Flat Earthers Completely Fail To Debunk Gravity
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 02. 2022
- Today 3 different flat earthers (C C, Mikey Smith, and Brian's Logic) each attempt to debunk gravity with their own argument, no prizes for guessing how well each attempt goes.
$50 Patrons:
Hugh Jarsz
M.C.Nutkin
SHaKie
$20 Patrons:
Wolfie
Morrie
Graymore Ghost
KidVicious
Sacha Campbell
$10 Patrons:
What Jesus
Jane Spade
FTFE
MCToon
CMDR Dark Light
Richard Wilkin
Chuck Floyd
Steven De Bock
FactorOfTwo
$5 Patrons:
Simon D.
Betsy Klein
Draconae
Nowpinion
Richard Chapman
Unexpected Cavemen
Stephen Litten
Steve Aldridge
Breezeblock
Scott H
William Foley
Felicity Ellis
KilianP
Steve Plegge
Tomasz Badach
Gerard O'Reilly
ReGi0s
Toby Inkster
Stewart Chant
Chris Holmes
David Rintoul
Join my discord ► / discord
Support me on Patreon ► / planarwalk
Become a Member ► / @planarwalk
Subscribe ► / planarwalk
Follow me on twitter ► / planarwalk
Like my Facebook page ► / planarwalk
Flat earthers are exceptionally consistent, they have 100% at all times no matter what they do or say, fail to prove a flat earth.
😂😂😂👍👍👍
Hmm so if they would say after every try that they are wrong, they would be always right without a fail
Any Sci Man Dan or Professor Dave Fans here?
Love CC. He is so impressed with himself. He loves his voice and his dramatic pauses. But his wife casually walks by and tells him to shut up.
Flurfs must be really confused by a "Tug of war" game.
CC's constant pacing about when he's in his kitchen always strikes me as funny. It's like he's on the lookout in case his wife shows up and calls him on his BS again.
And no CC, no one has forgotten about the moons. Phrases like 'multi-body systems' and 'gravitational barycenter' are a thing.
They never explain why something moves into air of greater density when the path of least resistance is actually towards air of lower density.
Yeah..... they don't like the question;
"What makes up, up and down, down?"
It just is.
Because it is affected by the force moving air to the greater pressure and density.
A lower density object\mass\ mediumwill not penetrate a more dense medium without added energy
@@jimsmith7212 I talked to one of them and they unironically tried to use God of the Gaps; it was hilarious!
I hope they continue trying to debunk it, because it is always absolutely hysterical.
Who knows, maybe in their study to try and debunk things, they'll learn enough to know they were wrong.
But I doubt it
@@badron8846 how do you know you're right? Where is your proof, did you go to space and see the ball yourself? No, you didn't, you just repeat what you were told by the 2nd grade brainwash agent...
@@vladdawoken4181 how do you know your right? Have you been up high enough for it to be mathematically impossible? Have you done any exploration?
I don't trust the half assed pseudo-scientific jargon of the flat earth community.
I prefer to actually look at science that doesn't constantly contradict itself.
@@badron8846 you don't understand how much the earth would have to curve to in order to complete the sphere, you have not done the math. And yes, I've gone up in a plane and saw the horizon rise to my eye level which is impossible on a sphere!
@@badron8846 your own science says that the natural property of water is to seek its level yet at the same time says it curves around to form a spinning ball LOL! So which is it, does water seek its level or does water seek to form a giant ball in outer spaceland?
"The force of gravity cannot exist". - *Man stubbornly sticking to the ground*
Several things wrong with Brian's logic: the mass of a solid object, and its density, doesn't change. A bowling ball displaces a volume of air, as does a helium balloon. If you can keep the balloon intact and keep its volume the same as it climbs, it stops rising when it weighs the same amount as the air it displaces. The boyancy is relative to the difference in the mass of the fluid or gas that it displaces. With 0 boyancy in a vacuum, the weight doesn't go up indefinitely.
Also without gravity there is no buoyancy.
RDD confirmed 🤣
I've had a number of helium balloons over my lifetime. I can swear on a stack of books of your preference that, after a day or two of hanging around on the bedroom ceiling, said ballons would eventually be found floating sadly somewhere between ceiling and floor.
@@sophierobinson2738 Helium leaks out.
who is Brian, and what was Planarwalks logic about density not determining buoyancy?
I did not get that, those 2 are inherently linked in my mind.
Note that the blueberries fell out of the spoon and landed in the liquid. Gravity!
I love the way flerf's act all proud and accomplished when they prove bouyancy exists. Congratulations! You managed to prove the ONE thing that BOTH SIDES agree on.
They're all proud of performing Infant School level experiments. I'd give them props for actually doing experiments, but they just ignore all the results that prove them wrong; like the laser gyroscope and torchlight line-of-sight experiments.
And they still don't have a working model.
@@Naptosis you don't have a working model either!
@@vladdawoken4181 Maybe you were off school that day.
@@Naptosis spinning ball with water stuck to it makes no sense pal! Go up and see that for yourself, you'll never be able to!
@@vladdawoken4181
"but science also says that the water universally ALWAYS seeks its LEVEL! "
ONly for the one neuron brains of flat earth ADEPTS...
Thanks Chris, I live in the north of England, and had forgotten what the glowing orb in the sky is, having not seen it since May last year.
Any Sci Man Dan Fans here?
Tell me you don't understand gravity without telling me you don't understand gravity.
Flerfers: Blueberries float in milk.
Needs more Mrs. CC
CC Chris cracks me up. I love it when his wife does a drive-by and insults him. You'd think he's edit that out of his video, but my guess is that he doesn't know how to edit that out.
