sun, we should still be here arguing about experiments that someone did thousands of years ago. I take this observation as valid and humbly put myself to the test. I find it strange that in 2025 even the most ignorant person cannot be presented with clear evidence that definitively settles the dilemma of the Earth's shape. Proud of the fact that it is better to be ignorant and admit not knowing rather than to be stupid and think you know without knowing a damn thing. I will put on the Superdosato attire and go to a mechanical engineer who lives in the province of Cuneo to ask him all my little questions and to clarify once and for all what shape the Earth is. To meet him, I made an appointment in Alta Valle Maira, a place to which I am sentimentally very attached, because it is precisely there that I used to go as a child, and because perhaps to understand the shape of the Earth we must all return a little bit to being children. Let's go. And so we are here in Val Maira in San Michele di Prazzo where we met a mechanical engineer, Michele Vassallo. So no one can bother me anymore. I admit my ignorance because I have philosophy degrees, and so I went to meet someone with a technical degree. Why, Michele, hello, how are you? Thanks, uh, thanks for the invitation. >> You're welcome. See, they tell me, "But you shouldn't talk about the Earth because you don't have the technical skills," and I admit my ignorance, so I said, let me go talk to someone who has studied technical subjects, so they can give me an informed and competent opinion on what my questions and doubts might be. So, first of all, Michele, can the Earth be flat, meaning, can the flat Earth model be plausible or not? >> Oh, absolutely, I am 100% convinced that the Earth is flat, regardless of degrees, because we know, right, that there are plenty of engineers who believe the Earth is a globe, so degrees are useful. Only if you have understood can you go and deepen your degree, you get it >> So you're saying that in reality all those who say they know it's round actually believe they know it's round because they've been told so, so they can't know that >> they've always been told and they believe what they've been told, but they've never gone to verify. The moment you go to verify with sincerity, meaning open to any possibility, you realize that it is indeed so. I remember in 2015 I was reading, about the Earth, I had a laugh, I said, but in 2015 we still have people who believe in flat Earth. Then I saw how they described the movement of the sun, I said "But this could be." I had the same reaction as you when I first came across flat-earthers, no? I said "Are they crazy? It's 2018, I think, maybe." And I say, and these people still believe the Earth is flat, but because I was convinced, you know, that I had seen the globe, that authentic photos of the Earth existed. Think how deluded I was. And so the thing you rightly say, right, is that flat-earthers are not Martians. Flat-earthers believed in a spherical Earth like everyone else, unlike many others, they started asking questions. Yes, in fact, the advantage of flat-earthers is that they know about the globe, they studied the globe, and so if you attack them on that point, well, they studied it, they are not ignorant, flat-earthers, >> but because sometimes, you know, on television they let the first beast they find speak to give this image of the flat-earther as some kind of troglodyte when in fact >> then I also want to say this, the sphere is not entirely to be discarded in the sense that there is an external spherical shape, but we do not live on the external surface, we live on a secant median plane. Then there is a dome, an upper hemisphere, a lower hemisphere basin, and then possibly an infinite plane. >> Yes, and this is beautiful that you tell me, because it already dismantles the classic argument of those who say, "But if it were flat, then when you walk, you fall off the bottom, you don't fall off the bottom because if you are on an infinite plane, you never fall." Exactly. Then in reality, this is supported by forces coming from the Ether. There are very interesting arguments to explore on this, and it is also a spiritual matter because seeking the flat Earth means seeking God. The ancient religions considered God as a cosmogonic principle, a universal principle. So much so that many refuse to even talk about God, now they call it the universe. It is a search for spiritual order, not just scientific. You know what makes me very angry when I hear completely false information, you know, from so-called authoritative sources? When they tell you, "Oh, but from a commercial airplane you can easily see the Earth's curvature." >> That's enough. Exactly, it's completely false. Just go on the internet, do a search on Focus. I found an article