Flat Earth answers to gravity wouldn't stop space existing
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2023
- Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.70/mo + 6 months extra before the BLACK FRIDAY deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
Correction: 3:22 - Slight oversight on my part - the table is in meters rather than feet so the SR71 flew at around 25,000ft in 0.04kg/m3
PATREON: / davemckeegan
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #ISS #NASA #fakeISS - Наука та технологія
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.70/mo + 6 months extra before the BLACK FRIDAY deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
DaveMcKeegan vs Eric dubay LIVE at Burg Khalifa hotel Dubai.
All fans of good vs evil truth vs lies fantasy vs reality. judgement day coming to everyone soon. Get your tickets now.
I am not sure about your example with the car as the inside isn't a closed system either and there is a vent at the front bringing fresh air into the inside and there are forced airflow wents at the back to let the air out again and not cause an overpressure whenever your AC is running... so it would be possible that you just exchange the air really fast from front to back and do not change the pressure inside at all... A car doesn't accelerate instantaneous after all and that leaves the air time to move out of the way...
But well if you had a closed scuba oxygen bottle and fixed it lengthwise onto a centrifuge going 100g, you would definitely measure a gradient between "forward" end and "backward" end. you'd just somehow get the pressure sensors inside without compromising the wall strength or the vent ;)
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai How many times do you need to be told that Eric Dubay doesn't want to risk his flat Earth grift by debating before it sinks in?
@@Stopstalkingmenarokkurai Is there a Discount, if i tell "Atlas VPN", i am in Dubai?
@@Mandelbrot_Set I love how you think you're ab expert on every subject yet research nothing yourself.
I love how much hate you have for dubay.
some dude on tiktok named Science with Freddy was making the argument that density and buoyancy is responsible for everything. once he was asked what calculations are used to determine how much cargo a boat can hold before it sinks. he simply kept repeating “if you put a hole in a boat, it sinks. boom” pretty pathetic. he also stated that we have no formula or way of calculating density.
And how did he explain why we know the density of objects? Magical divination? 😂
@@ivanpetrov5255that is their ultimate answer. Sleeping Warrior recently said that God determined what is up and what is down for humans. And of course the sun, moon and stars cannot be investigated, they are simply there because God gave them to us so we'd have a calendar.
That’s their only argument bc they don’t understand any of it
@@cygnustspSleeping Warrior?! I thought he went away 😢😢😢
Oh, for Pete's sake! We have density precisely defined as mass per unit volume. How can there not be a calculation when it was observed and empirically defined?
I tried to explain gravity to a flat earther, but it just brought me down.
He probably thought you were too dense to understand it 😂
@tussk
So explain it to me.
What is gravity
Go
@@williambrackley604 mass attracts mass, earth is big mass, big mass attracts small mass at a rate of 9.8m/s. 😊
You have to go physical. It's the only way they would understand
@@williambrackley604 Gravity is the observable effect of mass attracting mass.
I love how you explain this stuff without ever once insulting flat earthers, just facts and no drama. Nothing to clutch their pearls at because you're just explaining the way things work
He’s insulting you
@@Buckwheat2080 Explain how.
He’s insulting your intelligence or rather your lack
Of it.
@@Buckwheat2080 That wasn't an explanation, that was you repeating your original comment and then adding a childish insult.
Have another try Tom, ask an adult for help with the big words.
@@Buckwheat2080 Don't you get tired of people laughing at you?
I have always wanted a better understanding of why the vacuum of space doesn't suck the air from the planet. I didn't think of it as a vacuum cleaner, but I realize now that what confused me was the idea that a pressurized vessel in space, if punctured, would have all the air sucked out. I now realize, it is not being sucked out, it is being pushed out by the pressure inside the vessel. The vacuum of space is simply a low pressure area to which the gas can escape. No different than letting the air of a balloon, maybe a bit more violent. Thanks for the video. One less mystery in the universe.
On that, I always think on the tyres of the space shuttle. They were normal tyres, and they were exposed at vacuum of space. A naive view would think they will explode in space, but if you think about it, they are normally inflated at 2 atm, and in space they were just 1 atmosfere more. 3 atmospheres are nothing for a tyre.
Relevant factoid: The pressure difference between a bottle of soda and normal air is about the same as between a spacecraft and vacuum. A leak wouldn't be that big of a deal if handled quickly.
If you throw a ball up in the air, it goes up a bit, then comes down. How far it goes up depends on how fast you throw it. If one ignores interactions with the atmosphere, you'd have to throw a ball upward at about 25,000 mph so that it would escape earth's gravity.
The "ideal gas" model of air is that it is many very small "balls" of gas molecules, constantly bouncing around. The reason they "bounce around" is heat - they pick up energy from the surroundings, and that gives them motion. At 25°C the average velocity is about 1,000 mph, but some move faster than others. It's a random thing, lots moving slowly, a few moving fast. Not all their speed is directed upwards - some move sideways, some move down. The upwards moving ones will, therefore, bounce up in the air and then come down again, except for the tiny percentage whose upwards velocity exceeds the escape velocity of about 25,000 mph, and they will go on an exploration of the solar system or perhaps beyond. The higher up you go in the atmosphere, the fewer air molecules you will see up there at any given time, because only a few will have had the energy to get that high. Ignoring atmospheric interactions, a ball thrown upwards at 1,000 mph would reach about 10 km (sorry for mixing units ...). That's about the height of a commercial jet, and it's why they need to be pressurised - most air molecules are just not getting up there, so there aren't enough to breathe. There is a continuous small leakage of the atmosphere into space, and that is replenished via a number of natural processes on earth, including planetary outgassing and biological activity. So earth's atmosphere can be seen as a balance between the rate of atmospheric loss to space and replenishment via natural processes. Statistically speaking, the atmosphere is not actually captive - the molecules constituting our atmosphere today are not the same ones that constituted the atmosphere a billion years ago, some have escaped but been replaced, but I've no idea of the proportion. The flerfer idea that we have an atmosphere held captive by a container is, of course, naive.
