The Flat Earth is Flying Upwards!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лип 2024
- Just poking some fun at an internal conflict amongst flat earthers.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • Is the Flat Earth Stat...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
so, if i plug 9.8m/s² and 365 days of acceleration into the calculator, the earth would have reached the speed of light in less than that year.
Obvious solution is to have the Earth on the end of a 150 million km rope, swinging round at a steady 1.2 M m/s, period 777 ks or ~40 revolutions per year.
Of course, then you need another 150 million km rope extending the other way with another Earth on the other end as a counterweight.
And that upward acceleration reaching the speed of light would require effectively infinite energy, just to replicate 9.8m/s²
Did you use the gamma factor in your calculations?
You MUST use gamma when dealing with relativistic speeds!!!
Try your calculations again using gamma and you'll see that the speed of light is NOT a problem.
If you are correct(you're not) then Einstein is wrong an a Nobel Prize awaits you.
@@Sableagle Wouldn't have to be another Earth. Could be an enormous ball of osmium the same weight as the Earth. 😂
It's much easier to accept reality.
If our arms grew out of our hips and legs out of our shoulders, the our heads would grow out of our asses. Like flat earthers.
🤣🤣
Classic Dubay, ten thousand words delivered in a mind numbing monotone to avoid answering any questions at all.
Not only not answering any question, but not saying anything.
If you ever suffer with insomnia, just listen to Dubay's voice for a couple of minutes then you'll soon fall asleep with his monotone boring voice droning on, that is if you can stop laughing at his stupidity,
Yeah, you'd think he would have realized long ago that the only reason NASA hasn't sent one of their agent 47-types on the payroll to silence him, is because he is bait for the flerfs that can be brainwashed into sex slaves for the crews on the ten thousand armored frigates that make up the massive naval blockage of the ice wall. Or to work in the mines beyond.
Speaking of which, I have gotten so much gold bullion this month as hush money, I'm going to give back to the community. For just $4800 dollars, you too can claim an unruly neighbor is a vocal Flerf and your donation will swiftly send the "Cleaner" to solve the problem. Then his wife becomes your wife, even if you have one or six already, and you can keep her or have her drown her own children and go to prison so you don't have to deal with them ever again.
Serves that bastard right for painting the outside of his house the same color as the meat of a kiwi fruit.
He looked pretty confused this time, tho. In the end, his defense was: stop asking questions!
Naturally born politician :o)
The key question isn't "why is there a pressure gradient" but "how is there a pressure gradient" Air is an object, air has the same density as itself. Thus, if there is a pressure gradient created by air, wouldn't it equalize in pressure over time? How is there a pressure gradient, if the pressure gradient is why objects fall down?
I like that he doesn't want to explain the pressure gradient but he does want to explain the objects falling to the ground (that's the pressure gradient).
Pressure gradient is one of many, many kryptonites for flerfers.
@@tomaszwota1465 and krypton is a noble gas.
Air is a gas, so its density isn't strictly constant; you can approximately model air with the ideal gas law, PV = nRT, which you can rearrange to n/V = P/RT and multiply both sides by the average molar mass of the molecules in air to give the density--which is clearly proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to temperature.
But that's actually not necessary to have a pressure gradient. Water, for instance, is almost entirely incompressible, and yet you see the same pressure gradient as you go deeper under the surface of the ocean. What causes the pressure gradient is, in fact, the "equalizing in pressure over time", or rather, descent to a stable equilibrium. For each volume of fluid, consider 3 forces acting on it: the pressure of the region above it, the pressure of the region below it, and gravity. Two of these forces pull the volume down, and one pushes it up; therefore, the only situation which results in no acceleration is if the pressure from below is greater than the pressure from above by exactly the weight of the volume. This can be thought of as the collective weight of all fluid in a column above a point applying its weight in pressure to the fluid below that point.
@@rarebeeph1783But gravity gas to be there to cause that disequilibrium. Else the pressures at each point will be equal since the pressures below it do not increase without gravity
3:58 "there's a pressure gradient" is something other flat earthers have vehemently denied. I wonder if there's eventually going to be a Flat Earth Thunderdome where people fight it out
If there is, how about we just weld the door shut and walk away?
