I would have laughed six months back. But lately I feel like I am exposed to so much of this type of strange questioning of weighty, long understood, and heavily proven rational facts. And it has worn on me. It deeply troubles me. So here is the video:
I mean, I'm very sorry to offend...
Actually, wait, no... I'm not sorry.
This is a problem. The ignorance is astounding as I watch this guy attempt to "rationally" explain the "evidence" without actually using any ratios or addressing variables.
Don't agree?
Technically, every equation is a problem/solution, 1 to 1 ratio. Inequalities stand to emphasize anything irrational. Non-equalities are undefined, or imaginary. This is the bare-bones rational syntax of the language you were learning since elementary school. There is no other way to math. Which is why math is always rational. If you can't understand how to do that simple math, you should refrain from trying to influence people towards something you are pulling out of your ass.
Here's an example though, just to prove what I'm saying:
a + b + c = x + y + z
This is the same as saying...
(a + b + c) / (x + y + z) = (x + y + z) / (x + y + z)
So then...
(a + b + c) / (x + y + z) = 1
And if that's the case, then...
1 = 1 / 1
If a + b + c is equal to x + y + z, then we can divide one side by the other to create ratios. But those ratios will always equal exactly one (100% of one another) if those original two expressions are, in fact, equal. And "1" itself is a numerator over the denominator "1".
Remember those terms? High school algebra.
Thus, being rational means you're able to make these types of real comparisons, 1 to 1 ratios, out of the information: both the problem and the solution.
So, when we compare two things, we are always either drawing a line and seeing if we get something real and rational (ie. a = b, so a/b = b/b = 1) , something real but irrational (ie. a > b, so a/b > b/b or a/b < b/b), or something that is not real and can't even begin to be defined by the terms we are comparing (ie. a ≠ b , so a/b ≠ 1 , and thus a = b isn't real. Then, you need to consider other variables... maybe a/b = n, or x/y, or q/r ,or s/t, ect.).
This may sound a little complicated all spelled out like this, but the rationality of logical operations (=, ≠, <, >) is the underpinning for the most super basic of math. But, more than anything presented in the video above, this is a real proof. That equation is real evidence. The rational nature of math can be rationally expressed. The law of gravity can be rationally expressed. The reality of climate change, and all of it's factors and variables can be rationally expressed. There are even rational models that prove that the universe didn't need a creator (not that there absolutely was no intelligent design, because you can't unequivocally prove that--but the universe didn't necessarily need a creator).
True rationalization relies on grounded syntax. It can't be misconstrued. If you can't understand how to even begin to translate your concept into something rational like the example above, you should shut your mouth, stop trying to influence the world--especially not understandings of the physical world--and focus on bettering yourself.
The best I can compare this to is trying to understand Hispanic culture without knowing how to speak Spanish, or at least being of Hispanic decent. You can attempt this, but you'd be silly to try and speak as an authority: as anyone but someone who must acknowledge that they are on the outside and looking in. Sure there are plenty of people who speak despite this. But being ignorant of your ignorance... Well, most of us know two wrongs don't make a right.
Unless you're orange for some reason. Then we make you President, I guess.
Ok. Maybe that wasn't the best example. But if you're not a white nationalist or a flat-earther, it'll probably make sense to you.
Yes. Another jab. But I can't help but see a pattern here.
As for Flat-Earthers, people again seem to be listening. And I do tend to think it's out of an inability to think, understand, and communicate using rational language, as well as a simple frustration with where the world is going.
As quickly and as simply as I know how, I am going to demonstrate that anyone can prove the existence of gravity to themselves. Which is just one point of contention in this video. And all that is needed is a basic understanding of high school math, as well as as a few of the most basic derivatives of the physical universe.
We can calculate the existence the force of gravity by bringing the idea of firing a bullet into the air down to it's average derivatives, which you can easily google. ie:
Average mass of a bullet: .0162 kg
Avg velocity of a bullet: 360 meters per second
Now we start inputting information into this basic and proven understanding of what makes a force a force, which you can also google...
ForceI'll quickly explain where Google got this though:
= mass x acceleration
= mass x velocity / time elapsed
= mass x distance per time / time elapsed
Imagine a distance you have to travel. From point A to point B, right?
That's in meters (m).
If you want to get there by a specific time, you're going to have to travel a specific speed or velocity, right?
That's in meters per second (m/s).
If you want to reach that specific speed quick enough to get there, you're going to have to accelerate at a certain rate, right?
That's meters per second, per second (m/s^2).
But you can't get to where you want to go without actually moving YOU! You need to move, or force, your mass to the destination, right?
And you have to move it at a certain acceleration, to reach a certain velocity, to cross that certain distance by a certain time.
That's kilogram-meters per second, per second (kgm/s^2)... also called a newton (N).
This is what we call a force, and everything that makes it up, are called derivatives.