Lunar daytime temperatures reach over 100°C so gas molecules are moving faster, the escape velocity is closer to 5,000 mph, and it doesn't have the same replenishment processes, so you can see how it would lose any atmosphere over time. It does have a small "exosphere", but not something you'd want to try to breathe.
A vacuum is simply the absence of atoms/molecules, and - basically - has no impact on anything. How could it? It's an absence of things, there's nothing there to interact with anything.
[I got ChatGPT to do these numbers; it often makes mistakes; my explanation of these things is no doubt simplistic; in particular, the ideal gas assumption is that gas molecules don't "bump into" each other, but they will do that many many times before they get the opportunity to leave earth's gravitational pull, meaning that only a few will retain the energy to escape].
My middle school science teacher said it best I think. "Nothing sucks, only pressure pushes."
I dunno, Dave. Back in my youth there were plenty of post-pub nights when it seemed gravity _was_ using Atlas VPN to foil my efforts at walking home.
I like how the concept of the earth moving around a sun and a galaxy without us feeling it is an insane concept to flat earthers and yet the earth constantly accelerating upward at the speed of light is a reasonable explanation for things going down.
SOME Flat earthers: "Gravity cant exist because its a magical force"
also them "You can see different stars on other sides of the earth because everyone has a personal and only to them visible dome." (which would mean M A G I C)
Not just the Earth, but Sun, Moon, Planets, and Stars are flying upwards, too.😂
The buoyancy instead of gravity argument cracks me up, since buoyancy is caused by pressure gradient, which is caused by gravity.
to calculate buoyancy you need the gravitational constant. Its directly in the formula. So they need to explain the measurable downward force, which they cant....
Add the unfortunate Titan deepdiving bucket. How come it could survive at 12 feet but not at 12000 feet? Wonder if the flatheads consider the increasing pressure gradient in water 🤔.
@@Soundbrigade "YeAh But AlL WAteR iS FlAt!"
@@leftpastsaturn67 Phew! I though you would say it was HoriZonTaL.
@@Soundbrigade Something about 'AtMOsPLAnE!'?
I was listening to some geniuses on the FE 24/7 Discord trying to discuss gas pressure yesterday on Toon's channel. If we could put that immense amazing brain strength to better use, we might be able to power a nose hair trimmer, or even possibly an electric fart machine.
Electric fart machine has so much flat earth energy that I can't even... ;DDDD
Flatzoid recently told his "debate" opponent Grayson that things fall down because it's observable natural law. Grayson kept asking him but why? What's causing that? Flatzoid said it's what we observe in nature, as if that's a great answer. He did waffle about with the density thing, and that vile jerk into the break kept posting emotes of balloons go UP. I've started collecting $20 for every "what is gravity" question he's asked and now I'm up to $50000.
'it's an observable natural law'
y... yes? that's what gravity is?
those are hypothetical dollars, right?
@@victorfinberg8595 everybody else can make stuff up, why can't i
Flatzoid can only nuhuuuuhhhhhhh evidence. He can never give any. Look at his recent debates with ftfe and mctoon.
I can't stand his "natural law" talking point. Natural law is a philosophical argument.
It almost nauseates me to think we live in an era when we have to explain something as fundamental as gravity to certain people who run around masquerading as grown-ups.
Or that germs exist
I agree!
Trust the Science, I say!
Hank Aaron & Franco Harris knew to Trust the Science, and you should too!
@@maxdanielj As someone recently pointed out to me, it must be tremendously liberating to invest less energy in thought than the average insect.
I responded that the last thing to pass through a Flerf's mind must be like that of an insect hitting a windshield...their sphincter!🤣
i recently re-watched idiocracy and its closer than ever
Does it scare you at all to know that there are people out there in the world with a nonfunctional understanding of the concept of inertia and the legal ability to operate a motor vehicle?
Another fairly easily disprovable aspect of the "perpetually accelerating upwards Earth" explanation for falling objects is this: If this were true, then *every single place on Earth* has to share that acceleration _exactly._ Any place that _wasn't_ accelerating at that 9.8-ish m/s/s rate would obviously drift away from the places that were. And it's reasonably easy to obtain and use gravimeter equipment sensitive and accurate enough to show that the gravitational acceleration varies at different places on the Earth.
That's usually my go-to argument against this, as it means that after one day, the poles would be moving about 2.5 km/s faster than the equatorial part of the Earth. Let that run for a bit over 300 years, and travelling from the equator to either pole would require faster than light travel. That would be one heck of a sled dog team. for that last leg of the trip.
@@erics2133 By accident this is also an argument against that density theory. If you have an object fall in a vacuum chamber it should fall at the same speed everywhere on earth since the difference in density is always the same.
@@Taktikameisean object's size never changes its density, which is why neutron stars and magnetars can exist at their small sizes
"And it's reasonably easy to obtain and use gravimeter equipment sensitive and accurate enough to show that the gravitational acceleration varies at different places on the Earth."
Among other things: It varies ever so slightly (but still measurably) with elevation. This makes perfect sense from a physics perspective, since those higher elevations are further from the mass of the rest of the Earth, but it makes no sense at all with any of the proposed gravity-alternatives that the flat earthers like to claim.
By the 1700's scientists and clockmakers had observed that the rate at which a clock's pendulum oscillated varied in different parts of the world, including when near large mountains. Newton and co. came to the conclusion that this was due to differences in gravity around the globe.
Even if I know for a fact that earth is an oblate spheroid, I still find it is an interesting exercise for the mind to imagine what requirements and consequences would be if our world was flat instead. Thank you Dave. You are one of the few flat earth debunkers that doesn't just make videos about pointing their stupidity.
Tell me how you know for a fact
@mikemcleroy8265 Science. Math. Proof. Show me even one actual fact, based in science and math, that takes all variables into account and doesn't refute or contradict other parts of flat earth theory. The problem is that you absolutely cannot.