😂😂 A Thunderdome 😂😂😂 Yayusss 😂😂😂
A thunderflat
I'm sure their theory would get even weirder once they've gone beyond Thunderdome.
I thought we already had that.
They dropped the upward acceleration earth when they realised that ment the space pizza would be traveling faster than light speed.
This might indicate a new wave of people accepting the nonsense? Dare we blame the "Level" movie for this?
It wouldn’t though? Although you do have to accept Special Relativity to accept that
Rachie still believes in the infinitely upward accelerating earth.
Check out it, flatzoid recently "debunked" this while lodging attacks on Del who believes this and doesn't accept RDD. and yeah Rachie is taking crap for considering Del's points. It's awesome.
@@robertadsett5273 Exactly right.
The "theory" has serious problems but the speed of light is not one of them.
Those meters to miles conversions though 😂😂😂😂
Well, he's better at it than Nathan Oakley, at least
*communist number system to freedom unit conversions
@@Captain_PuddingI have made a video about this on my separate educational channel.
Have a video about that!
@@Limited_Light congrats
They never do get the fact that gravity is what forces balloons up.
I *REALLY* wouldn't put it that way, though, because it skips a whole hell of a ton of intermediate steps and the flerfs will happily misinterpret it to suit their cult propaganda. It's sort of like you said "I dug a hole and now I have a two-story house". Sure, you dug a hole... and got the clay and metals necessary to make the bricks and nails and plumbing and wiring and the foundation and all that and put together it eventually got you to a house, but _gravity_ didn't push the balloon up directly any more than digging a hole makes a house, and flerfs will happily repeat what you said to make fun of you out of context. It's all they've got; posturing.
Eric DuBay, the comedy gift that keeps on giving…..
The dullest of dull comedies.
The fact that he showed himself on video for all to see just proves he's a complete Richard.
Dubay is also a holocaust denier Not funny. He uses flat earth to seduce other paranoid morons into his other more sinister fantacies
the sad thing is people like that will attract a following. I put Trump on the same intelligence level as Eric
@@vinnieg6161 Yup.
“Countless scientific experiments”.. I got a good laugh out of Eric saying that. “It is was it is” and “give me a break”, aren’t scientific experiments. The experiments they do try fail miserably. Hold the light a little higher, Enrique……interesting”
Clearly, the light and the hole in the board are broken.
@@Llortnerofclearly the light got tired from their bs on the way over, and dropped in altitude.
The fun part is you can disprove both the upward accelerating earth and the non-existence of gravity by taking sensitive enough gravity meters to different places around the earth and into high altitude flights. Under proof the upward acceleration hypothesis and the denial of gravity, the meter should detect no difference in what it measures when at different altitudes, elevations, or latitudes.
They detect a change. Gravity is real. The flat earth is physically impossible in this universe
Have YOU done it for yourself? Did you make sure the instruments were properly calibrated? Or do you just trust what THEY tell you?
@@cygnustsp did it myself with less exacting methods as I was merely entertaining my own curiosity and I was a broke airman at the time. But within error it showed what is predicted. Feel free to disprove the theory of gravity by doing it with such advanced equipment and publish your findings.
@@cygnustsp It looks to me YOU didn't do it yourself. Don't trust what THEY tell you (and by they, i mean flat earther grifters)
@@cygnustsp "Or do you just trust what THEY tell you?" PFFT!!! You mean like what you do mate? Sorry but it is NOT about trusting what they tell you, it is about reviewing repeatable experiments. And if you question it or if you question a part of it, simply repeat the experiment yourself. Sorry mate but these have all been published by peer review to look at, and anyone and everyone can often times simply do it and see it for themselves. Unlike Dubay's word salad.
I myself do not need to have actual sensitive equipment to tell me this is the case. I have been around the world enough that I can detect it and feel it myself to know there is a difference in gradient and gravity pressure. BUT I have done other repeatable experiments to detect gravity just for the fun of it. For instance gravity is not only just a downward force.
@@juanausensi499 It makes me wonder if they ever buy canned food. How do they know it's actually *beans* in there if they can't see into the can?
As soon as he dropped the "pressure gradient" bit, I knew he was going to hand-wave the obvious question of "why?"