from Focus Junior that said you need to go at least to 20 km to start to glimpse something, but go up to 40 km to see the curvature clearly. Commercial airplanes are at 10, >> so they always contradict themselves. >> Of course, also because then they sent an independent sounding balloon to 20,000 meters and even beyond, >> yes, there are balloons that have reached 40 km >> and the horizon at that height is always flat, so >> we don't want to say it's flat, but let's say that up to 40 km it's definitely >> No, no, I say it's flat. >> He says it's flat, guys. He'll end up convincing me. He also wrote a book, The True Measures of the Flat Earth. And so I will have fun today playing the devil's advocate, meaning I want to challenge you with all the arguments with which those who act like know-it-alls say, "But you are an idiot." >> And then they tell you, for example, "But how do you explain day and night, >> huh, >> if the Earth were flat?" People, when they think of flat Earth, they think of a pizza floating in the universe and the sun going around it like this, and so they say, "I should always have daylight and 12 hours of night." It convinced me intuitively at first to understand how the sun moves. So I urge everyone to go and see, to study how the sun moves. >> So let's say one thing, we don't move, the sun moves. >> Yes, exactly. The flat Earth always goes hand in hand with a stationary Earth. The two things go together. So we have this flat Earth, which is not a pizza, but because it has an incredible structure behind it. The sun always moves above with a trajectory that I will initially describe as circular, okay? A circular trajectory. And then someone will tell you, "But if it's always above, shouldn't I always have daylight?" The fact is that things, as they move away, after a while, are no longer visible, even if they are above the Earth's plane. Imagine walking, going fast on a highway with streetlights on the side at night. You see this row of streetlights that converges to the horizon due to perspective, and at a certain point, you no longer see the streetlights. So you know there will be other streetlights, but they are no longer there. Those streetlights you don't see are above the highway plane, but you no longer see them. So there are optical phenomena, especially related to perspective, that lead us not to see things anymore as they move away. >> Which also explains when they tell you, "Oh, but then if it were flat, why do ships disappear on the horizon? First the mast goes down, and then the sail goes down." Exactly. Exactly. >> Just get a Nikon. Very good. Uh, I'll get a good telescope or the Nikon P1000, I'll zoom in on something I can no longer see, and it will come back. At a certain point, as it moves away, even the Nikon can't do it anymore >> because of perspective, >> but it's always because there's an optical limit, and this is an optical phenomenon. So the sun, which follows a circular trajectory, as it approaches, I see it rising from the horizon. That's dawn, the sunrise. It's not rising, it's approaching, but perspective makes me see it rise. As it gets closer and closer, I see it curve, so rise more and more, then it reaches the zenith, and then it will start to descend because it continues on its trajectory. At a certain point, again due to perspective, I see the sunset. >> So, however, one exhortation that we could make to all people is not to trust, meaning, do not trust the know-it-alls, but do not trust the ignorant like Tosato or the mechanical engineer either, meaning, try it yourselves empirically, meaning, when you have the impression that an object disappears behind the horizon, get a telescope or a Nikon P1000. Perfect. P000 no, it's called. >> There's the P900. There's the P1000. Maybe they don't make it anymore because they saw it was too powerful and gave an extra weapon. And flat Earth. >> Zoom in, >> zoom and see. >> Click. what was apparently supposed to have disappeared comes back, moreover, behind a horizon that vertically >> should be much closer than the horizontal line, so rather than round, it should be a roll of toilet paper, eventually. >> Exactly. Because you don't see it do this, right? You don't see the curvature on the sides, or some say, "But yes, but it's only 4-5 km because the horizon is at 45." You should see, these are impossible things, right? So understanding this first thing about the sun should help people. Then, of course, right, people who understand are not more intelligent than others, it is also a matter of election, meaning, whoever understands, it's because they were meant to understand. So if you haven't understood yet, try harder, maybe there's someone up there who wants to help you understand. But listen, I also wanted to tell you, and the sun according to the flat Earth