@@mikemcleroy8265 Perhaps it's the *fact* that there's no unified flat earth theory? The *fact* that they can wiggle it to work in *one* scenario, focused on *one*, maybe two or three, observations, but as soon as you bring in a different one, the whole structure collapses? The *fact* that all the flat-earth disproval attempts with gyroscopes got a 15 degree per hour drift (thanks bob)? The *fact* that the attempt with the holes-in-the-boards-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat required *MORE* than 17ft of height to be seen? The *fact* that you can use a pendulum that's designed to swing in one direction with a freely spinning section, and arrange dominos around it, and it will slowly knock the dominos over one by one? The Earth is spinning. The Earth is a globe. These are *facts*.
By centuries of poking the idea with different counter-arguments. We got rid of some initial misunderstandings and we ended up with a solid shape that most accurately represents the reality. Use the same poking arguments to any flat earth idea and you will manage to get some through a couple of them, but never all of them.
And yes, there's still a probability that we get all of it wrong, but I don't have enough zeros to fit its fractional value in this comment (shhh, no need to scare anyone with using a negative power).
@@mikemcleroy8265
@@mikemcleroy8265 measurement and maps are great ways to know for a fact the earth is an oblate spheroid. Flat earthers can't even put forth a functioning map or provide a single measurement that supports a flat earth.
I see evidence for atmospheric density all the time. I live approximately 4,800 feet (~1,460m) above sea level. Every time I open a can, jar, or other container that was sealed closer to sea level (which includes a *lot* of products), I get that distinct "pop" of the air pressure in the container interacting the normal air pressure in my area. That alone is observable proof of the phenomenon you're talking about.
So you get the inflated chip bags and Pringles cans just like we do.
@@RealBLAlley Yeah, pretty much lol
@@RealBLAlleysame. Store shelves full of chips used to crack me up.
Growing up near sea level, I was taught if a yoghurt pot had a domed lid, that meant it had gone off (bacteria producing gases increasing the pressure in the container). Then one day I stayed at a hotel ~2000m above sea level. At breakfast I was thinking "OMG, every yoghurt in the place has gone bad!"
@@eduardonunomarques lol That's fair.
The massive elephant in the room for the density/buoyancy explanation is it doesn't explain where the directional effects come from, what makes up up and down down.
Buoyancy is an artifact of gravitational force. Without gravity the buoyancy doesn't operate.
also, density and buoyancy as an alternative for gravity fails in every enclosed free-fall experiment. in a Zero-G flight, the aircraft accelerates downward at the rate of the acceleration of gravity, isolating the effects of gravity and causing objects that are more dense than air to float in the air. proving that density and buoyancy require an acceleration to function.
Its so funny. Gravity is what makes buoyancy work. As soon as someone uses buoyancy as a flat earth/anti science argument they immediately discredit themself.
(Not that electro magnetism as a substitute for gravity makes much sense since gravity still works as normal inside a faraday cage)
I like to ask flerfs how objects in vacuum chambers know which way to fall. Still haven’t gotten an answer.
@@AM-rd9pu oooh, yes, great question
In a vacuum chamber the object just switches to electrostatic mode and is simply attracted to the earth. That is why they have 2 ridiculous theories. So they can bounce between them when needed unlike smart people who have gravity that can explain both situations without any alterations.
I love how the accelerating earth option causes not just problems, but some of them are EXACTLY the same problems that drove them away from the globe in the first place!
Exactly, where are Santos' Mach numbers now?
Also it's just pushing the issue further, since now it's question of what causes Earth to accelerate
As ever, any attempt by FE to come up an alternate explanation for anything just breaks something else.
Like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces are a mixture of totally different puzzles.
Actually most explanations by Flat Earthers usually end up proving the globe, but at the end they misinterpret their findings.
@@SanderEvers Most flerf evidence for a flat earth is trying to deny the globe. It's pretty much flerfs making the case that disproving the globe somehow serves as proof of flat earth.
@@SanderEvers Thanks Bob!
@@PervertedThang To be more specific, it was none other than famous Flerf Bob Knodel who got his hands on an expensive ring laser gyroscope hoping to "disprove the Earth's rotation." Instead, he detected *a drift of 15° per hour.*
Of course, he immediately tried to dismiss the result, but was unable to prove it wrong. One has to wonder if Bob has since been kicked out of the Flat Earth Society, which (as we all know) has members all around the globe.🤣
Arguing with flat earthers makes them think they have a point. I usually agree with them. Even tell them some extra nonsense sometimes. And chuckle as they go on thinking they are actually super intelligent 😂
"you cant argue with stupid people. theyll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience" i think this sums up any conversation with flat earthers
But Flerfs *definitely* have a "point." You just have to cut their hair real short to see it.🤣
@@That70sGuitaristwhat
@@sylvo1057 Think _dunce-cap._
@@sylvo1057Take a couple of minutes and actually think (or days, if you're an especially slow thinker) about what I wrote.
Let us all know how long in took you to figure out what I was calling Flerfs.😉
I have seen a pressure gradient in a small container. It moved a helium balloon in ”the wrong” direction in an accelerating car.
Just would like to point out the the whole 'surpassing the speed of light' for a linearly accelerating Earth is not really an issue, because at near light speeds the 9.8 m/s^2 of felt acceleration only looks like it is changing velocity to observers within that frame of reference. To an outside observer the velocity change would look much smaller so that it never actually reaches light speed. It is very theoretically possible within Einstein relativity (aside from the fact that many flerfers would probably reject that in the first place). A better question would be 'Why is Earth accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2?' and 'Where is Earth getting this infinite supply of energy?' and since we don't see any strange distortions from the stars, 'Why is it affecting everything in the universe except for us?'
This is correct, so I just want to boost this signal.
Einstein's SR tells us that an outside observer would see the Earth accelerating asymptotically towards c but never reaching it.
Meanwhile... just imagine a flat-Earther who acknowledges Einstein's SR... yeah right.
The whole accelerating Earth thing is clearly a troll.