Also, it's hilarious that he's treating Flerfs who actually try to explain the effects of gravity like they're just what he calls "globe earthers" (read sane people) in Flerf clothing because they aren't just attributing everything to "god"
We aren't called "not flat earthers" we are called NORMAL people.
To be fair, 'normal' people generally don't actively seek out Flerfs for the (justifiably therapeutic) entertainment value of laughing at them.
We may not be normal, but we are more correct.
@@richardhanck972. It’s pretty normal human behaviour, it just has nothing to do with choosing flat earthers specifically, that is likely a lowest hanging fruit choice.
I prefer the term 'undeluded'
My biggest problem with the “pressure gradient” is its backwards! it’s obvious that there is less pressure the higher you go, so really, everything should “fall” up, seeking the path of least resistance, where there is less pressure acting on it.
Oops 🤦♀️
Even the “upwards moving plate” idea make sense in comparison.
If "gravity" is the result of an upwards acceleration, why is gravity less at the top of a mountain than at sea level? Why is gravity stronger at the poles than at the equator? As with all things flerf, none of it stands up to even the most cursory examination.
1:35 A helium balloon actually moves to the front of the car when accelerating an back, when braking. Smarter every day had a really good video demonstrating and explaining this.
True, because when you accellerate forwards, the air moves to the back of the car, increasing the pressure in the back and lowering the pressure in the front. This pressure difference is what pushes the balloon forwards.
I love his use of "directional vector" it sounds so sciencey. He could have used *uppity* to the same effect.
As opposed to non-directional vectors, also known as 'magnitudes'.
Better than a non-directional vector which, of course, is a speed.
Of all the FE "theories" out there accelerating earth is muh fave, because if we start from a dead stop we would reach light speed in a tad over 354 days.
"They are forced to pile assumption upon assumption" He was SOOOOO close ...
Flatzoid has been "debunking" this idea, attacking Del quite vigorously. It's big fun watching Rachie try to explain how it could work and how Einstein would agree and flatz's crew calling her stupid, it's very entertaining.
They are fighting to see who will be the Queen of stupidity.
@tandme2342 indeed.
we dinnae live on a spinnin bol the airth is flot
The only infinite empty expanse I'm aware of is that between Eric's ears...😜
the flat earth constantly accelerating upwards might also explain why time is passing so much faster than back when we were way slower 😀
haha!
Dubay reminds me of the person who claimed objects fell downwards due to the law of what goes up, must come down.
Hmmm... earth rising at 9.8 m/s^2, but the moon is rising only about 1/6 that (1.62 m/s^2). So why haven't we crashed into the moon yet?? Umm.... err... umm... paralax?? lol
Perspective
Dodgeball.
Nuh uh.
Its important to tell the 4 year old that you just dont know, but that they are perfectly able to find those answers themselves one day.
Exactly. No shame in answering for example: "I don´t know, but we can look it up later".
Eric Dubay thinks that his ignorance is superior to the ignorance of other Flat Earthers. In any case, the observed gravitational acceleration varies over the Earth's surface. It's approximately 9.78 metres per second, per second at the equator, rising to approximately 9.83 metres per second, per second, at the poles. This would be impossible on an accelerating flat Earth.
"The poles" alone would be impossible on Flatopia. "pole", yes. "poles", no.
@@ReValveiT_01 This Flat Earth thing is utterly nonsensical, as it involves denying all contradictory data.
@@clemstevensonthey do not trust the data. They say it's just written on paper, not real. Globe measurements, the same. Surveyors and navigators take the data and apply a "globe formula". Yeah.
If only they spent their time and energy with actual science, imagine what they could accomplish. So damn tragic.
I am imagining what they could accomplish. I've drawn up a complete list of their potential achievements. here it is:
1. Nothing.
@@EdwardHowton2. Absolutely nothing
Imagine if scientists took DuBay's non-answer on the pressure gradient and applied it to -literally anything- the observed bias in neutrino chirality or the disparity in quantities of matter and antimatter.
We might finally make some scientific process that way. Imagine being able to communicate to eachother across vast distances while being in the safety of our own home.
... title reaction... 😂 We live on a Frisbee😂😂😂😂
How can flat earthers not see that a pressure gradiant with lower air being more dense creates an UPWARD force, not a downward one?
