Flat Earth Gravity Makes No Sense
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 тра 2023
- Flat earthers make up anything to try to make their models work, but ultimately fail hard.
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...
Golf/bowling ball demonstration video: • Falling Balls | A Mome...
Original Video: • How does Gravity Work ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
A simple balance scale puts the entire stupid "density" argument to rest. If I take an amount of lead and put it on one side of the scale and another, larger amount of lead on the other side, both sides are equally dense. Yet the scales won't be balanced.
Logic? Stop right' there. And the fun part is that buoyancies equation uses the constant for gravity as a main part to even work.
Something something relative density vanishing point
Sorcery!
@@MrU4theChillWind I'm a witch!
@@zeroryoko1974 Yeah, lol.. optical effect!
Its easy to demonstrate that this "density theory" is false, we can take 2 equal sheets of paper, roll one of them as a ball and drop both at same time. Obviously, gravity deniers will point out that air resistance is the one causing the different fall rate in this case, but will deliberately ignore air resistance when comparing a feather to an anvil.
You do need even need a demonstration. A simple thought experiment already should tell that something is wrong with the idea of relative density. The problem is the thinking part in thought experiment.
Assuming that the atmospheric pressure is constant, how should an object you release in mid-air "know" where up and down is? The gas pressure and therefore density is the same all around the object. Some flearthers accept that there is a pressure gradient in the atmosphere. Then the pressure above and object is slightly less than below, hence air density above is less than below. Based on the relative density hypothesis, objects would have to fall upwards.
Some flearthers have seen this problem and are now claiming something like an energy level relative to the ground... which would be potential energy, but they refuse to call it this way, because that would imply the existence of gravity.
The concept does not even work in the ground. Soil density is ranging from 1400 kg/m³ up to roughly 2.7 kg/m³. Roots from common spruces, aka wood, has a density of roughly 470kg/m³. The density of wood is lower than the density of the ground. Why should roots grow into the ground?
Density is mass per volume. Air density is directly proportional to pressure and indirectly proportional to temperature.
Simple way to say air get less dense when you go up and more dense when you go down , so apples should fall up . Air density is not mathematical constant .
Also tree makes shadow , so the air is colder and more dense under the tree than on side of it , one more reason why apples should no fall strait down .
@@johnscaramis2515keyword there is "thought" 😅
All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle.
Identical paper plane launched horizontally vs launched straight down. Then you actually have the same shape in both cases, too
I would love to hear Eric's explanation for "Why things still fall *down* in a vacuum chamber?" There is no medium inside for buoyancy to work.
ask them to make a formula, that works for all objects density and all medium density, a formula that magically results in the same speed when the medium density is 0 regardless of the object density, but still is accurate with all testable variations of density
Easy: they don't believe in vacuum. I've seen flattards say "I want a sample of that black space vacuum" as if a test tube capped in space will look filled with 'black nothing' when viewed at Earth's surface.
They will say that vacuum chambers don't exist in nature therefore they don't need to answer the question. That is a legitimate response I have heard from these morons on several different occasions.
@@naruarthur If you ask them for a formula, they tend to just shout that math doesn't actually mean anything.
Tut, tut, the answers simple "Reasons!" 🤣
“If you remove the medium of air from a chamber, all objects fall at the same rate.” BUT WHY DO THEY FALL!!!!
"Learn to take the L instead of making up explanations that completely dodge the question." Possibly the best quote I can take away from this video.
Flat-earthers, creationists, etc think saying "I don't know" is a weakness.
Scientists, atheists, etc think saying "I don't know" is a strength.
That's the biggest difference between the two groups. "Taking the L" means admitting that you don't know, which most of those that need to do it will refuse to show such weakness.
Unfortunately it would require them to be able to learn, so…
Also by their logic that vacuum = 0 density, wouldn't vacuum chambers just... Float ?
To be fair a vacuum balloon would work. The problem is that the structure to support it is heavy. As such it will have a high density despite having a core with low density.
@@robertadsett5273 A "vacuum balloon", ie a balloon with zero contents, not even air, is just a solid chunk of latex.
Or have infinite downward acceleration?
@@robertadsett5273 Considering the utter tripe they come up with, could they really think that a heavy container it is *not* required to resist the pressure differential? That sounds so stupid to me when I wrote it down, having watched the Mythbusters collapse a railway tank carriage based on far less pressure differential. Yet I have heard flat earthers make even more idiotic claims.
By the way, I also watch sealed plastic bottles collapse as they cool down after being washed in hot water... all due to the same forces.
The density argument would also explain how one can have vacuum next to air pressure without a container - it's because air, being denser than a vacuum, "naturally" settles under it 🙂
Strangely enough, none of the flat Earthers I spoke about this concept wanted to accept it. I wonder why?..
Dumbay literally uses a mystical downward force to prove down but says it’s not gravity.
"Once settling accordingly"
Meaning once it's in its place due to its density the downwards force it has should disappear. We don't see that happen.
According to RDD anything less dense than water should float perfectly at the surface of the water with no part of that object sinking below the surface because no part of that object is more dense than any of that water. No matter how big or heavy the object.
Humans have a lower average density than water...so why is it that when a naturally buoyant person gets in water, part of their body remains submerged, if only slightly?
I can float on my back, but it still gets submerged. Instantly disproves their point.