theory is also closer, meaning smaller and closer than how >> Yes, but I'll explain that to you later when we talk about Eratosthenes because they tell us 150 million kilometers, we'll see when I talk about Eratosthenes later that in reality it's under 6,000 km, so it's high, but not 150 million. Also because I thought, think how lucky we were, right, that the sun was shot out at such a distance that it didn't burn us but didn't make us freeze to death, and to be much farther than the Moon, but at such a random distance that they seem equally large. >> Incredible. >> Incredible. >> That is, incredible, right? That they are equally large. One is 150 million kilometers away, the other is 340,000 km away, >> but, but there, you know, but listen, and so here's Eratosthenes, because Eratosthenes is another thing that they argue about, you know. So, >> it would already be strange to think that in 2025, right, while they tell us we're going to Jupiter, that there's a Tesla orbiting the Sun, it's already paradoxical that to prove the Earth's sphericity we have to resort to Eratosthenes and his wells, because there should be a television channel that you turn on and you see the Earth spinning 24/7. But okay, did Eratosthenes prove that the Earth is spherical or not? Eratosthenes proved that the Earth is flat. There is absolutely >> most flat-earthers try to refute Eratosthenes by saying that he never existed, that he didn't do that experiment, that no. Eratosthenes is very useful. Eratosthenes' experiment is phenomenal because it shows us that the Earth is flat, it does not prove that the Earth is a globe, absolutely, it is not even neutral, right. And Eratosthenes is proof, yes, that's enough to say that the Earth is flat. So, >> I'll clarify the sun's motion for you again for a moment. We have our Earth, the sun moves between the two tropics, okay? Exactly like on the globe where we have 23.5 inclination and the rays that are perpendicular, for example, to the Tropic of Cancer on June 21st, and so we have summer, perpendicular to the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21st, so we have winter, and then because of this oscillation of the Earth's axis as it spins, we have the sun moving perpendicularly in that area, right, in that band between the two tropics. On the flat Earth, we have the outer circumference, we have a circumference that is the Tropic of Capricorn, a bit more towards the south, right, towards the edge, one a bit more towards the center, towards the North Pole, which is the Tropic of Cancer, and then we have the North Pole in the center. The sun moves, I told you before, in a circular trajectory, but then it makes a spiral between the two tropics, okay, between the two tropics, and so on June 21st the spiral is tight, it's closer to us, on December 21st the spiral is wide, so the sun has to go faster too because it has to cover a larger circumference. Eratosthenes understood, right, this thing about the tropics, and so he saw that on June 21st the sun's rays were directly overhead in Syene, modern Aswan, because he saw the sun's rays going to the bottom of the well. The bottom of the well was illuminated, and so he knew that Alexandria was more or less on the same meridian, 800 km further north. So on June 21st, he went to Alexandria, more or less when the sun was at its zenith, planted a stick, and saw that the projected shadow created, in practice, well, I don't know if you can see it, but this is the experiment he did, right, he planted a stick and saw, and thus saw a shadow that created an angle that in Alexandria was 7.2°. So he did a quick calculation. 7.2° is 1/40th of a full circle, so 800 km distance between Syene and Alexandria, uh, no, 1/50th, he does 800 and gets 40,000 km. Circumference of the globe. Jubilation, jubilation, incredible, right? For the means of the time. >> A lot of stuff, >> a lot of stuff. Because >> but the fact is that he makes assumptions. He makes the basic assumption that the Earth is a globe, so he starts from that >> Ah, he started with a real prejudice, let's say. Okay. And do you want the sun's rays to be parallel, because you see, and the rays, as Eratosthenes hypothesized, had to be parallel for a circumference of a globe to be demonstrated with 40,000 km. >> But that the sun's rays are not parallel, even >> Focus tells us that. >> But but you've all seen it, right, crepuscular rays. When after a storm there are clouds, you see the sun's rays passing through, or at sunset you see the sun's rays diverging, the classic trolls will tell you, "Oh, but they diverge, but it's a perspective phenomenon." This time they bring in perspective. In reality, if you look at them from the other side, it's like train tracks, right? From one side they converge like this, from the other side, this summer I had