@@icansciencethat Poe's Law. I just came here from a short on the Hiroshima bombing where someone claimed nuclear weapons weren't real.
@@pretzelbomb6105 Yeah... I know a guy that says that nuclear weapons aren't real... as far as I can tell, he's totally serious about that. Hard to believe, but there you go.
However, anyone who accepts science up to Einstein is going to have major issues with some of the simpler contradictions of flat earth.
In my experience ALL flat earthers are strongly opposed to the level of math-based science represented by Einstein.
You can approach significant fractions of c, though, relative to the rest of space, which would blue-shift all the light into a dot of extreme UV radiation that would sanitize the accelerating Earth, nothing near the horizon, and everything behind red-shifted into invisibility.
@@caffetiel not if the stars are co-moving with the Earth... which is exactly what they'll tell you is happening.
I already know the basics to all these questions you answer, but you so throughly explore them at a layman level I can't help but enjoy the video and also walk away from it with a better understanding to our world and technology. 👍
And the funny part, this might have started about addressing Flat Earthers, but it became an educational channel instead 😀
I hate it when I touch the metal hood of my care, discharge the static electricity built up in my body, and fly off into space.
The "moving earth to explain gravity" ideas have a different problem: gravitational acceleration is not constant on earth. This can be measured, is well documented, and does not conform to any ideas that Flat Earthers have about the shape of the earth (or its movement).
Excellent point! How can you weigh less at the equator if it's a flat plane accelerating upwards?
And Rachie's idea of the Earth magically moving eternally through space in a loop would also be detectable as well. So that doesn't work either, but then again they don't care to learn how things really work they just want reality to conform to their presupposed dogma.
@@George89999 She's further up the comments pretending to be newly enlightened.
@@George89999 Any "loop" variant just flatly (pun intendet) contradicts the very idea of the earth as being stationary and non rotating. You'd even have to include some sort of "curvature" to compensate for the different distances from the center of the orbit.
I guess it could be done... like some sort of partial "ringworld".
But the main question in this case would be: why the heck bother? Such a model would discard most of Flat Earther's main doctrines, without offering any benefits.
@@Groffili Flat-Earthers seem to make the mistake of trying to think along the following lines...
1) The Earth *must* be flat.
2) Here is a problem for the belief the Earth is fiat.
3) Here is a possible solution to the problem.
4) Don't stop to consider if the "solution" actually works, makes sense, or causes problems for other solutions. Only fitting step #1 matters.
5) Here is another problem for the flat-earth, return to step #1.
Even when the problems for such explanations are pointed out they will either be hand-waved away or distracted from by trying to change the subject.
You've been putting out some banger content recently, keep it up!
I vote for the electrostatic option. That would make anti-gravity fields easier to build, and I really want that. And FE theory is all about what people want it to be so I'm validated.
Mood lol. Come on science! Get that anti-gravity field up and running! I wanna zoom through space already!
A patent for an electrostatic plate to dock spaceships was designed by Radio Pioneer and guy who has an electrostatic gravity theory called Morton F Spears
as gravity fake you troll
Give me evdiednr of hrvaity tiu.
🤣 underrated
If density relationship were the reason we'd all choke to death because CO² is denser than oxygen.
Argon makes up a greater portion of the atmosphere and also weighs more than oxygen so there could be multiple denser gases that would cause trouble breathing on the surface of the Earth.
Another key point about an "upward accelerating earth" is that objects of a known mass have very slightly different weights at different locations around the world, and these same objects weigh slightly less when deep underground. This means that parts of the earth are "accelerating" quicker than others and the earth would pretty quickly pull itself apart into a debris field. It also doesn't explain why things beneath earth's surface weigh less.
Gravity is based on size and expansion not mass and attraction. Simple Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching- expanding at 16 feet per second per second constant acceleration- the released object (apple). “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything.
@@davidrandell2224 completely dodged my point
@@ScalarUA-cam An object closer to earth’s center would weigh less because the size- distance from center- is less. All atoms and atomic objects are expanding at 1/770,000th their size per second per second constant acceleration- gravity: d=1/2at^2. No various expanding/acceleration happening; the percentage does not change; no “ pulling itself apart “. Already answered , you just missed it by not consulting the reference.
@@davidrandell2224 I think we might be saying the same thing but you're going a really roundabout way. The intuitive explanation is that rather than earth's mass being entirely below you, part of it is now above, this leads to a lower net attraction towards the centre of the earth and you experience lower gravity.
@@ScalarUA-cam Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth is approaching the released object (apple). Gravity is based on size and expansion not mass and attraction. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. All down gravity- Aristotle, Newton, LeSage, Einstein,Mach, Wheeler, Zee,Higgs, Penrose etc- wrong. Up gravity- McCutcheon (Expansion Theory)- correct. The difference is 180 as Copernicus was to Ptolemy. Imagine 7+ billion brains now- and a similar number before us- completely wrong about ALL of physics. That’s today’s ‘dilemma’; few are up to the task.
Man I was arguing with a flat earther about exactly this on your last video. I saw you jumped in to share your 2 cents as well. But it was quickly becoming apparent that the flat earther in question, had some kind of learning disability because he/she insisted that I thought a ball would fall sideways in France, and up in Australia. Because I guess...that's how it would look like from my perspective? They really don't understand relativity.
What you're describing isn't (Galilean) relativity. It is simply a consequence that you must use a spherical co-ordinate system to calculate the direction of the force of gravity to have 'downward' to be defined universally in relation to gravity.
@@sophiophile I didn't know how else to phrase it. I was afraid people might make this comment haha.
I mean the directions up and down, left and right are relative. How could I have phrased it better?
@@SamyasaSwiRelativity is accurate
@@brettvv7475 ok yeah. I'm aware it might be confused for special/general relativity but like I said, wasn't sure how else to phrase it.
Keep in mind, that we are not arguing with them to convince them.
We are arguing because:
- We ourselves are learning a lot from these arguments
- An independent third party observer, who might be confused about these concepts, but open to learn, sees your argument, and might learn from it. Like I learn a lot from Dave arguing with flat earthers. He is not making these videos for them, he is creating these for us.