If they were correct, we should all be able to pull a Jesus and just walk on water, without having to bother with surface tension at all.
I'm not a flat earther but they would say that the air above it is pushing the object below the water
Flat-Earthers love to refer to gravity as being "magical", yet their own "density" argument requires objects to inherently "know" which direction "down" is. This sounds a lot more like "magic" than an attractive interaction between objects with mass does. ( especially when we already have examples of other kinds of interactions, such as that between electric charges, that behave similarly.) It's really comes down to a "cart before the horse" situation for them where reality has a universal "down" preordained and "built in", and that determines the behavior of objects, rather than "down" be determined by how objects behave ( as in being attracted to a central mass).
Down is wherever the enemy's gate is.
The same thing I always ask them, how do water "know" it;s not level and becomes level? I've never gotten an answer, just either silence or the usual insults... LOL
He uses density but means buoyancy. Which, lo and behold, uses gravity 😂
How about this:
You have a room.
On the right side there is a refrigeration unit cooling the air, and on the left side is a furnace heating the air.
Then you drop a ball in the center of the room.
Because hot air is less dense the cold air, instead of falling downward the ball should fall to the left, right?
Yes
That would be the case, but gravity exists. Poor flat earthers. Not the brightest people to walk the earth
An ordinary ball would fall to the ground, just as you expect. The forces it experiences from the air are going to be negligible compared to its own weight. And it would probably stay there, unless the buoyant force from the temperature gradient you specified is significant enough to overcome the rolling friction.
If you dropped a neutrally-buoyant balloon in the center of the room, it would move with the convection current that would be created by this temperature differential across the width of the room. The cold air and hot air aren't going to stay in place. The cold air will sink, the hot air will rise, and you will create a convection current that circulates from the cold-side to the hot-side on the bottom, and vice-versa on the top near the ceiling.
Wrong. That's not how relative density works. Try harder.
@@jjevans1693 A helium-filled balloons is suspended by an ideal string, connected to the floor on the other end. The empty balloon membrane is 1.2 grams. This experiment takes place in Denver Colorado, where the air pressure is 88 kPa, and the pressure inside the balloon is 90 kPa, and the temperature of both the helium and surrounding air is 280 Kelvin.
Tell me the tension in the string. Then we'll see who knows how relative density works, and who doesn't.
So according to Dubay a piece of paper scrunched up in a ball will fall at the same rate as a smooth sheet. They have the same density after all.
Or to reduce the variables a ream of paper should fall at the same rate as a single sheet according to his logic
not forgeting, you don´t have to open a parachute.
There’s another issue with his delusion. Stuff should fall upwards as the density of the air above the object is lower than the air below.
@@angrydoggy9170 I am giving them the downward bias as a freebie.
I think the bias explanation for density and buoyancy has to come from the old medieval view of things falling to earth because they are mundane and so move closer to the earth whereas things rise because they are more heavenly. They built a whole hierarchy out of that explanation
Actually, unless you crumple the paper up so thoroughly that no pockets of air remain the density of the crumple is going to be lower than a solid sheet of paper, so by this relative density logic the crumpled up paper should fall slower than the sheet
Eric admits to an unexplained downward force when he describes pressure gradients. Those gradients form because something pulls the medium down. We call that something gravity.
I ended up getting a Flerf to admit there must be a force involved to get objects moving downwards, he just refused to call it gravity.
The question becomes, what defines down? The whole "relative density" argument falls apart when you take two identical umbrellas, open one, and drop both from the same height. The closed one falls faster, because air FRICTION is a thing.
by removing the medium ('making it 0') it eliminates that variable leaving only gravity acting on the objects..
he is so close but just cant get past his own hubris..
if he tries to make a formula that works with real measurements, he will reach the gravity formula, using only density you can't find a formula that would work with any density including a 0 density medium
That's what drives me to scream at my screen. He MUST know what he's doing; it HAS to be deliberate. 🤬
@@naruarthur What? Next you're going to tell us that you can't devide by 0 or something crazy like that...
@@AenesidemusOZ It is deliberate. He is getting people to part with $$ for "special knowledge" (if this reminds you of the special bus taking the contestants to the special Olympics, good). To describe Eric Dubay as a purveyor of snake oil is to debase snake oil
You won't find any popular flat earther approaching mathematics with any rigour. First, because their core audience is illiterate, so they would lose it instantly, and second because if they did they would shoot themselves in the foot: there's no way you could describe a free-falling body without gravity.
The density argument is defeated by the simple fact that two of something are heavier than one of something. Same density
I just can't get over how he ignores what happens to the balloon once it pops or simply deflates.
I have never heard a flat earther try to explain why the rate g of acceleration is *not* constant everywhere on earth, but gets larger the closer you get to the poles. The same object in the same medium of the same density (or even in a vacuum) will fall slightly faster in, say, Anchorage than it will in Bogota.
lol loves how he dances around the question as to WHY DOWN?. In a vacuum there is no surrounding density, no pressure, so why does ANYTHING still go down?
Exactly this is why my mind is blown all the time when I hear this flat earth argument. It's almost like there is a force or something that sill acts on those objects in a vacuum room.
One of them had an answer for that. I think it was Witsit. The answer, of course, is DOWN IS DOWN, duh!