the sunset behind me, rays shooting out, I said, "I'll turn around the other way." And it's not that the rays then did this to me, right, they continued to diverge. It's an experiment you can do yourselves. Just put the sun behind you when you see the rays diverging and see if they converge as they lie to you. It's not like that. Okay? >> How they lie to us, how they lie about the mirage of the Fata Morgana, right? When people see further than they should and say, "But it's the Fata Morgana." Oh, but this Fata Morgana. >> Oh, but then there's this Focus article, I printed it from the computer, it's an article from 2009, and I discovered it when I was researching rainbows, because the rainbow is also not linked to the flat Earth, to the fact that there is a dome, and so I was researching that. This article is called Nature. How the rainbow's shape is born? It's an article from July 4, 2009. Listen to how it starts. This needs to be framed. Uh, if you want, if you are, >> then we'll take a picture, >> look, if you are flat-earthers, you have to print it and frame it. Here it says: "When observed from a high-altitude location or from an airplane, the rainbow appears as a complete circle. It has this appearance because sunlight scatters on the Earth. Sunlight scatters on the Earth in the form of a cone >> and Eratosthenes was silenced. >> Voilà. Eratosthenes was silenced. Let's move on. >> Focus. Focus. That is, if the rays are not parallel, that 7.2° angle in Alexandria, but how was it generated? It was generated because the real geometry is this. There's the sun with its diverging rays. This one, you see? This ray is directly overhead, here's Syene. This one, let's say the last pole here is Alexandria. Here's the 7.2° angle, which is therefore due to the fact that the sun's rays diverge, as Focus tells us, in the shape of a cone on the Earth. And so you see, among other things, you asked me about the sun's distance earlier, you see that a rather simple geometry is formed, a triangle, a perpendicular ray to Syene up to Alexandria, and the ray converging towards the Sun, this triangle here. So we have the base leg of 800 km and we have the angle here of 7.2°. Simple trigonometry, and this side here, the height of the sun over Capricorn, turns out to be 6356 km, which is the radius of the globe. So Eratosthenes proves two things: one, that the Earth is flat because the sun's rays, as Focus tells us, diverge. So only with a flat Earth would you get that 7.2°. Two, it tells us that the radius of the globe is actually the height of the sun when it is on the Tropic of >> it reminds me a bit of Marconi, right? When he said, "I want to send radio waves to America," and they told him, "But don't talk nonsense, you can't do that because the Earth is round, you'll never succeed." He says, "No, I'll try anyway." He sends the radio signal, it arrives as if it were flat, and they tell him, and they tell him, "No, but because of >> the atmosphere?" >> Then they shoot it at the ionosphere. >> It's the ionosphere that >> but the ionosphere probably has something to do with it, but the fact that the Earth is flat helped Marconi in this regard. Um, so there are incontrovertible proofs, right? Because then they tell us, "Ah, no, we have to trust science." I saw that video you sent me. Yes, of what science? We have to trust. >> We have to trust science. The proofs are incontrovertible, but it's not like that. Instead, there are incontrovertible proofs that the Earth is flat, and this one from Eratosthenes is an incontrovertible proof. >> Uh, excuse me, and when they tell us, "Oh, but then the seasons?" Because the seasons wouldn't be possible on a flat Earth? Etc., etc. So, we have this movement of the sun that moves between the two tropics. Let's think about how they happen on the globe. There would be this axis of the globe inclined by 23.5°, and so the sun's rays hit the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn perpendicularly depending on the Earth's position, and so it's the sun's movement between the tropics. On the flat Earth, we have the outer circumference, the Tropic of Capricorn, the Tropic of Cancer, and the Sun moves in a spiral between the two tropics. When it's close to us, it will be summer here, and winter there. When it's on the Tropic of Capricorn, it will be summer there, and winter here. >> Oh, but the eclipse, >> uh, well, the eclipse is the most difficult argument of all. So, we should spend a little time on it. Solar eclipses are not difficult. Many flat-earthers, unfortunately, in my opinion, because they are wrong on this, say that there is a black sun that covers the sun, meaning there is a celestial body that is usually invisible and that on particular astronomical occasions goes and covers the sun. This is not possible, in my opinion, for