Use them as a learning tool, and don't get upset that a tool doesn't understand.
I had a flat earther tell me magnetic declination was just a myth. For anyone at all familiar with land nav / orienteering, it’s as real as it gets. It’s just amazing to me how they just say “nah, that’s not real” and they’re done with it.
Ignore declination in my area and you’re off 12 degrees which is a huge error that only increases with every step. But nope….”not a thing”
What's funnier is David Weiss has actually used magnetic declination as a defense for flerf. It's just another example that there is no unifying model that any flerfer can point to.
It doesn’t exist until they need it to justify something else. They are the very definition of two faced.
24 degrees here. AND I confirmed it with a magnetic compass I whipped up for myself in about 5 minutes. Flatties, do not try to tell me the illuminati got to it.
HAHAHA without accurate map, celestial navigation that does not work on flat earth + disbelieve in magnetic declination, flat earthers are not going anywhere on this planet.
@@sineout9294 Nice! They can’t accuse you of being in with “big compass” :)
There is a reason the flat earthers don't want gravity to exist and that is that if you combine gravity with a flat earth you get a complete nightmare. The center of gravity will be the center of the disc making it impossible to travel to the rim because the the rim will be like an unclimbable mountain -and everything at the rim will fall into the center of the disc.
I am sure the world leading expert on gravity, Nathan Oakley, will be here soon with is unmatched wisdom. I still after years of asking, haven't received an answer from him WHY people climbing Mt Everest has to bring with them their own oxygen.
Nathan Oakley is like a guilty pleasure for me, he's Infuriating to watch but something about it is very entertaining
I'm sure we'll get his wisdom on the first half of the video, he never seems to be able to make it to the end
❤ Breathable air through out space angels have to breath.
Or I'm lying an yr friends won't feel it to. Jesus power..
@@raya.p.l5919 May I have some balsamic vinaigrette dressing with that word salad please?
@@raya.p.l5919 Jesus power? Is that like horsepower or something?
With a flat earth accelerating as an explanation for gravity, it just sparks the question, where is that acceleration coming from
You’re thinking too much. You just need to blindly accept that there’s nothing cohesive or explanatory in the flat earth worldview.
Idk probably god or something they can't actually explain
12:50 An endless loop, almost like it's orbiting something. Gotta love that they somehow looped back to at least part of how the real world does work to fix one of the issues with the accelerating Flerf idea, which only introduces more issues with the model.
Why can't we feel the motion, flatoids? Why can't we feel the immense centrifugal force of an object travelling at near c in a circle?
13 50 doesnt exist...
@@BadChess56 Why, yes, I did typo in a 13 instead of a 12. I'd hope that people could deduce the actual timestamp I meant to reference if they watched the video, but i'll fix the post I made.
Me: so why do objects fall down?
Flerf: Relative density disqualibrium
Me: but why down and also explain clouds.
Flerf: 👀
Flerf: It is a magic by a Bearded Sky Daddy Wizard 😂
The why down is something they seem to completely ignore. If the whole thing revolves around density then if I take a dense object, like a large lead weight, and put it above something less dense, like sand, above the ground (which happens to be less dense overall than the lead anyway), then the sand should move towards the densest thing which is the lead. I have never seen it happen.
Some flerfs cite clouds and helium balloons as proof that gravity doesn't exist, for some reason.
What I don't understand is that a globe is easily the most reasonable answer to a somewhat complicated question that checks all the boxes and is corroborated by centuries of science and repeatable experiments and they still deny it. Imagine thinking you're the only one with the right answer but you have no evidence and everyone agrees you're wrong but you stick to your feelings. Like... I think it's just a matter of stubbornness more than anything. Just admit you're wrong. We won't hold it against you... for long...
Wait, is this on the side of flerfs or globes?
@@IdioticSandwich He obviously is a globe earther, meaning a realist.
It's flerfs hubris. They can't admit, even to themselves, that they don't understand anything going on around them, so it must be fake. One of them virtually admitted once - they wished they lived in the 1800s, because things were a lot simpler then.
@@christianege4989 Honestly, the term "demonstrable realist" is one of the funniest things to come out of FE. You can tell someone was trying desperately to come up with something where people would not immediately laugh in their face, like "flat earther".
These guys were never the smart kids in class. Now they've found a way to team up, they all get the chance to act as if they are the smart kids, provided they agree between them to ignore the actual facts.
Funny, I often call the Earth a "Giant Space Roomba" as it is the Earth that sucks not the vacuum.
This is why planets are defined by their ability to "clear their orbit".
Ie, they mop up anything that happens to get too close to the planet.
Spot on mate. Well put. If only flerfs had the ability to do mental imagery. Unfortunately it's like asking a polaroid camera to to take a 4k video at 120,000fps. The average flerf has the computing capabilities of a dice.
Right! And the bigger the mass, the bigger the path. Didn't the Apollo missions prove this? Once they got 80% of the way to the moon they left earth's gravitational field to be pulled by the moon gravitational field the last 20% of the journey. I'm not sure if that's a close estimate. Maybe someone knows.
in my humble opinion, the funniest point of RDD is that if you take gravity out of the frame, a body free in a medium, which has a pressure gradient, would have higher pressure below and lower pressure above, thus the pressure would actually push the body upward...
I keep making that point. Oakley call me a bad word 😎
Over time I have learned that religious beliefs play a much bigger role in the flat earth than I ever could have imagined. The firmament is only one such example.
A balance scale completely debunks either charge or density arguments. Put a kilogram of something on one side, it takes a kilogram of something on the other side to balance things out. The density of the two objects doesn't matter.
All a balance scale does is compare two masses, which in the presence of what we call gravity, means two weights. The density of the two objects doesn't matter, the charge of the objects doesn't matter, and nor does the influence of gravity (unless it is so variable and localised that it acts differently on one side of the scale compared to the other).