@@Fred2-123 Witless Nitwit. He doesn't deserve the name he goes by. 🤣
The difference between a relatively successful youtube influencer flat earther and a regular ol’ dumb flat earther is the ability to answer direct questions with indirect answers that are superficially related. Eric here takes it a step farther by stating the direct questions he is going to answer, then doesn’t answer them. Amazing stuff.
The mark of a seasoned con artist.
Most flat earthers have learned never to answer a question, they know they can be easily destroyed if they do.
I once asked a flat earther what the distance round the Equator was. They told me 24,900 miles, it was the work of seconds to show how that proved the Earth could not be flat.
@@grahvis i think i'm missing something about that argument... How is it "the work of seconds to show how that proved the Earth could not be flat"? 🤔
@@irrelevant_noob .
The distance from the North Pole to the Equator is about 6,200 miles. If the Earth was flat, that would make the distance round the Equator about 39,000 miles and not the 24,900 we know it to be. Flat earthers are good at not answering questions and wriggling out of problems, but that was so basic, there was no space to wriggle.
"Eric here takes it a step farther by stating the direct questions he is going to answer, then doesn’t answer them. Amazing stuff."
Nothing amazing about that at all. Politicians do it every day.
He really called gravity a "mythical force" 💀💀💀💀💀 bruh I can't with these people
Dubay reject reality and lies once again. Colour me surprised.
The main problem with their "theory" is that it only tells which way an object will move but it does not predict the acceleration and therefore trajectory of the object. This makes it pretty useless as an alternative.
@Juanda You nailed it. But not everyone understands how important this is.
That is a “great” idea that the pressure of air above an object determines the downward fall. But where is the pressure coming from?
The simplest question that flat earthers cannot answer is, "Why is there a down or an up in the first place?"
god chose up and down because things falling up would be stupid :V
According to Witsit electrostatics keep mass together and the electric current which increases with height forces mass down towards earth which is "ground" or zero voltage
@@cygnustsp How is height determined with no gravity?
@@jimtrue1465 not sure I understand the question
@@cygnustsp You said electric current increases with height. But in a universe without gravity, how is the height of something determined? Height compared to what?
I'd love to see a flat Earther's dimensional analysis of their density disequilibrium formula. If they had one.
They'd be stuck arguing what 'dimensional analysis' was. Probably call it 'fake' or 'made up maths'.
Something I think is important to remember is that when helium goes up, the air around it is also being shifted around and going down slightly
"why does density cause things to fall down?"
"because density causes air to fall down"
"wat"
That's always been a sticking point for me. I ask every one that if raindrops fall why don't clouds fall? Why does the lighter/less dense object rise? Why is there less air at high altitudes? Doesn't gas in a vacuum expand to fill the container? Why does the pressure increase the deeper you dive under water?
They just call me a shill and ignore the questions and block me.
Clouds don't fall because there are other forces besides gravity. Buoyancy. For buoyancy to work you need gravity because balloons and clouds don't rise up, it's the denser air that pushes the balloon up. Gravity makes air slip below the balloon and push the balloon up. Of course we don't see the air pushing so we say that the balloon rises, but again, that's wrong, the balloon is not doing anything, the denser air is pushing. Gravity creates more pressure under the balloon, and above the balloon is less pressure, so the balloon is pushed up.
There is no container, so gas wouldn't fill it up. The universe is not a box. Also earth's gravity is keeping the air from escaping into space. Hydrogen and helium does in fact escape into space constantly because it's so light. That's why we have a shortage of helium here and it's actually quite precious. Every helium balloon is taking away an quite limited supply of helium gas that can be better used. Pressure increases because gravity is forcing water/everything down.
They call you a shill because that's like 5th grade physics. I do know why all the FE even exist in the first place, because they are fundamental Christians and believe the Bible says the earth is flat.
Clouds don't fall because they are not liquid water.
Clouds are mostly air, with a large component of water VAPOUR (a gas).
Rain occurs when the cloud is totally saturated with water vapour.
Then some of the water vapour will condense (becomes liquid water)
Liquid water cannot be suspended in air (like vapour can), so it falls.
@@alangarland8571 No Clouds consist of a mist of liquid water. You can not see water in its gas state. The bubble in a pot of boiling water are not white.
@@alangarland8571 Clouds aren't water vapour but liquid water droplets in suspension, hence why we can see clouds as water vapour is invisible.
@@alangarland8571water vapor is colorless. Clouds are made of dust and the water that condensed into the motes of dust
I can't believe he used a submarine in his example. If there is no gravity why is the ocean pressure higher the deeper you dive? Obviously water density isn't that variable. Obviously things like salinity and deuterium play a tiny roll in water density but not enough to crush a submarine into a pancake on the seafloor.
somehow the density of the medium forces the medium itself down right? they only apply their logic to objects inside a medium, if you try to use in the medium itself, it fails
Why don't we find ocean going sailors who believe the earth is flat?
@@dragonhealer7588 I'm sure there are at least _some._ Just like how some scientists are religious, like Destin of SmarterEveryDay or James of ActionLab. It's baffling af, but it happens. 🤷
Also submarines or balloons can't float still. They will rise or fall.
@@XtreeM_FaiL As others have pointed out in other comment streams - it IS possible for both cases, it is just difficult to attain, and maintain, that equilibrium condition.
For submarines it is quite easy at thermal boundaries. There are also rapid salinity discontinuities that they will sit at.