the simple reason that if there were a celestial body that covers the sun in its movement throughout the year, it should also cover other things, right? >> Exactly. >> As big as the sun, it should sometimes cover a star. Oh, look, a star has disappeared. Ah, it reappeared >> and the black sun, and this doesn't happen, so no. Simply. >> So be careful, I like him because he's not afraid to even go against certain flat Earth theories that don't convince you. >> But yes, but because I had the good fortune to study flat Earth almost not at all on the internet, so I made my own way, and this is fortunate because then by reading the internet you get influenced. So you say, "I wasn't influenced by anything, I did my own research based on my skills, my knowledge, and so on." >> Exactly. Exactly. So we have the Sun which has its spiral trajectory, and it's conical, by the way, right? Because when it's over the Tropic of Cancer, we saw that it's over 6,000 km, but then since it has to go faster over the Tropic of Capricorn, it also descends in order to attribute the same amount of heat, energy, to the Earth, because going faster would still be a problem if it weren't so. Likewise, the moon. The moon has a trajectory that moves between the two tropics, always rises from the east, moves towards the west, and so on, and in their relative motion, sometimes it happens, because the moon can be either lower or higher than the sun depending on the period of the month and year. Sometimes it can happen that the moon passes in front of the sun. That's why I don't even believe the moon is transparent. Many flat-earthers say, "The moon is transparent," and they show you photos sometimes with a star visible through the moon. I have observed the moon many times over the years and have never seen stars through it. So for me, the moon is an opaque, rocky body, made of various materials, which I think I have understood what they are, but it is not transparent, it is not just plasma, as many say, and so when it passes in front of the sun, it covers it. The fact that there is a covering is also demonstrated by the fact that the eclipse is only visible in certain areas because of the parallax phenomenon. If I am exactly under the sun and the moon is between me and the sun, I am in eclipse. But someone else who is further away, the eclipse shadow is about 70 km, because the diameter of the sun is about 70 km, might only see a partial eclipse because of parallax. So the eclipse phenomenon is indeed a superposition phenomenon, and this parallax thing proves it. Why do I say this? Because for a lunar eclipse it's very different. For a lunar eclipse too, flat-earthers say there is a black moon that passes in front of the moon, so again a celestial body. This should also cover other things, and instead, no. And it doesn't cover. Among other things, it cannot be a covering phenomenon because for a lunar eclipse, we do not have the parallax phenomenon, meaning, if I see the eclipse from Italy, they see it exactly the same from France, meaning in all those areas of the Earth where the Moon is visible, because there are also areas where the eclipse is not visible. >> And so how do we explain it? It's not a phenomenon. To explain it, we have to look at particular optical phenomena. First, we have to look at how the moon is illuminated on a flat Earth. Most flat-earthers have realized that the moon's light is not reflected >> by the sun, and in fact, with a thermometer, they saw that >> Bravis, that's what I wanted to say >> it's cold light and not hot light. So where there is moonlight, it's colder than where there is heat. Exactly. So much so that on a nice clear night, perhaps in early spring, if there's a full moon, it can cause frost, right? Because the moon cools the climate, so we also need to find that particular optical phenomenon that cools the environment. There is an optical phenomenon related to photoluminescence. Photoluminescence is divided into two: fluorescence and phosphorescence. Think of the little lights that stick on children's bedrooms, right? That then stay on for a little while. So there are materials that, when they receive light, then emit their own light but do not reflect it. There is a particular type of fluorescence called anti-stokes fluorescence, where due to a particular play of quantum jumps of electrons, it absorbs energy at the moment it emits light. What does it mean that it absorbs energy? It means that the surrounding environment cools down. The sun's ultraviolet rays hit the moon, cause a jump in the electrons of this material, which, when returning to their orbital, absorb energy and emit light. So we have light that is not reflected, but is still influenced by the sun, and this is consistent with the lunar phases, right? Because if you look, the moon