For the RDD crowd, I like to say that since a vacuum is less dense than air, it will float on top of it. No need for something to separate them.
And there is no need for a sealed container. You can carry the gas in a bucket instead.
The rare times that I have had a conversation with a flat earthier, I always ask the following question:
If gravity is density then why do centrifuges work?
If density is gravity then any materials should separate automatically, but this is practically never the case. My point is that it’s the force which causes the separation of the densities, so since it’s not density causing gravity, what is gravity?
So then "why are centrifuges _needed_ ?" not why they work. 🤓
'explain the sunsets. go'
@@irrelevant_noob centrifuges separate material perpendicular to the direction of centrifugal force (usually to the bottom of whatever container is used). But the force is not caused by the materials densities (which the flat earthers claim is the source of gravity), since the orientation of the spin can be changed with identical results.
The point of the observation is that it’s the direction of the applied force which denotes the separation of materials, not the materials themselves specifying the direction or force, leaving the question of gravity still unanswered by the flat earthers.
The ‘need’ for centrifuges is entirely irrelevant.
@@darrenhemingway7121 but you said it yourself: if density was enough, then "any materials should separate automatically" -- so there'd be no need for centrifuges.
Also, no, i don't think flerfers claim that density "is the source of gravity" -- i've only seen them claim that there is no gravity at all, so a "source" for it would go against their own claims.
Wait, i'm not following the logic there. You say "perpendicular to the direction of centrifugal force" so that means you're using a frame of reference relative to the container being spun around; so how do you change the "orientation of the spin" in that FoR? o.O
My favorite question for flerfers is to explain global air circulation and ocean currents. Usually, it draws a blank look, as they have never thought that far.
The best way to disprove a flat earth is trying to make the flat earth model work. The more you try the more obvious it becomes that it can’t work
Buoyancy works only under gravity, if you put a rock into water in space, it won't sink.
I love how the idea that density pulls things to earth literally requires the objects be in a gravitational field
I have had flat Earth believers tell me things fall because they are heavy. I ask them what does heavy mean. They get confused.
Flat Earth, when reality is too simple, make it more complicated
Funniest thing i found when they are talking about density and bouancy is making them agree that for bouancy to exist air must be there, so that something can be pushed down due to it's density. Then make them agree that a vaccum does not contain any air.
Now ask them what happens when you drop something in a vacuum chamber.
Just saw a new Dave Keegan video in notifications and so dropped everything to watch it. Darn gravity.
Thank you for combating disinformation. This topic might not be impactful to daily life, but so much of what's wrong with the world stems from liars finding audiences.
11:00 - "every time you accelerate your car you produce a pressure gradient" - yes, and there is a really cool way to demonstrate that: if you have a helium balloon in your car, when you accelerate the car the balloon will move _forwards!_
Flat earthers looking at a horizontal cylinder: I don't see no curve!
The transitions into video sponsorship continue to be great!
I honestly don't even care about the flatearthers anymore, I just watch for the amazing science lessons!
I always find the earth accelerating up at 9.8m/s^2 idea so funny because it's so close to what's actually going on in General Relativity but so far at the same time
I just want to say that I always appreciate your masterful segues into ad reads. It always comes across completely natural and never forced.
The whole "density" argument still needs gravity- otherwise why would more dense objects move down? Without another force pulling the objects down, there is no reason for something to sink through less dense objects
There are two things I like to point out to the density and buoyancy crowd. First is that pesky little g in the buoyancy equation. Second is how do objects inside a vacuum chamber know what way to fall.
Never gotten an answer.
The "density" argument is funny because everything that's more dense is pulled down. But... why down? What force makes dense objects go towards the Earth? A common response to that is buoyancy. Ah, buoyancy! That explains it! So tell me... what's the formula to calculate buoyancy?
It's in Wikipedia. Lots of maths. Something to do with "g" I think. I guess that's short for something ...
From what I've seen, FE proponents will say that denser things settling beneath less dense things is just the way things are, as if that's some kind of point that doesn't ignore the fundamental point of the question. Something about 'observable natural laws'. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time coming up with any reason why denser things would tend to fall beneath less dense things that isn't just "gravity by another name".
@Geovoracious
"G" must be short for Grafenberg! A former girlfriend of mine allowed me to discover it for her! It was an exciting time for discovery! She had me swimming in a dense medium...good thing I was buoyant enough to over-cum the gravity of her situation! 🤪✌️
The other problem with the concept of the disk accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2 is that if you go to the top of a tall mountain, say Everest, the gravitational acceleration decreases to 9.77 m/s^2. On the global model, this is due to the point being ever so slightly further away from the bulk of the mass of the Earth. However, if the upward moving model were used, this implies that the ground at sea level is accelerating upward faster than the mountain tops; and yet we don't see the mountains shrinking down like that.
Yep, but they will have an answer for it, like how light from the nearby small sun curves due to Electromagnetic Acceleration.
There is a pressure differential in my head after face palming!
Imagine having the person you are debating with giving you better theories pertaining to what you are arguing, presumably because they are tired of the lack of substance on your end.
Walter Bislin made a joke diagram of how a flat earth could work on his earth curve calculator site. A lot of flat earthers took it seriously. Shane, who used to run a discord server, even tried to get the phrase, "Thanks Walter" going, as if Walter had demonstrated that Earth is flat.
Flerfs will latch onto anything. They listen to someone talking, and just wait for the one word they can pretend demonstrates their point.
@@MrOttopants AFAIK, only people who accept current scientific understanding have enough knowledge to attempt simulations of how flat earth would work. It's funny to me that flat earthers willingly ignore the fact that we need to know how to realistically recreate optics, perspective, etc in order to make first person games or even the CGI (in order for it to be realistic enough to be taken by the large populous as real) they decry.
There are plenty of earth curve calculators to determine distance to the horizon but I have yet to find a single flat earth horizon calculator. We know we see a horizon, so if the earth is flat, then there must be a way to determine how far away the horizon is for it.