In practical terms, it is easier and better to do the station-keeping with at least a bit of movement and hydroplanes. For blimps and airships much the same applies - they were constantly losing gas, and compensating with aerodynamic inputs and dropping ballast.
What completely baffled me is that they never recognize that density and bouyancy are already part of the modern model of physics, it's just without gravity bouyance wouldn't exist as a force, this is easy to prove if you have a car with a helium balloon in it and a pendulum in it if you accelerate forward, the pendulum would move back but the balloon would move forward, which means that bouyancy force is dependant on other forces, ie gravity. These people are comically stupid.
i think you meant cosmically stupid
When his theory is true, shouldn't objects always go in the direction of less density? On earth that would mean up, as the atmosphere is less dense the higher up I go (simplified).
I can't wrap my head around it. If I think this through to the end, there would be no earth, flat or otherwise.
Me, as a mechanical engineer cringe hard when I hear flatearthers with their "GRAVITY DOESN'T EXIST".
also, here's a question for the "Pressure gradient" idea, then why do things fall in the vacuum? if there's no medium, thus no density, there's nothing to push down on them, no pressure gradient, nothing. so, by their own argument, things in a vacuum chamber should float.
I love it when I learn new things I never knew, especially if it's from some guy debunking morons on the internet. Great job once again Prof. Stick!
They fail to understand thet the only reason why ballon goes up IS BECAUSE of gravity 🤣. GRAVITY PULLS DOWN the air around the baloon and goes below the baloon. Concequences... Baloon goes up! Dam i feel like a genius!!!!!
More precisely, the fact that air/water has more pressure, the lower you go, creates a pressure gradient. The greater pressure on the bottom than the top generates a net upward force.
They can't explain this because without any forces, air will evenly fill space. But gravity generates a gradient as a consequence of the balance of the forces involved.
I'm surprised they believe in air at all since they can't see it. They can see the helium going up (or rather they can see the balloon its contained in going up) but because they can't see the air around it going under the balloon due to gravity pushing it up, they think its just magically going up for no reason.
how this fake gravity works tell me folks ? i see only bla bla and nothing more
@@ALEXZANDER_YT M O R O N.
With the vacuum chamber example, why would the acceleration in the "density model" be 9.8 m/s/s? As he said, the difference between the object and medium is infinite, shouldn't then the acceleration be infinite too, or c if we're sticking with traditional physics.
And why the fall rate is different on the moon?
I wonder which way object in a vacuum chamber will fall in/out the ISS?
@@XtreeM_FaiL Those questions, wonderfully valid as they are, are why these flat earth people deny all space travel, as well as all the other things they claim to be myths. That way they can deny both the the moon gravity experiment, and any experiments or observations on the ISS.
@@XtreeM_FaiL An object 'floating' in an ISS module is in orbit too.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver Exactly.
@@XtreeM_FaiL proof that there is fall rate on the moon :) only dont show me the cartoons of nasa please - show me how you record that there in real time
Here's another question I have: what causes the pressure difference in the first place?
Like young earth creationists and Noahs Ark defenders, the story changes to suit each argument 😂😂
Gotta love these guys for providing excellent entertainment for us sane folk
The Bible was specifically written to be self-contradictory and full of hypocrisy so that it has a verse to support whatever you want. Anything you want to do, there's a verse you can point to to say that God says you can do that. At the same time, there's also a verse you can point to to say that God condemns that exact same thing to prevent _others_ from doing it. So yeah, this sort of nonsense is pretty par for the course. 🤷 (There's a website that points out all the verses along with their contrapositives.)
@@I.____.....__...__ youd think that the Bible would be universally regarded now as a book or alagory and moralistic tales, as apposed to the devine word of a creator. After all, science has shown that theres no
Thor the Thunder God, no Zues throwing lightning bolts down during storms and certainly no pantheon of Gods at the top of Mount Olympus.
What is it with the Christian Religion that they are so devout and fundamentalist in their views
@@SparkySteve. "What is it with the Christian Religion that they are so devout and fundamentalist in their views"
My answer is - the degree of state sponsored indoctrination. Beyond even the schooling, if people only get into public office by at least seeming to follow the primary religion (or _maybe_ one of the secondary ones), then the lie is constantly reinforced just by the routine rituals of government. Same for all the modern religions - they tend to flourish most when they are the primary accepted religion of the state. That is why the christians in the USA want to ignore the founding father statements about the separation of church and state. It is why the moslem leaders were whipping up their followers and encouraging violence when a christian put himself forward as in the last Indonesian election - although he did get elected!
@@SparkySteve.the “pantheon of gods” were aliens with shapeshifting powers that were observing ancient humans. Just like how dolphins in captivity view humans the same way as gods do.
@@wolfetteplays8894 ye makes sense that mate. Like the Bird and lion headed figures you see on Egyptian glypths
Wouldn't the pressure gradient cause things to fall upward (towards the place where the air is less dense)?
I keep pointing this out to the flurfs but they cannot answer.
@@dogwalker666 Yup, or you get called stupid with no explanation as to why you are stupid and they aren't..
Same thing when you ask them to explain exactly how pouring water over their tiny balls disproves gravity.
@@Katy_Jones exactly.
He just spoke about things falling DOWN at the same rate in a vacuum and then goes on to talk about how the pressure gradient is responsible for the downward direction!!! If the gradient is responsible, then removing it would remove ALL direction. There would be no down!