always emits light in the direction of the sun. Quarter moon, gibbous moon, it always faces the sun. This is because the sun influences the moon's light emission. So we have luminescence that is due to the sun. When does a lunar eclipse occur? It occurs at particular times, meaning when, first of all, it's a new moon, a full moon, excuse me, meaning the sun on one side, the moon on the other. The moon must intersect the solar ecliptic. What does this mean on a flat Earth? That they must be at the same height. Not all full moons result in an eclipse, because I could have a full moon with the moon a bit higher, a full moon with the moon a bit lower, but the eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are at the same height. What could happen in that case? Is there something that gets between the Sun and the Moon? In reality, yes. Let's think about the Earth's magnetic field on a flat Earth. What is it like? So, on the globe, you probably have it in mind, we have this tilted globe. The magnetic field starts from the North Pole and closes at the South Pole. On a flat Earth, we have a magnetic field that forms a sort of torus, starting from the North Pole. The North Pole is in the center, right, of our pizza. It's in the center, it starts from the North Pole, forms a column, and like a skirt, it closes in a circle, forming a torus, closing on the outer circumference, which is not the South Pole, I cannot call it a pole because it is not a point. >> forming the dome, >> right? The dome is still a rigid thing above. >> Ah, >> the magnetic field is under the dome. It's what they call the Van Allen belts. >> Yes, exactly. The Van Allen belts, for those who don't know, are those that now worry NASA astronauts a lot, who say, and unfortunately it is very difficult for a human being to pass through the Van Allen belts, but in 1969, since the astronauts of the Apollo missions didn't even know they existed, they discovered them in '57. >> Yes, but an astronaut was asked if they passed them, and he said, "Well, yes, it's true, it's true, you saw it, you saw it." >> Exactly. You just had to not know, and they could go through without any problem. An incredible phenomenon was that they discovered them in '57, and in '69 they were already able to pass them without any problem. And now they say, since we are much more attentive to astronaut safety, today we don't want them to be exposed to so much magnetic field, and instead, back then they allowed it, and anyway, they got old. In fact, Oldrin is not dead yet. >> Yes, but Oldrin, if you notice, is drunk, it's due to the Van Allen belt. So, we have this column that rises, and so we have the sun, the moon, and the column. Okay? By the way, think about the Masonic temple, right? It makes me think of the sun, moon, columns. Anyway, the column, the sun, and the moon, and we have a magnetic field, and so there are electromagnetic radiations that start from the sun and have to pass through this column to reach the moon. What happens to an electromagnetic radiation that passes through a strongly magnetized plasma? This is called the Faraday effect. As radiations pass through the Faraday effect, they are rotated. What does that mean? The light emitted by the sun is naturally polarized, meaning it doesn't move in any direction, but moves according to certain planes. When it reaches this column, it is rotated, and at this point, it has the possibility to enter into interference, which will be destructive interference with the moon's light. So the ultraviolet rays activate the moon, the moon emits its light, the sun emits its light, the light enters into destructive interference. What does that mean? When we have two waves that collide, they could go into resonance, meaning they add up and everything vibrates, or they cancel each other out. And the fact that there is interference is also demonstrated by the lunar red shift that occurs shortly before the eclipse, because when there is destructive interference of waves, energy is lost. What is the chromatic level with the lowest energy? Red. So we have that energy is lost, it moves into the red spectrum, and then there is no more light. Okay? So we have an optical phenomenon. In a solar eclipse, we have a superposition phenomenon, >> with a lunar eclipse, an optical phenomenon. Okay? >> Wow! Let's move on. >> Go ahead. Coriolis, they say, Mavelin, but the projectile, the sink in Australia that spins the other way. >> Yes, the sink. Here, in front of us, we have a sink. If we were to go and try it now, open it, but I don't think it ever spins in the same direction again, >> meaning it spins a bit randomly, it depends on the sink, it depends on. Exactly. Exactly. Regarding the Earth's movement, there are various consequent phenomena, such as the Coriolis effect. One of the first