(btw that's Archimedes' principle of buyancy)
Gosh, I was told this amazing fact over a decade ago--- I have no idea at all why it has not been included in public school science text books.
You clearly don't understand the gravity of the situation (hehe)....
American "educators" are too busy correcting history books about slavery to fix science textbooks...it is just a matter of priority as science isn't important to them. Once history is fixed and the culture war won the science books will be fixed.🐈
PS the cat emoji indicates that the comment is a schrödinger comment which is simultaneously satire and truth depending on who reads it.
Hilarious. The idea that the downward pressure gradient exists “just because” can’t explain why the downward pressure disappears once you move any significant source of gravity (the large mass) away from a volume of gas.
Why is water wet?
(Waves hands) Gawd.
Why is fire hot?
(Waves hands) Gawd.
Why is blue blue?
(Waves hands) Gawd.
Why do sheep have wool?
(Waves hands) Gawd.
Dubay lives in such a wonderful world where the answer to any question is ‘Gawd’.
Hey, Eric, why is your reasoning so poor?
I'm actually surprised that Dubay did not address this upward-acceleration idea with the most obvious comeback: its creator, Leo Ferrari, was not a serious flat-Earther. The driving force behind "In Search of the Edge," a Canadian educational film designed to encourage critical thinking skills, and founder of the Canadian Flat Earth Society, Ferrari was engaged in trying to get people to detect faulty thinking. The current Flat Earth Society shows no signs of being any more serious about their claims.
I mean "Why do arms not grow out of our pelvis, and legs grow out of our torso" is also answerable with we named our "Gravity Connectors" Legs, and "Manipulator Appendages" Arms
Éric is pissed before flat earthers are getting closer and closer to discover the earth is neither flat nor immobile. They already got the not immobile part.
Good point.
It always comes down to "Shut up and believe what I'm telling you".
If Eric Dubay thought about anything for one second, I suspect his brain would explode from overstrain.
Gravity at the pole is higher than at the equator. g = 9.81 m/s² is the value in our region. At the equator g is about 9.78 m/s² and at the poles about 9.83 m/s². On mountains, g is lower than at sea level. The lowest measured value is 9.7639 m/s² at the top of Mount Nevado Huascarán, Andes.
These small differences would rip the flat earth apart in a matter of minutes.
"It's like asking why is water wet or why is fire hot." Which we actually have answers for...
Also… glad to be seeing more of you stick!!! 😊
I always wondered how that pressure gradient would reestablish itself again after a gust of wind or any turbulence would inevitably disturb it.
Professor Stick , great video. They really do just derp themselves!👍💙💖🥰✌
the answer to the infinite regress of "but why" is not 'it was created this way' it is 'I don't know' because eventually you will reach a level of technical specificity that you will be unable to answer not because there is no answer but because the truth is that you don't know.
Thanks Proffessor Stick.
Let's see... 32 feet per second per second times 6000 years.... So, the flat Earth is travelling faster than light? I thought they were pissed that it moves at all.
It's not like they accept Einstein's relativity anyway. Also, that's not how relativity works.
If the Earth is moving upwards at that rate, then why is the rate different at the top of Mt. Everest? It is only 9.81 at sea level. That also explains why there is a density gradient. It's almost like gravity is a thing.
Thanks for the video :)
Regarding his last point: why don't all the air molecules just crash to the ground under *his* flat model? Or does Eric not believe in molecules either?
When conspiracy-theorists refer to the mysterious "they," it's molecules they're talking about. No one will admit it though. All us enlightened people know that molecules are at the root of every conspiracy, real or imagined... except, of course, the conspiracy to hide the _true_ "they." Wake up, sheeple! Molecules are deceiving you all!
Makes as much sense as anything flatties have ever said.
The infinite regress of asking why might as well be the definition of science. An infinite search to the question why
The upward accelerating flat earth is 100 times less stupid than the lack of gravity idiocy.
the moment you realize the holes in the bowling balls make great stabilization points....
9:58 "Because otherwise the upwards rising earth would constantly be crushing up into bottoms of birds, planes, helicopters and anything else"
Yeah, that's the f@cking point
they may go with the "Earth just sucks" explains gravity.
If the earth was accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s it would reach the speed of light in 355 days.