Great timing! I needed an interesting video to watch tonight. Thanks Dave.
Flat Earthers would be getting mocked even in ancient Greek times which to me is so hilarious.
When speaking with FE proponents about "what keeps the air from fleeing in space" I usually don't answer "gravity" as I know that it will trigger a knee-jerk of denial. I instead answer "Air's own weight"... It is basically the same thing and usually closes the exchange.
Ah, and basically no real flateather found in the wild adopts the "Earth moving upwards" idea, although it would be almost impossible to tell the difference in relativistic physics. The killer argument for that hypothesis isn't the speed of light (as FE people don't accept relativistic physics) but the fact that gravitational acceleration isn't exactly the same on all the surface of Earth (while it would be under that premise).
Flerf: A person who will go to any length necessary to deny things that are as plain as day.
Plain as day observations are flat earth and not spinning. You don’t walk around day to day believing your spinning.
@@Seedavis397 The trouble with your evidence is that the earth would look flat close to the surface whether it really was flat or if it actually was a sphere with a 3900 mile radius. It's an inconclusive test. Both FE and GE would look the same to the naked eye near the surface.
And you wouldn't feel the earth spinning at only ¼ of a degree per minute any more than you would if the earth were stationary.
Again, this is an inconclusive test. Motion is undetectable in both cases if you only use your senses.
It is plain as day that your tests for FE fail to show that the earth is not an approximately 8000 mile diameter sphere spinning one revolution every 24 hours.
That sulfur hexafluoride experiment floating tinfoil on nothing was awesome
Mass pulls stuff closer. More mass means more pull. Big things naturally get pulled into spheres.
Why is this such a hard concept for them to grasp?
Then why do ships not pull themselves towards each when they are moored side by side.
@@Buckwheat2080 They do
@@briansomething5987 no they don’t you DA. Wave action will do that but sitting in calm water they don’t get pulled together. You ppl are so desperate to hide the truth you eat poo pies if you had to to do it.
@@Buckwheat2080Did you know that you can calculate the gravitational force between the two ships? I’ll give you a hint why they don’t stick together. The force is really small and not nearly enough to overcome friction and other forces acting on the boats.
Nothing desperate here, just an adequate grasp of basic physics.
@@AM-rd9pu getting more desperate by the minute. Now they are just lying wait they always lie. Just being stupid about it, wait they are always stupid
Your segues into the sponsored portion are always on point, just like the rest of your videos. Keep it up!!
Vacuum chambers (as used to process semiconductor wafers) typically have 3 stage pumping. Stage 1 is a "rough pump" (typically a roots-type as used on automobile superchargers); Stage 2 is a turbo-molecular pump (a very high speed turbo-fan that imparts momentum to the air molecules); Stage 3 is a cryo-pump (liquid helium used to liquefy all remaining gas except hydrogen). These chambers always have a conical shaped "floor", with the turbo-pump and cryo-pump located at the bottom of the cone (the rough pump removes so many of the air molecules that the remaining molecules fall to the bottom of the chamber due to gravity). If there weren't a pressure gradient within the vacuum chamber, you could locate the turbo-pump and cryo-pump anywhere in the chamber (you can't).
The biggest problem with most people's understanding of vacuum is they think vacuum suck (they don't). For example, if you put your hand near the end of the hose of an ordinary home vacuum cleaner, your have the illusion that your hand is being "pulled" towards then end of the hose; but what is actually happening is the air pressure on the other side of your hand is "pushing" your hand towards the hose opening.
I'm guessing the above explanation is beyond the comprehension of Flerfs...
Even the majority of flat earthers will accept that there is atmospheric gradient, the higher the altitude the less the pressure. They also have no choice but to concede that if you drop an object it will accelerate vertically downwards, we call that gravity but they will argue it is density. The problem with that argument is that wherever you drop that object from the air above it is less dense than the air below it. If it were purely density affecting the object it should accelerate vertically upwards since the air pressure above the object is always lower than the air pressure below it yet this is not what we see in real life.
For some reason, pointing that out to them makes them call you an idiot who denies reality.
Yes! And why do things fall DOWN? If it's just density, why not sideways or any other direction?
Trying to explain gravity to someone who doesn’t even know basic science is just depressing
Thanks Dave and Rusty!
Perfect!! Love the graphics!
Let's face it, if density and buoyancy was the answer, any steel left on the ground would just fall through the surface.
Correct. Also buoyancy is actually caused by gravity and you can not calculate the buoyancy force without using g, the acceleration due to gravity. Take care.
I genuinly enjoy the respect with which these video's are made. No derogitory comments towards flat earthers or other forms of conspiracy theorists, just a well laid out explanation that answers the questions posed by the flat earth arguments. No matter how mutch I enjoy a comment video from say creaky blinder, me for myself believe flat earthers are more likely to be converted to the scientifically accepted model of earth when adressed this way, rather then being infuriated for being called all kinds of names. Keep up the good work!
well, that's all very nice, except the documented fact is that all flat earthers are crooks, and there is no question of "converting" them.
You are weak. Flat-Earthers cause real harm, and your weakness allows them to cause damage.
Another point on why the accelerating earth is impossible is the measurable gravitational gradient based on latitude.
You can grab a kitchen scale and a 1kg dumbell and travel to different cities at different lattitudes and you can measure a clear decrease in gravity the closer you get to the the equator.
This can however be confounded by gravitational hot spots and holes.
If the earth was accelerating, it would be accelerating equally.
I like the way you explain things Dave. Very well though out spoken and logical. Easy to grasp, not overly complicated.
Flat earthers will never not baffle me
Seriously as soon as you mentioned high altitude balloons I was like "oh noooooo! flat earthers don't believe in those things"
ironically some flat earthers use high altitude balloon footage and cherry pick certain clips that show a flat horizon and use that as "evidence"
Flat earthers need those high altitude balloons to deny satellites, they claim "satelloons" instead.