mechanical proofs that the Earth was rotating was made by Guglielmini. >> That is, what does Coriolis say practically? That >> well, you really want Coriolis >> for those who don't know. Exactly, >> Coriolis says that if I move with any means from north to south or from south to north, that body undergoes a lateral acceleration due to the fact that I am, this is the Earth's axis, this is the Earth's surface, I am either moving away from the axis or approaching the axis. Coriolis. It only applies if the body is moving in a north-south direction. >> Instead, Guglielmini drops a ball downwards, and so there's no Coriolis effect there. Okay? The Coriolis effect is only, for example, if I have a helicopter and I'm moving east-west, I don't experience the Coriolis effect. Okay? >> Okay. >> The Coriolis effect is only in the north-south direction. Think about it, if I had a helicopter, I start from the North Pole, so imagine, I'm at the North Pole with the helicopter landed, so what drag velocity is that helicopter experiencing? None, it's just rotating on itself because it's on the axis. Okay? >> So when I lift off, it has zero starting velocity. At that point, I start moving south, and let's assume this helicopter moves at 500 km/h and has the ability to refuel in flight, so it can fly to the equator, 10,000 km. Okay? To the equator, as I move, it has zero starting velocity and maintains that due to the first principle of mechanics, Galileo's principle, meaning that if a body does not experience external forces, it remains in its state of rest. I move south, but the Earth no longer has zero velocity because, for example, if I arrive in Italy, in Italy we are already rotating at 1200 km/h, and we don't feel anything. We are moving at 1200 km. But because our senses deceive us and they say our senses deceive us, that we seem to be still when in reality >> Exactly. >> We are spinning like tops. So that helicopter should see the Earth below spinning at 1200 km/h. Imagine if it wanted to land. It keeps going until the equator, it should see it spinning at 1670 km/h. >> But they say that because the helicopter spins with all the air, right? >> Oh, my goodness. You really bring out everything. So, there's a way to easily prove that this thing about the air is incorrect by doing an experiment with two helicopters that move at the same speed, have the same weight, have the same engine, so the same power, move exactly towards the equator, both of them, but one has a larger lateral surface area for atmospheric thrust and one has a smaller one. Those two should experience different forces, and instead, no. A simple thought experiment helps us understand that this about the atmosphere is false. By the way, why does Foucault's pendulum, the famous Foucault's pendulum, rotate? Foucault is another one, right, who did this test, who supposedly demonstrated the Earth's rotation. He makes this pendulum swing, and the Earth rotates beneath it. But then, if the air moves the helicopter, why doesn't it move the pendulum? The pendulum, they say, maintains its plane of oscillation while the Earth, well, no, but the atmosphere should >> And then also the ball >> also the Gelmini ball, I Guglielmini, Guglielmini drops the ball and sees that it shifts by 1.7 cm from the height of the Asinelli Tower, and why doesn't the air there >> Eh, but because the air is there, it's not there. >> Eh, a >> in the air there is pollen, Umberto Dog said. But listen, here's a table, right? And I always say, but guys, if I climbed onto this table and looked at the lamps on the ceiling, and the lamps were round, it wouldn't occur to me that the table should be round like the lamps on the ceiling. But then why, if you see round things in the sky, does the thing you're standing on have to be round too? But then, pay attention, they tell us things about the planets, the sun, and the moon that we believe because we've seen images from NASA, but are things really like that, are they really like that? For example, the sun is a sphere. Would you bet your life on it? >> It could be a disc. >> Yes, the Egyptians represented the winged solar disc. It could be a disc, so much so that it has such a flat luminous yellow hue that you can't say it's a sphere. Then it's true that it rotates, but no one denies it. Yes, it looks like the bull's-eye of an egg at most, right? >> Exactly. Exactly. No one denies the fact that it has its own three-dimensionality, but that it is like the Moon too. It's true that there are all these images that show the moon looking spherical, but you take a sphere, put it in sunlight, look at the chiaroscuro effects, a nice billiard ball, look at the chiaroscuro effects it creates, and then look at the illuminated moon, maybe a nice quarter moon, and tell me if that's a sphere. Moreover, if it