No amount of acceleration can reach light speed, that's the whole point of Einstein's relativity. Unless you're throwing out relativity, in which case: why do you care about lightspeed?
@@APaleDot Correct which is why the whole notion is ridiculous.
Yes. I got my maths wrong on that.
Even if the Earth is 6,500 years old as Young Earth creationists insist, it would have been accelerating at 1G from the day of creation. So using very rough maths, it must be moving at about 6,500 E by now. And getting 9.8 m/s/s faster every second.
Most creationists are not flat earthers, *believe in (edited) gravity, and that the Earth is as old as, well, it really is. So *no need (edited) to factor in 4.5 billion years of acceleration!
What is mad, is that some of us are arguing over the detail. Of a flat Earth. Accelerating upwards at 1G.
No. Your speed after you accelerate is going to be 0% the speed of light. That's the point of relativity. You can keep accelerating forever. You'd have to be bringing the celestial spheres along with you, of course, or risk crashing into them or seeing the starlight redshift and blueshift. But you can accelerate at any rate you want as long as you want. What do you think you're going to be moving at 99% the speed of light relative to?
Is it just me or did anyone noticed in the video, that Eric confirmed Vsause's assumption on the rising 'space pizza'?
My dad never gave explanations to my why questions when he asked me about something or when he told me to do something as a kid. His answer was always "because I said so" lol. That made me the scientist I am today, looking for answers in the stars and at home. Science as a whole is awesome
Honestly, I thing parents should try to answer the "why" questions of their child, even tough they can be sometimes a bit bothersome. I mean, the kid doesn´t mean any harm or ill will, he/she just wants to learn more about the world around him/her, which is completely natural and good for them, and what better way to do that than just ask the ones he trusts the most? Altough there isn´t any shame in parent answering "I don´t know, but we can look it up later".
I did the math once, assuming the earth is only 6000 yrs old, it would be traveling upwards at several times the speed of light at this point
Not just flying upwards, accelerating upwards!
3:53 an example of circular reasoning right there
Physicists generally prefer using 9.81m/s^2 as the constant for gravity
Rising flat Earth model would have to be one with a firmament dome so that the projections of the sun, moon, and stars remain consistent, which is the least of their problems.
8:42 (Bob rolls silently in his grave a 15 degrees per hour)
Assumption number one: The first assumption is assumption number one of the list of assumptions. Assumption number two: ....
Hey v sauce Micheal here flat earthers got no Brian cells
@@PWN4G3FTW did you even understand what I said I literally said that you have no Brian cells and you reply by saying you don't need brain cells
🤔 does anyone have any Brian Cells? 🤔
@@SnarkNSass Brians do. Billions of them. 😆
@@SnarkNSass We do have a Brian in our cells.
Ok. I lelease Blian.
Me wearing tinfoil hat: What we perceive as "gravity" is time dialation caused by surface area.
The closer to a flat surface you are, the more time dialates which causes a drag or pull towards the surface area.
The gradiate exists on a molecular level, meaning even small particles have parts that are pulled in one direction more than any other due to slower time dragging objects.
Me without tinfoil hat: There. A better explanation for gravity than the entire flat earth community has. Because it just reworks the hypothesis about how real gravity works but associates it with surface area instead of mass -.-
The way to make an accelerating world work is to change the direction as you accelerate. What you would end up with is a section of a ring world facing up toward the center and the centrifugal force acting as gravity
In such a situation, the surface of the Earth would be (a part of) a cylinder and in two opposing directions there'd be no horizon but instead an uprising stroke of oceans and continents shrinking in scale and width, and if the ring would be complete, then it'd be at it's smallest where it's right above your head where it also connects to the uprising stroke from the other side.
I was thinking of a disk attached by a tether to counter weight above. The counter weight regardless of shape would be directly overhead, so probably visible. The horizon would need to be marked by the edge wall which would keep the gasses and fluids from spilling over the edge. In the end, it would be distinct from what we see on Earth.
Doing this is an actual proposal for having gravity out in space, spin the ship or station. You have to do it on a sufficiently large scale though otherwise you get odd effects which makes humans sick and dizzy. This form of generating gravity is also readily identifiable to measurement so we know it's not what's happening on Earth.