The simultaneously believe and don't believe in them. They believe they carry satellites through the atmosphere at thousands of miles an hour for example
Of course they believe in high-alt balloons! They're satellites! They're the moon! They're the stars!
Until you ask about GPS, then it's suddenly balloons. :|
You could fly Nathan oakly into space and he would claim its fake
He'll never find the airport using Gleason's time chart for directions...
He’ll claim the windows are TV screens and break it, then when he’s dying he’ll still think it’s an assassination from the government.
Interesting approach. As always, Dave :)
The most seamless transition to sponsored content ever seen on UA-cam 😆
Gravity can be and has been *graphically demonstrated* many, many times over. My Grade 8 science teacher, Mr. Bugliani, once graphically and *definitively demonstrated* the force of gravity in front of our entire class. He brought in a very precise scientific scale with a digital display and two lead weights, one massing 5 kG and one massing 50 kG. First, he weighed the 5 kG weight, with a result of 4.998 kG. Then he placed the 50 kG weight directly underneath the table the scale was on and weighed the 5 kG weight a second time. This time, the result was *5.0098 kG.*
Mr. Bugliani explained it to us, saying, "By placing *more mass* directly under the scale, I artificially increased the Earth's gravitational effect on the 5 kG mass." That experiment had a profound effect on most of the students, and convinced us that gravity was absolutely real, measurable and (most importantly) *inherently provable!*
No Flerf "claims" or "arguments" to the contrary could ever persuade me that gravity isn't *100% real* after that particular demonstration. Mr. Bugliani had a way of making true believers out of even the most sceptical or dubious of students.
At this point, I feel I should reiterate that the weights were made of lead, which is *entirely unaffected by magnetism,* so Flerfs can't claim that "magnetism affected the scale."
Or as Sir Sic might say, "Flerfs am dumb 'cos they can't real!"🤣
If you show that experiment to a flerf, they'll just say it's because of magnets...lol... Even though it's not and they can't prove otherwise.
@@clementj That's why I made such a point of lead being completely immune to magnetism. Just like pure gold, pure lead is completely impervious to magnetism.
Still, Flerfs will try desperately to "prove it wrong," thus affording us a virtually endless supply of both ammunition and opportunities to make fun of their stupidity!🤣
I hate to break it to you, but please repeat this experiment and you will see that nothing happens. Your teacher was apparently a nutcase that lied to you.
@@RB-sz9gv Your conversion to Rectangle Earther hasn't made you any less pointless.
They probably said he tampered with the scale and he secretly works for NASA lol
It's telling that they have to deny things that exist and add things that don't, to make their bizarre model work.
Flerfer's problem is the do not comprehend the difference between 2D and 3D. This explains why they cannot fathom perspectives.
Well done!
Density doesn’t explain acceleration.
Earth accelerates upwards until the speed of light is reached, then time is stopped (which it always does when you travel at the speed of light), the Earth flips over and accelerates in the opposite direction. Main problem is the elephants getting dizzy causing earthquakes as they stumble.
"relative density" bull always makes me wonder
how does the less dense object know which way is down, if you hold a rock in the middle of a cup of water, how does that rock know which way to go when you let go of it? EVERYTHING around it is less dense then it, and everything around it is the same density
the water above the rock is the same density as the water below it, so what decides which way the rock goes
there must be something acting UPON the dense rock to tell it which way to go when the material around it is lower density, there must be something telling the rock which way is down, and then causing the denser rock to move in that direction with a stronger force then the lighter water around it does
wonder what that something could be
Also, gravity is not uniform so that would imply parts of the earth would be accelerating at different speeds than other parts if acceleration is the cause of gravity.
And if things fall due to differences in density then why doesn't a given air molecule fall upward since the density of the air above it is less than the density of the air below it?
This ramon guy in the comments is certainly the most determined flerf i’ve ever seen.
@@KradBrumsyou should see him mouth off on MCToons and wolfies channels.
He ran from toon after he challenged toon to a debate and toon accepted.
He is a coward through and through.
yes, ramon ortiz is a full-on fraudster, imbued with a massive amount of malice
I'm shocked he's not banned for being a spam bot or him blatantly screen recording other UA-cam videos and reuploading them
Isn't it nice that he keeps supporting the channel?
@@M4RC90 that's the part i disagree with. there's a benefit to giving everyone the chance to speak, but the extreme crooks cause more harm than accidental good.
Not to mention, the Earth traveling in an endless loop is also impossible because the night sky would change completely depending on which way the flat earth is facing.
I don’t understand how they can say density is the reason why heavier objects fall, while also not believing in gravity.
Guess what causes more dense objects to fall and less dense objects to rise? You guessed it, the force of gravity. Without an outside force, the density of an object doesn’t matter
They simply cannot believe in gravity, it completely destroys their model
Honey wake up Dave mckeegan posted a new video
We are all already woke up, unlike flattards
They just look for little excuses. They don't think through the implications of their claims. They aren't doing science.
That's why their claims only "work" in isolation, combine any of them and it all falls apart
But then, why let FACTS get in the way of a good conspiracy....?
That transition from the video to the sponsorship was SMOOTH.
Perfect! Thank you so much! I love your videos!!!
Acceleration due to gravity would be uniform everywhere if flat earth were accelerating up. It's not.
The only people that get any education from a great video like this are the non flerfs. Flerfs won't watch or understand
And that's OK!
I remember when this all started I think it was Erik Dubay who watched a college lecture on ideal gas laws (which specifically deal with gasses in a container) and the narrative became gas pressure requires a container. Yes when speaking about ideal gas laws the definition of gas pressure has the word container in it because that is what ideal gas laws are talking about. Just another example of flerfs not understanding what they are talking about because they don't study things they just google them and apply confirmation bias to the results.
Most often they let people like Dupay do the Googling and never question his misunderstanding/misrepresentation/interpretation of anything.
Arwijn and Sloppy Warrior claim that gasses don't have mass and weight until they are compressed, and perhaps even become liquified.
Flat earthers misunderstood density & buoyancy & can Flat earthers explain to me how altimeter works?