were a sphere, what would be the definitive proof to say that the Moon is a sphere? Well, seeing it rotate, it's always the same. We always see the same face. Always the same face. And what planets do you take, get a telescope, look, look, and you'll find a luminous dot that on a flat Earth has a diameter of 1 km, 1.5 for Jupiter, so they are small things, not enormous as they want to tell us. Look if they seem like spheres, they are luminous dots. >> This gentleman has put me in a crisis. If I didn't know before, now I almost feel like I know. But listen, to cut to the chase, is there an empirical proof that someone can do to say, "Guys, we've smashed this debate." >> Many experiments can be done, but not only that. Many have been done. Eratosthenes' experiment proved the Earth is flat. A few years ago, they did a laser experiment on Lake Garda, meaning they turned on a laser from one shore, went to the other shore several kilometers away, and the laser was visible >> and it shouldn't have been visible because because it should have been. But another experiment that instead is an experiment that I think would be nice to do is to take an accelerometer, place it on the ground, and see if it measures the centripetal acceleration. terrestrial. Of course, the smartphone accelerometer is not enough. For example, you were talking about our senses. Our senses, if we look at the minimum acceleration we can feel and calculate the Earth's acceleration, in reality, our body is not capable of feeling it.
Ah, that's why it's not, it's not sensitive enough.
It's not sensitive enough, but with the instrumentation we have today, for a few hundred euros you can buy an accelerometer that must be mechanical, not optical. You take this accelerometer, you place it on the ground and you will see that the accelerometer measures nothing. If you take your mobile phone, turn on the accelerometer, put it on a children's carousel, right? You put it on the outer circumference, you will see that it will calculate, it will measure an acceleration along the Z-axis, even though it always rotates at the same speed, because then they tell you, "Eh, but it's uniform motion. Of course you don't have accel," but no, but in rotational motion you always have acceleration.
Which they then say, moreover, is not uniform because recently they are saying that it accelerates, that it brakes, it brakes a little, it accelerates a little. Exactly. Exactly. So with the instruments we have today, with an accelerometer placed on the ground, you should be able to measure. Try to do it. You will measure absolute zero.
And that, you say, could be the queen's proof that the Earth is still and does not move.
But but then listen, if the Earth were flat, if there were no space, why would there be a dome that somehow limits space exploration, space travel, etc., the ISS where Samantha Cristoforetti is.
Yes. What the heck is that?
Well, I don't know if you've ever seen photos of the ISS from Earth passing under the moon. Those photos show the dimensions of the ISS as seen from Earth. Then try to compare them with the dimensions of an airplane passing under the Moon. You will see that the ISS and the airplane incredibly have the same dimensions. What are the real dimensions of the ISS? that they are actually comparable to those of a commercial airplane. If the ISS were at an altitude of 400 km, as they tell us, a commercial airplane is at 10 km, I should see an ISS much smaller than the commercial airplane.
And despite this, and despite this, we see that when they take its photo, they are.
You say it could be an airplane refueling in mid-air, a disguised airplane. This is my hypothesis, but it is clear that a body cannot orbit at 400 km, cannot have those hairs, let's say it. It's really, I'm sorry even for Samha. Come on, comb your hair normally.
Michele, thank you.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Bye. Bye. Thank you very much. And we truly hope that this conversation with a mechanical engineer, flat-earther, author of "The True Measures of the Flat Earth" has been of interest. I remain earth-skeptical, but he almost convinced me. Now we'll see if I encounter any flat-earth mechanical engineers and see who prevails. Thank you very much again. Bye Michele. Thanks. Bye.
Did you hear? Please, if you still have questions and still have queries, write them down below in your comments. And the mechanical engineer, whose name is Michele Vassallo and who has written a real big book on the flat Earth, will answer you. I will not answer you because Tosato is ignorant.
It seems clear to me. The Earth is a stationary plane. We land on the Moon in Schile Livodiano. How can you believe that a stationary flat Earth plane is possible and curves, the hard thing is born, there is no, there is, there is, there is M.