The other way to do it is to move the space relative to the surface of the Earth, which is what actually happens.
@@darrennew8211 You're making a few mistakes:
- _'moving the surface of the Earth relative to the space',_ and _'moving the space relative to the surface of the Earth'_ are not different phenomena. They are the same. They are just different ways of describing it.
- We are observing ourselves (and all other objects not attached to the Earth) continuously being accelerated toward the Earth's surface. To achieve this without gravity, the Earth's surface needs to continuously accelerate towards us. Plane movement would not achieve this. (If we, together with the Earth, had some speed side ways, this acceleration results in a circular trajectory.)
"These flat earthers are creating baseless theories that don't explain all possible scenarios, unlike me, a flat earther with all answers"
Flying upwards ... but where? They deny space. So where is the Earth going exactly?
Well of course, the platter moves upward and the edges bend down causing a curve, and since all parts move upward the curve of the edge is constant making the edges look like a sphere.
Wait. They have a 5 minute attention span? That's 4 minutes 45 seconds longer than I thought.
Legs and arms are just the names we give our lower and upper limbs. These names were just arbitrarily assigned.
In the absence of gravity a free object in a pressure gradient will move towards the lower density. Dubay's argument for downward motion of dense objects is literally backwards.
ask why enough times and the answer will be "I DON'T KNOW."
For those who think that the speed of light is a problem for an accelerating Earth IT IS NOT!
Length contraction and time dilation come into play at relativistic speed and the gamma factor MUST be used in calculations.
Einstein:
There is no local experiment that can be performed to determine the difference between a universal acceleration and a universal gravitational field.
I'm under the impression that the flerfs claim that it's just the earth that is accelerating, not a universal acceleration. In that case I think that FTL problems remain, but maybe I'm wrong.
@@violetfactorial6806 they claim that the earth and the stars(luminaries on the dome) are accelerating. They even call it Universal Acceleration.
@sendintheclowns
...What is the material makeup and composition of the dome?
...Why can't it be detected with RADAR?
...Underneath the topographical Earth surface is supposed flat plane.
...What is the depth, the distance from the Earth' surface to the underneath side of the flat plane.
...What is the means of propulsion that is moving the flat planed Earth up?? What is the force??
...Balance, what about balance?
...The Earth's surface is not evenly balanced. What construct and material properties keep the flat plane moving up in a balanced manner??
@@sendintheclowns7305
Matter tells spacetime how to curve. Spacetime tells matter how to move.
...Does Earth's larger matter/mass curve spacetime more than a smaller, less matter/mass meteor/meteorite??
...I am standing on Earth's larger matter/mass. It appears to me that the less matter/mass meteorite is accelerating towards me.
...I don't know, still seems to me that the larger matter/mass of Earth is attracting the smaller, lesser matter/mass of the meteorite.
...Where is the flat earth accelerating or moving to???
...Why would a flat planed earth need to move???
Nah, I think I will stick with Globe evidence.
And that the Earth's larger matter/mass curves spacetime more than a lesser matter/mass meteorite object. So if the lesser matter/mass object meteorite is in the vicinity of Earth's more matter/mass, the meteorite will move towards Earth.
@@do_notknow_much those are great questions, but you're asking the wrong person. The measurable differences in g by location and altitude ABSOLUTELY disprove an accelerating Earth. No need to go any further.
The finite speed of light however DOES NOT, which is the entire and only point I'm making.
Saying that it does, as many claim in this comment section, is simply wrong and a misunderstanding of science. That's what flerfs do and we should not.
Water isn't wet. wet only happens when water clings to another medium.
its interesting how the direction of bouancy is opposite of the direction of acceleration....
As a leading advocate of flat earth, Dubai sure says some dumb things.
He finds the rising flat earth at 9,8m/s2 so ridiculous (and I bet he would find it even more ridiculous if he actually knew about the square and what that really means for the current velocity) that he fails to understand it more or less disproves a flat earth
Any defense of Flat Earth that involves (or even just recognizes) earthquake waves and the field of seismology is hilarious and immediately self-destroying as that field alone has successfully mapped the spherical layering of the spherical earth in great detail. Getting any earthquake wave patterns at seismic stations around the Earth to work assuming a Flat Earth model is literally impossible, no matter how much you stretch the data.
also, our legs DO grow out of our torso. the pelvis is part of the torso (or trunk), of the human body. all four of our limbs, and our necks, grow out of our torsos.