Now we have to realize we are looking for two different competing forces. We realize that once the bullet stops traveling up due to the force of the explosion, there is obviously a second, opposite force acting upon the bullet. When it's reached it's highest ascent, but has not yet started it's descent back down to the ground, we realize the bullet is being equally acted upon by these two competing forces, and this is called equilibrium.
Equilibrium:
upward force = downward force
1. The upward force comes from the explosion which sends the bullet into the air.
2. The opposite, downward force, pulls down on the object and brings it to a state of equilibrium.
So now we can create two expressions that define each force.
Upward force due to gun:
bullet-mass x velocity / time to highest point
Downward force:
bullet-mass x acceleration
And now let's set them equal to each other, due to equilibrium:
bullet-mass x velocity / time to highest point
= bulletmass x acceleration
Now we can input the numbers we googled:
.0162 kgx 360 m/s / time
=.0162 kgx acceleration
The masses of .0162 cancel out in each equation. so we're left with
360 m/s / time
= gravitational acceleration
gravitational acceleration
= 360 meters per second, per seconds elapsed to bullet equilibrium (or highest height)
So finding the acceleration influenced by none other than gravity (which of course on earth is already a known 9.8 m/s^2) is as simple as dividing that 360 meters per second speed of the bullet by the time elapsed at it's highest point before falling (on earth that would be about 37 seconds). There is no other force accounting for this acceleration other than gravity. You could try air pressure, but then you'd have to explain the why behind air pressure in the first place, which will lead you to density, which will lead you back to the force of gravity by similarly basic calculations. In fact, the gravitational constant in physics actually contains units in the inverse of pressure, multiplied by an acceleration.
The main point, though, is simple: Acceleration requires a force .
And that force is gravity. You can call it what you'd like, but the fact remains that we can input variables from the physical universe to always prove its there.
But, just to drive the point home, this doesn't only work for up and down. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ?
If we fire the same gun straight forward, horizontally, we can calculate the force due to gravity, and hence gravitational acceleration, by measuring the evident force of the hypotenuse (c) spanning from where the gun was fired to where the bullet landed in the ground, and inputting that into the theorem along with the horizontal force (a). You solve for the vertical force (b)... [c^2 - a^2 = b^2]...
And of course there are many derivatives and variables and even other formulas that can be and/or will be involved in doing this. Including the dreaded trigonometric trinity: sine, cosine, and tangent. So it's not quite this straight forward, but it is the basic concept.
You can prove the existence of gravity no matter which way the bullet was fired, if you know enough rational vocabulary to express it.
Math doesn't have to be a special club. But the giant issue I take with the video above and the sudden explosion of flat-earth philosophy is exactly that!
This guy in the video feels like he's in a special club, that's for damn sure. And no doubt he probably needs to feel that win, with how things are. The American dream is gone. America is a nation in which upward mobility has nearly stagnated. There are so many reasons for this, and so many solutions. Unfortunately for the "rationality" of this video:
Disparity ≠ Flat-Earth
Disparity + Unknowns ≠ Flat-Earth
Disparity + Unknowns + Whimsy ≠ Flat-Earth
Disparity + Unknowns + Whimsy + Math Illiteracy ≠ Flat-Earth
I honestly think a larger variable in this growing problem--the giant "conspiracy", if there ever was one--is math illiteracy. Because people don't value it as a method of transcendent, but real, everyday communication that anyone can use if you just take the extra time to learn the syntax, just like any other language. Its not a special club, its just full-tilt rationality and whether or not you actually care about that, or are just pretending to. End of story.
And at the very least, if you don't care about that, that's wonderful. If math is tough for you, that's also O.K. It's fine. Hell I can accept that I am overly rational sometimes. And other times I just let go and let the ebb and flow of life wash over me. When I was younger I used rationality as a shield, instead of as a way to sincerely communicate with others. Instead of using it as a tool to try and empathize. And so much of that has to do with my upbringing in a cult that over-rationalized an ancient book. When I let myself become stressed, over-rationality is where I end up. And that can destroy a person if it has no direction. If there is no empathetic goal. It will make you depressed. So I try very hard to focus my attention on just breathing, and living, and feeling.
Rationality is not always the answer to human problems. Many times the answer is just listening. So there's no need to try and subversively fool yourself and others into thinking that you somehow have all the answers. Don't trick yourself into believing you have more rationality by philosophically describing things archaically, based on limited information, than the people who have engineered our technology and civilizations as we know them. Because these things each come out of their own sincerity for an ongoing drive to provide truths that are non-biased for people who need it. Instead, try sincerely understanding. Try learning new things. Or learn that you have other, wonderful things to offer the world that many rationalists cannot. Because destroying hundreds of years of scientific work that people died for, and the unequivocally rational and sincere evidence that is amounted to these subjects, just amounts to either hateful frustration with yourself and/or society. And I honestly feel sorry for these people.
I don't know everything. I would never claim to. I'm a fourth year electrical engineering dropout, and I would never claim to know more than a physicist or even a professional engineer without being able to prove it rationally. But I would tell the people that do the opposite to try shutting the hell up and learning something.