Yep, they admit things fall at 9.8 meters per second squared but claim there is no force present. These people are complete and utter idiots, you'd have more stimulating conversations with dead squirrels on mountain trails.
i think the coolest take away from this video is the fact that a balloon half filled with helium and air floats in mid air. idk i just find that really cool
Take 60% Helium and you will see that it is floating again but in a higher position.
That is indeed cool
That's why I've always said (when I encounter a FLERFER) IF it's 'Density' that makes things fall down - due to say a boulder being more dense than the air - WHY, IF you throw the boulder STRAIGHT UP, does it not carry on going up AND increase in velocity as the higher you go, the less dense the air???? They try... THEY FAIL... 😏😉
😎🇬🇧
If the flat earther is correct, if you dropped Professor Stick and the flat earther at the same time, the flat earther would fall faster. This is because the flat earther is far more dense.
Another simple point to add:
If you design a very dense, hydrodynamic object (such that the buoyant and drag forces in water are negligible), it will fall/sink at the same rate in the water, air, and vacuum - regardless of the exact density of the object. For example, make one out of iron and one out of tungsten. They will fall/sink at the exact same rate due to gravity.
Also, the pressure gradient is also a DENSITY gradient, meaning that any object falling from a great height is moving into an area of INCREASING density! Wouldn't that make objects go SLOWER as they fall? There must be something OTHER than density making them first move downward towards the higher density and then SPEED UP toward the higher density. Density alone would FIGHT falling down.
It get's even worse for flearthlings: as there is a pressure and therefore density gradient in the atmosphere, an object released in mid-air has a slightly lower air density above the object, therefore should fall upwards.
Chris, all falling objects have a terminal velocity, when force = wind resistance. As the object nears the ground, and the air pressure rises, the rising wind resistance means that velocity *does* get *a bit* lower.
@John.0z This is true, but it doesn’t explain the initial acceleration at all.
@@John.0z too bad they discard air resistance when explaining the feather vs anvil scenario. Normal people take air resistance into account, and the equations work, and they use gravity. If you try to work out the falling rate of objects using only density and air resistance it doesn't work, you need a "preferred down" direction, otherwise you cannot tell where to fall and also how fast.
"Density, Density, Density, Density, Dense, Dense, Dense... " - Yes, yes you are a tiny but denser than the Planet around you.
Would you like a cliff to test your "theories" Eric? Behold me Lisa The Rainbow Giraffe (Leaf Be Upon Her)
When someone showed me the cylinder with the stack of different liquids I pointed out that the experiment shouldn't change if we add a mechanism that would release a very dense object (like a steel ball) through some kind of remote. Nor should it change if we seal the cylinder or if we subsequently turn it on it's side. Then I ask: If we release the steel ball, which way does density theory say it should go? Which way do you think it will travel. After that they admitted to some "downward force".
One of the many problems with this sort of 'analysis' is that it fails to produce numeric results that predict physical observations. You can indeed use Archimedean principles to show that objects less dense than the surrounding medium will rise/float. But if you try to use such principles to derive an equation showing how fast an object will fall in a vacuum, you will get a preposterous result, because the object is (approaching) infinitely more dense than the vacuum, and so 'relative density' would imply infinite speed. Aristotle argued that a vacuum was impossible for just this reason (later restated as 'Nature abhors a vacuum', which Aristotle didn't say). I do not know whether Archimedes ever ventured an opinion on the subject.
4:50 A small addition here, since (as part of my job) I recently implemented that formular in a simulation for objects with variing physical properties: The equations h = 1/2gt^2 or v = gt (plus air resistance) are only true for objects with a density that is significantly larger than the density of the surrounding medium. To accurately predict the velocity of an falling object with relatively low density, you actually *do* have to include the density of the object (or, rather, the ratio between the density of the surrounding medium, eg. air, and the density of the object) in the equation, to account for the bouyancy force (which is effectively just gravity acting on the mass of the object minus gravity acting on the mass of the ammount of the surrounding medium that gets pushed away by the volume of the object). With that, the equation to calculate the velocity becomes v = g * t * (1 - (density of the surrounding medium) / (density of the object)).
(Please let me know if I made an error in my calculation - though I'm fairly confident I didn't)
So saying that density "does not matter" isn't quite true, especially not when talking about objects like a 'levitating' baloon. Similar to air resistance, in many cases this aspect doesn't have a significant impact an can be ignored - however, especially when debunking that flat-earther-density-nonsense, this aspect should be mentioned, as otherwise your argument is failing to explain the exact things that the flat-earther is using as his argument (like the levitating baloon, or an submarine, etc).
Levitating balloon is a trick.
If you do it in a place where air is perfectly still (not in a pressure chamber) it either fall or rise. Equilibrium is not possible.
@@XtreeM_FaiL Equilibrium is possible if F_g=F_b
@@XtreeM_FaiL I've had old birthday helium balloons hang in the air indoors. The room air is usually different temperatures at different heights in the room (therefore slightly different densities), so at some stage the balloon loses enough helium to find an equilibrium point between the floor and ceiling.
It's a bit spooky when they start to follow the small circulating air currents and travel across the room, duck under the door frame, go down the hall and up the stairs, like they know where they're going!
@@neutronenstern. That works if the object has zero volume.
