Fantastic explanation! I've seen the balloon in a car experiment before but I don't recall them making a connection between the horizontal acceleration in a moving vehicle and the vertical acceleration of gravity.
Very nice! I actually did the balloon experiment on my channel too. I got the idea from 'Smarter Every Day.' Flat Earthers just don't understand that you need gravity in order to have pressure differentials.
Dang Jos: it was (of all people) Arwijn who used this balloon experiment as an example that there should be some kind of force (or acceleration) at play. He just refuses to call it gravity (as in two masses attracting each other). So even some flat earthers see the problem with the density and buoyancy explanation.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden Hmm...name sounds familiar. Yeah some flat Earthers try to add electromagnetism to the mix. They can never get their story straight.
@@DANGJOS The electric force is mever separate from any material. The fact that some people are dumb enough to just now at this point in their life consider the idea of electrical properties in any aspect is darned hilarious. It makes me think of those stupid what the fluff animal prank videos which I do not watch since they are stupid but I love the analogy :) where animals are presented with some kind of confusing illusion performed by a human with basic materials. Ie a cloth, ball, food item, shadow, light etc and the animal gets it's mind blown and they freeze up or start freaking out trying to figure out whats going on.
I've dealt with electrostatic force flat Earthers also. Actually, he thought was we observed was a combination of buoyancy, magnetism and electrostatic force. Multiple people, including me, explained that it could not be magnetic or electrostatic since that would have weird side effects, namely with magnets and electric charge and the force would be proportional to something other than mass. He then got cranky and insulting.
+DANG JOS, Thanks, I also got the idea from Smarter Every Day, I first though I could do this in a train (smoother movements), but the acceleration was too little.
The FE assertion that things fall/rise because they’re not in a “density equilibrium” fails to explain water pressure. Water has the density of water, so a cubic m of water 10ft down is surrounded by a medium with equal density. Thus according to the claim, it is in a “density equilibrium” with its surroundings and shouldn’t want to go down, it shouldn’t have weight (F=ma=w=m*0=0). Yet, when we dive deeper we can easily measure that pressure increases. The flatties try to use the argument that it’s the mass/weight (I don’t think they can tell the difference) of the water above that causes this pressure increase. But we just discovered that a material within medium of equal density should not have any downward acceleration or weight. How is the water above the current depth weighing down on it, most of the water above that point is surrounded by water of equal density, that water would not have any weight to bear down.
You can see the misconception I’m talking about in phuket’s recent density video. He thinks putting a lot of oil above a small quantity of water debunks gravity.
@@sphaera2520 Ugh, that guy. Perfect example of a charlatan! I can't bring myself to watch anymore of his videos even out of curiosity. I feel like by watching I'm supporting his bullshit.
+Sphaera Invictus, Yes you are 100 % right, but I think it requires more analytical intelligence than the average fe’er have, so they fail to realize these things.
KIBanshee9 I typically don’t watch flat earth videos as well. Generally the way I experience their content is through a second hand source. As in while watching a miles davis debunking video, he’ll play snippets of ranty’s original content where he makes the flawed assertion. I also avoid posting comments as that aids them indirectly by boosting their youtube algorithm. Only if I see something particularly interesting will I briefly engage.
Fantastic explanation! I've seen the balloon in a car experiment before but I don't recall them making a connection between the horizontal acceleration in a moving vehicle and the vertical acceleration of gravity.
Thanks
Very nice! I actually did the balloon experiment on my channel too. I got the idea from 'Smarter Every Day.' Flat Earthers just don't understand that you need gravity in order to have pressure differentials.
Dang Jos: it was (of all people) Arwijn who used this balloon experiment as an example that there should be some kind of force (or acceleration) at play. He just refuses to call it gravity (as in two masses attracting each other). So even some flat earthers see the problem with the density and buoyancy explanation.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden Hmm...name sounds familiar. Yeah some flat Earthers try to add electromagnetism to the mix. They can never get their story straight.
@@DANGJOS The electric force is mever separate from any material. The fact that some people are dumb enough to just now at this point in their life consider the idea of electrical properties in any aspect is darned hilarious.
It makes me think of those stupid what the fluff animal prank videos which I do not watch since they are stupid but I love the analogy :) where animals are presented with some kind of confusing illusion performed by a human with basic materials. Ie a cloth, ball, food item, shadow, light etc and the animal gets it's mind blown and they freeze up or start freaking out trying to figure out whats going on.
I've dealt with electrostatic force flat Earthers also. Actually, he thought was we observed was a combination of buoyancy, magnetism and electrostatic force. Multiple people, including me, explained that it could not be magnetic or electrostatic since that would have weird side effects, namely with magnets and electric charge and the force would be proportional to something other than mass. He then got cranky and insulting.
+DANG JOS, Thanks, I also got the idea from Smarter Every Day, I first though I could do this in a train (smoother movements), but the acceleration was too little.
The FE assertion that things fall/rise because they’re not in a “density equilibrium” fails to explain water pressure. Water has the density of water, so a cubic m of water 10ft down is surrounded by a medium with equal density. Thus according to the claim, it is in a “density equilibrium” with its surroundings and shouldn’t want to go down, it shouldn’t have weight (F=ma=w=m*0=0).
Yet, when we dive deeper we can easily measure that pressure increases. The flatties try to use the argument that it’s the mass/weight (I don’t think they can tell the difference) of the water above that causes this pressure increase. But we just discovered that a material within medium of equal density should not have any downward acceleration or weight. How is the water above the current depth weighing down on it, most of the water above that point is surrounded by water of equal density, that water would not have any weight to bear down.
You can see the misconception I’m talking about in phuket’s recent density video. He thinks putting a lot of oil above a small quantity of water debunks gravity.
@@sphaera2520 Ugh, that guy. Perfect example of a charlatan! I can't bring myself to watch anymore of his videos even out of curiosity. I feel like by watching I'm supporting his bullshit.
+Sphaera Invictus, Yes you are 100 % right, but I think it requires more analytical intelligence than the average fe’er have, so they fail to realize these things.
KIBanshee9
I typically don’t watch flat earth videos as well. Generally the way I experience their content is through a second hand source. As in while watching a miles davis debunking video, he’ll play snippets of ranty’s original content where he makes the flawed assertion.
I also avoid posting comments as that aids them indirectly by boosting their youtube algorithm. Only if I see something particularly interesting will I briefly engage.