You know someone needs to come up with a version where the flat earth is spinning around something else at a speed that makes the centripital forces equal to 9.8 m/s^2
Our legs DO grow out of our torso. lol
my legs grow out of my torso and I have an arm growing out of my pelvis
@@StoneDeceiver well if you want to go that route, our arms don't grow out of our torso either, they grow out of our scapula and clavical
@@righty-o3585 My pelvis arm is massive and impressive and amazing says every girl ever p.s. im not lying i promise
@@StoneDeceiver must be compensating for cranial capacity.
@@righty-o3585 unfortunately i am not lucky enough to have a gift such as lack of cranial capacity, if i was so fortunate it wouldn't be like finger nails on chalkboard while tolerating the truly cranial capacity deficient ladies who constantly beg for said pelvis arm.. it's a hard life
Water makes things wet, it is not wet.
The Earth has gone TO PLAID!
It is kind of funny that Einstein was trying to explain that there is no absolute inertial reference frame and some flerf tards think he was literally saying the earth was accelerating upwards. The clue is in the title… relativity.
The surface *is* accelerating upwards. That's why you feel pressure on your feet, why a ball falls when you drop it, and why airplanes need lift. But since space is falling towards the center of the Earth at the same rate (which is what's causing the acceleration), the surface can accelerate outwards at a steady rate without moving relative to other parts of the surface. And *that* is what Einstein was saying.
Doesn't need to have infinite space above us, could just be moving in a circle - but then that would have to be explained with gravity and gets even more messy for them
Professor stick, do a deep dive into RFK if you get a chance. Thank you 🙏🏼
i still wonder how flat earthers explain the Canadian gravity anomaly...
They simply don't trust that those measurements are accurate
@@cygnustsp like they do with everything
"nuh uh this ain't accurate and im not going to look into the matter what so ever"
Canadians have their own gravity!? Well aren't they all high & mighty up there in the north pole!
@@corey2232 the "Canadian gravity anomaly" is the cause of a very, very slight bulge on the earth that makes everything on it ever so slightly farther away from the centre of the earth and thus have ever so slightly, slightly less gravity.
i wonder how a accelerating CD or buoyancy (something caused by gravity) will tackle this...
@Dewzli Ah, that's interesting! This may sound dumb, but does that apply to other areas (like atop Mt. Everest or deep in the sea), or does is the surface at those points still the usual distance from the center?
The earth is "flying upwards" according to general relativity.
The "dialect" channel here has some *great* videos explaining this.
9:09 "You are literally full of assumptions yourself..." Full of something, that's for sure. I'd have been less polite.
This one is hilarious: 8:36 DuBay mentioning "countless scientific experiments proving Earth to be completely motionless". He could not cite a one single, but there are NONE. There are in fact countless scientific experiments proving Earth to be a rotating sphere orbiting the Sun.
"Earth is constantly accelerating upwards and gravity is a fictitious, illusory force that doesn't exist in a truly inertial reference frame."
-Flat Earthers... and also relativity!
Wow, a flat earther having a dig at a different faction of flat earther….amazing
The most important question in science is: why.
It's not unsurprising the Eric Dumbay dodges this question.
You need only one argument to disprove this: gravitational acceleration changes in different parts of the earth. If the earth was accelerating upwards, every part ofthe earth should experience EXACTLY the same acceleration
Flätties are like preschoolers which tries to explain common things with own words, toys and pics and even better.. videos. Hilarious content tho.
yo we ARE accelerating 9.8 ms-2 upwards
from an intertial reference frame aka falling
The surface of the Earth *is* accelerating upwards. But it's because space is accelerating inwards. Otherwise you wouldn't feel pressure on your feet and airplanes wouldn't need lift to maintain altitude.
I see people arguing about whether a constant acceleration of 9,81 m/s/s would be possible within the rules of general relativity. Meanwhile, it is not clear that Dubay has a passable grasp even of the very basic difference between speed and acceleration.
6:16 "It is that way because that's how it was created to be." -- No, the only reasonable conclusion is, "I don't know", at which point you can start trying to find out.