@@XtreeM_FaiL The discussion, whether a perfectly levitating balloon is possible, how hard it is to achieve, or how stable the height of the levitation is, is kind of besides the point of my comment - I used that example solely because that was the precise experiment that professor stick answered to with the equations for gravity.
Nontheless, the fact that an Equilibrium is more than theoretically possible shouldn't come to a surprise, since there are plenty of examples where human constructs or nature try to actively balance around that equilibrium, or where the laws of physics simply stabilize at that equilibrium.
Of course, the specific example of putting an balloon in perfect equilibrium would either require you to measure the total density of the balloon extremely precisely, to have the balloon to leak some of its gas until it finds a temporary equilibrium, or to have a sufficiently large gradient of density in the surrounding medium (eg through temperature or altitude), that the balloon can move on its own to the exact place where it meets the perfect equilibrium.
I am curious how the Density Flerfs answer why an aluminum boat floats, but crush that boat into a cube *of the same density as before*, and suddenly it sinks.
Here's a fun experiment you can try at home: drop a textbook, and a piece of paper at the same time. The textbook will obviously land first. Now place the piece of paper on top of the textbook, so there is no air below the paper. When you drop them, they'll fall at the same speed.
Good point. Lets see them calculate the time it takes for something to hit the ground. How come Ive never came across these formulas. Why when we throw something it has the shape of a parabola?
As the bishop said
Gravity is only relevant compared to the size of the mass
The more followers we have the more people gravitate towards us
Density is mass per unit of volume. Mass is a thing we use to mesure the gravitational pull of objects. Therefore, saying 'density' is like saying 'gravity'. So he's saying something like "gravity doesn't exist because gravity exists"
Did this fool just throw shade at Sir Issac Newton!? Wow, what a foolish imp…
But, but but.... he's a "yOgErT iNsTrUkTeR" !!!!!!
Even a more fundamental question, what is "down" ? And what is "up" ?
I've tried that. They can't really think in 3D and therfore asking them to comprehend reference frames always leads to a migraine for the person asking the question
Soo... without a medium in which to fall all objects fall at the same rate, because of their relative density being zero? Ehmm... but...
isn't the relative density the CAUSE for the acceleration? So would not objects in a vacuum, be still. Not accelerated?
And why... why oh why oh why oh, would they "fall down", ie consistently accelerate at a consistent rate, and consistently in the same direction?
because there is a magical constant force that only activate when there is a vacuum, since that magic is dumb and don't know the rules flat earther invented, it pulls everything down at the same speed
And tell me, dear flerfs, where does this g = 9.81 m/s² come from and why does it vary depending on latitude, altitude and density distribution below the surface?
This g is crucial to calculate e.g. the period of a pendulum, the shape of the water surface of a rotating fish tank, the calculation of the terminal velocity in a medium, the ceiling altitude of balloons, the pressure gradient, the static pressure of air, the lift of an airplane and many more. Some of the equations contain also densities. But without gravity g you only get invalid equations, i.e. formulas with wrong units, if anything at all.
E.g. the period (T) of a pendulum of length (L) is:
T = 2 pi sqrt( L / g )
Now tell me, flerfs, what do you get without g? Where would you insert density in your equation? Note, the period does NOT depend on density. It only depends on gravity g and the length of the pendulum!
This can easily be proven with simple experiments.
Buoyancy literally won't work without gravity.
Paper page and bunch of papers have same density yet fall with different velocity.
Remember that Eric doesn't understand the difference between mass & weight. He thinks that 'down' & 'up' are absolutes, rather than relative observations. Eric must also believe that left-right & backwards-forwards are absolutes.
There are flattards who say distance doesn't exist. I've seen one try to argue that the side of an object opposite your view can be considered not to exist.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver They might have genuine psychological problems. They might have other problems in life that we are unaware of. There are many people who look for magic.
@@clemstevenson Yes, but some are just assholes.
@@RideAcrossTheRiver I am certain that some of them are just assholes, who are willing to waste their own time infuriating people.
@@clemstevenson Then there are the assholes who derive a great deal of visceral gratification out of gaslighting people.
1. Helium balloon goes forward in accelerating car and backward in slowing down car.
2. Steel ball in the same car goes to opposite directions to helium balloon.
Points 1 and 2 prove that there has to be acceleration for density to matter. We simply move the acceleration from Y axis (acceleration due to gravity) to X axis (acceleration due to car breaking/speeding up).
Since air molules are of similar or lower density while higher up IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR LESS DENSE AIR TO PUSH ON HIGHER DENSITY AIR. In closed system without acceleration there would not be any pressure gradient. And they claim that how earth is like. Pressure gradient is cause by acceleration and you can test it with long tube of water and few sensors.
If density was the only reason objects fall down then there would be not:
- No gravity planes. All objects inside of those planes have constant density, people inside are denser than air and fact that plane accelerates down negates only acceleration caused by earth's mass, it doesn't change density.
- apparent centrifugal force. This is harder to explain but this apparent force works in similar way gravity works. It accelerates you constantly towards centre of the circle around which you are spinning. But since acceleration doesn't matter, it should not be felt.
- when you push down bottle half filled with water, water should stay on the bottom, since it's denser than air and acceleration doesn't matter.
Few simple experiments will allow you to understand that it's constant acceleration that affects all objects.
Using that example of a piece of paper, crumple it into the smallest ball you can, before dropping it.
The paper still has the same mass, but has less air resistance, so how would they account for the different falling speed?
Shouldn't people like Dubay be arrested?
Yes. Along with all of his Parrots.
Why do things go down and not into other directions?
Flerfer: "Cause of Pressure due to different density-Layers!"
And how exactly does it then work in the Vacuum-Chamber?
The Flerfer has already claimed that in a Vacuum-Chamber the density is almost Zero and thus making objects fall at the same rate, but that still does not explain why in a specific direction. And that Layers for Pressure Thing would not apply there either.
Flerfers really do like to cherry-Pick and then tend to dismiss and ignore and deny all other scenarios in which their made-up stuff does not work. -.-
They have an array of counter-arguments to oppose specific claims of science that go against their beliefs. But those counter-arguments don't form any sort of cohesive model for reality. In fact, lots of those counter-arguments contradict each other. The trick is always focus in a specific claim each time.
@@juanausensi499
Or better said,.. hiding a Claim with more Claims.. and those Claims with even more weird Claims.
And none of those Claims get properly backed up.
Their most favourite response instead of giving an answer for the flaw that got pointed out is to ask: "..How else should it work if not the way i said?.."
Or some variations of that. But basicly.. dodging the difficult stuff.
A single sheet of paper has the same density as ream that same paper. By flerf logic, they should both fall at the same speed.
To believe that this is actually a problem. Really says something about how we are educating people.
Eric Dubay even sounds like he is completely mystified by the entirety of reality
To me, it sounds like he's constantly on the verge of tears, because he knows his flat Earth pet, is on it's last legs.
Doobay is mystified why reality doesn't bend to his will.
its funny how globe believers hate subjects about flat but they go on their channels to argue with them or paste some comments XD great job bots
Some people are also mystified about how to construct a sentence that makes sense & is relevant to the original comment.
@@ALEXZANDER_YT I fucking love flat Earth shit, it's great entertainment, to me. It's unfortunate, that there are people, that are headass enough, to actually believe it, but it's fucking glorious entertainment, to me. Keep your head up your ass, it makes me laugh. 👍
I was thinking about this "density" claim a few days ago when riding my bicycle. So, flat earth "no gravity" people, I really want to know what is happening when I ride up or down hills on my bicycle.
When I ride up even the slightest hill, there is no change in the density of anything, yet it takes much more effort than riding along a level section of road. This is such a well-known phenomenon that ever-increasing numbers of gear ratios are being provided to ease the hill-climbing process, particularly for steep hills.
When I ride down even the slightest hill, there is still no change in the density of anything, yet it takes so much less effort that often I just sit on the bike and let it proceed. This is such a common condition that a special mechanism was invented to take advantage of it - the "freewheel gear" connecting the rear cassette, and chain, to the rear wheel as needed.
No density changes happen on hills, yet there is an energy state conversion in play. When I ride up a hill I add energy from my action turning the pedals to the potential energy of the 'bike + me' mass (less some that, one way or another, goes into small amounts of heat and noise).
When I ride down a hill, I convert some of the potential energy I have at the hill top into kinetic energy (less some that also, one way or another, goes into small amounts of heat and noise).
Both of those situations are perfectly in accord with the physics of both classic Newtonian Gravity and, since the speeds and mass are so low, Einsteinian Spacetime.
I cannot see any way that this meets the expectations of "density" determining the way matter behaves on earth, so please enlighten me.
Not to mention this density shit also conflicts with their "containment requires a container" BS that they use to argue for a snowglobe "firmament". Air is more dense than vacuum, so you would expect that even without a container, air would "sink" towards the surface and not expand infinitely outward like they stupidly think it would.
Which is exactly what it does in real life. Because gravity.
Omg, this is like saying a car moves because I press forward with my feet, pushing the car forward 😂
Please change Gravity to “Anything” in the title… 😁
If "weight" and "gravity" don't exist, how do scales work? And if you put 2 5lbs weights on one side and 1 on the other, they should be "equal" since they have the same "density" so they should "weigh" the same, right?
8:40 Inside a vacuum there isn't a pressure gradient (to determin direction of falling), so according to HIS theory, object's in a vacuum should stay 'floating' at the same height when released...
Best argument against this density nonsense is that the heads of flat earthers are not stuck to the ground, trying to make a hole in the earth.
5:26 I wouldn't say the feather is designed. It has evolved.
evolved from nothing XD
@@ALEXZANDER_YT Evolved from hairs.
@@PaulaBean Scales
@@juanausensi499 Ah, that could be possible too! Thnx.
Professor Stick! Excellent as always. Dubrayderp can't explain a lot of things. 👍💙💖🥰✌
It is impossible to define buoyancy with out gravity... it is literally in the definition
"Gravity: strong enough to hold the oceans down but too weak to pull the morning dew off a blade of grass." Looks like you could say the exact same thing about density and buoyancy.
By the way, don't they keep asking for an example of water clinging to the underside of something?
Oceans just have a lot of mass.
Isn't it the case that buoyancy exists basically because of gravity? I.e. there are more particles in the lower parts of the liquid than up - because of the gravity - and because of that the object is "pushed" up by these particles? (not a physicist, correct me if I'm wrong). Edit: ChatGPT seems to more or less agree but it's not the best source of information ;)
explain why buoyancy exists. Is it because of gravity force?
ChatGPT
Yes, buoyancy exists because of gravity. The concept of buoyancy originates from Archimedes' principle, which states that the upward buoyant force exerted on a body immersed in a fluid, whether fully or partially submerged, is equal to the weight of the fluid that the body displaces.
Here's how gravity comes into play:
When an object is placed in a fluid (like water or air), gravity pulls both the object and the fluid downward. However, the fluid has the ability to move and rearrange itself.
If the object is denser (heavier for its size) than the fluid, gravity pulls it down more strongly than it does the fluid, so the object sinks. If the object is less dense than the fluid, gravity still pulls the object down, but it also pulls the denser fluid down with a stronger force. This causes the fluid to get underneath the object and push it up, leading to the object floating. This upward push is what we call buoyant force.
In summary, gravity is the force that causes denser materials to sink and less dense materials to rise, leading to the concept of buoyancy. Without gravity, there would be no weight, and thus no buoyancy.
To be more precise buoyancy exist because of acceleration. You can test that by making an horizontal buoyancy with an helium balloon in an accelerating car. when you accelerate the balloon cause to the front of the car and when you decelerate it cause to the rear, so the opposite behaviour as expected (cause most of the time we only have more dense than air object in a car, plus it only happen during acceleration phase, and you might need strong acceleration to have a net effect)
You can also put some object in a jar fill of water and make it revolve, denser than water object will go outward, less dense ones will go inward (i'll put a link to such video in next comment)
Here an example of what i'm saying ua-cam.com/video/1feybxNChU0/v-deo.html
It's the acceleration that create the pressure gradient, and gravity is pretty much the same thing as an acceleration, just a constant one.
And here some car example
ua-cam.com/video/y8mzDvpKzfY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/2-UzBitLmf8/v-deo.html this one have both floating balloon and falling balloon.
@@SylouCool Thanks!
I like how google itself links to wikipedia which says that flat earth is disproven
Dishonesty keeps the earth flat. Now the pressure gradient is now his friend while he believes in a dome and no space
"Gravity: strong enough to hold the oceans down but too weak to pull the morning dew off a blade of grass"
Is he saying morning dew is less dense than air, since the drops didn't sink in the medium?
I personally love the arguement water doesnt stay on a spinning ball- the omitted information: gravity is pulling it off the spinning ball along with centrifugal force of a spinning small object
You just missed one thing that was crucial.
He said "stuff goes up because there is pressure.
Well, pressure makes air more dense on the bottom and less dense on the top, so by his own argument stuff should fall up.
Pressure gradient? But what about the vacuum chamber that has no gradient? Having the test objects on the top already and organized in a density gradient will still fall to the ground.
I brought this up in a flat earth video's comments, and seemingly got at least two commenters to think about it.
"if we fill a balloon with just right amount of helium it floats in the air"
I'll have an aneurysm from his "explanation".
Even my 11yo kid knows why it floats. But no flerfers does.
It's insane that in an era where all the information you could ever want is right at your fingertips, people spend their time trying to refute facts & science which have long-since been solved & established ages ago.
We're well beyond the point in time where we wondered what the shape of the earth is, and generations upon generations of people have taken the knowledge that has come before us & continuously built upon it. Now, in 2023, we have people skipping alllllllll the work done by those generations, and are once again arguing against the base/foundation level of info.
another question i'd have for them is: what makes objects move from the lower density air higher in the atmosphere towards the higher density air in the lower atmosphere?
is there another force acting on them?
I like trolling flat earthers with one word, "Why?". Ask it enough and they eventually hit an unforseen logical contradiction and then short circuit. Lmao!😂😂
its because adequate person will not answer on stupid question, it does only low brained - not all flat earthers are clever
@@ALEXZANDER_YT None are really
We know since Archimedes (ca 287 BC) that buoyancy depends on the *weight* of the displaced fluid, not its mass, hence it depends on gravity.
Flat Earther: The pressure gradient causes things to fall ... okay, what causes the pressure gradient to exist? Air is just air so why were their a gradient at all in it? Same goes for water.
The argument is just a long way to say "It just is" or "God did it."
Why is the atmospheric pressure gradient logarithmic, too? Almost seems like an acceleration is at work.
Also, if we haven't already, made it clear when talking to flerfs, that down isn't south and up isn't north.
7:10 that picture made me facepalm so hard I almost broke my nose
If "down" is determined by a pressure gradient, then why do things fall down in a vacuum where there is no pressure?
It's baffling to me that they happily accept electromagnetism, but not the fact that mass attracts mass. What makes one more plausible than the other? Or is it just because it's a lot harder to deny the action of magnets when they're stuck to your fridge? (Although to be fair, your fridge is stuck to the ground).
"We don't need gravity, density explains it"... Umm no, if your explanation only works in some cases then your explanation is wrong. It's like suggesting that red light makes cars stop and green light makes them go. It might seem plausible at first, but it doesn't take long to find exceptions to this rule, demonstrating that your hypothesis is incomplete.
The pressure difference argument doesn't hold up in a vacuum, yet objects still fall downwards.
flatten an anvil so that it's as thin as paper, and it will also be affected greatly by air resistance, like a feather. so material density is not it.
Congrats on 200K 🙂
The argument for direction of falling without gravity would make more sense if he just said it was random and then the earth was rotated by a giant to line up with it