I love that Chris talks slow as if he's got everything figured out and that he's 'super smart' than his wife walks by and makes fun of him for being a flerf. Comedy gold.
03:45 "They are floating on the top"
Fails to observe the berries are mostly submerged..
Daddy, look, if I take a stone, keep it in my hand and then release it, it will drop! - Jack, 2 years old
CC will be orbiting the earth too if Mrs CC arrives to hear him talking his BS again.
I still cant believe he thought releasing that video of him getting chewed out by his wife was a good idea.
@@XellithUS that’s why he does his piece to camera very quietly nowadays 🤣
@@chris_ackroyd Very quietly.. in the morning, in the evening and in the afternoon, wherever he may be.
@@XellithUS or in his car.
Hope he films it, if it happens
CC is right about gravity only clinging to certain things. His hair is obviously gravity neutral.
The gravity sucked all the cells from his brain!
He had been trying to debunk electricity.
Chris has completely destroyed the reputation if Westchester County. Which is actually an upper middle class suburban County just outside NYC.lol 😳
So why aren’t the blueberries floating off of the spoon? Why did they fall right into the blender rather than becoming dispersed all over the kitchen?
For a minute I thought the first guy was gonna ask why the sun doesn't fall to earth so I'm kinda glad he said what he did
I always find it amusing how flat Earthers don't seem to understand how objects can have multiple forces acting upon them at once.
Don't be to harsh on them. They are struggling with one force, just wait till they have a grasp on that one, before introducing another one. All those forces, must be magic to them.
I find it amusing that you'll never see a ball with your own eyes or any sort of curve whatsoever!
@@vladdawoken4181 There are plenty of pictures showing curvature. Flat Earthers simply deny that they're real. You could take a flat Earther into space in a rocket and he would claim that the window is a fish-eye lens.
@@johnsensebe3153 you'll never get to go to space, because it simply does not exist... smh
@@vladdawoken4181 Prove it. Millions of people would have to be involved in this conspiracy and not a single one has turned around and shown the "truth". The only model that conforms to reality is the globe.
First lol. But why does CCs hair look like he's on the ISS? Flat earth debunked!! 😆
He has to talk quietly otherwise he get shouted at by his SO for being such a duffus (and I’m being polite)!
At least there’s an adult in his house😄
😂👏
One of the biggest things, is that Flerfers that try to debunk gravity forget one very important thing: They're standing on the thing that they're trying to debunk and their 'experiments' cannot magically just ignore it for the purposes of their 'experiments'.
If CC is wondering why Phobos or Io or our own Moon don't run off to join the comet circus, then perhaps he could consider that the planets they're orbiting are exerting a larger gravitational pull than the sun due to their proximity.
I'm a simple guy, I see CC, I burst into uncontrollable laughter.
Why don't flerfs try to explain this:
Get 2 objects, 2 balls, one of wood and one iron. Which weighs more ? Which is more dense ?
Then take the 2 balls to the same height, say 10 meters.
Which one arrives first on the ground ? By your logic the iron ball arrives first. Please experiment and see for yourselves.
ps: balls same size, same diameter.
There even is a video with feathers and a bowling ball dropped at the same time from the same height in a vacuum chamber, and all objects reached the ground at the same time.
@@oxydator in a vacuum U can use those objects but like this they (flerfies) can do the science, they must observe or its not valid
@@oxydatorThere's also a video, that was taken on the moon, where the astronauts simultaneously drop a hammer and a feather, which fall noticeably slower than they would on Earth-1.6 metres per second per second vs Earth's 9.8 metres per second per second, but still, eventually, lol, hit the ground at the same time.
@@CarbonTech19 "How about that" ;)
Why don't you explain why the horizon never curves?
Nice to see CC was allowed back home.
The wife is out shopping for a globe 🌍 for the living room
Nice job there -SciManDan- Planarwalk... Done and dusted!
Seriously, though, you covered three Flat Earthers and their gravity defying feats in nine minutes, a neat package overall.
It's always funny when Flat Earthers talk about density. Of course, Flat Earthers pride themselves on their successful avoidance of schooling. This school avoidance tactic means that they don't even know about map projections being projections of a spherical Earth. I recall an episode of the comedy series 'til death us do part', in which the clueless Alf Garnett rolled up a Mercator wall map, in order to make it look more like a heavenly body (audience laughter).
Thanks Stephen!
Buoyancy is an effect due to the differences of pressure of a fluid at different heights, and this pressure is itself due to the weight of the fluid above it (i.e. the force due to gravity).
I still remember the episode where Alf was explaining that aeroplanes should just go up into the air and wait for the earth to rotate untill the destination is below, then land.
I think it was in reference to his daughter emigrating to Australia.
Maybe Alf was a flerf?
@@notamoron2246 This comedy worked, because it was based upon the fact that the Alf Garnett character failed to comprehend things that were common knowledge. Flat Earthers look very similar.
@@ElectroNeutrino Buoyancy, itself, depends upon gravity. The liquid, or gas, will only present a displacement force in a gravity field. Steel ships depend upon the gravity field for both a downward pressure, and an upward pressure.
It's Sciplanarwalkerman!
Sometimes I’m just impress that this guys are even able to use a camera and upload content.
Two forces acting upon an object.
Using the bowl example:
The bowl still floats with half of the bowl filled with water.
Do we need to invent a new word for either A) the vacuum of space or B) a vacuum in a sealed container so flat earthers will stop conflating the two???
"Vacuuma" for the sealed container.
"Vacuumoron" for space.
I wonder... Can flat earthers explain why the higher up you go, the less temperature is needed to boil water?
They don't care, they'll say "magic"...
@@abelis644 Exactly. Have you seen their 'model' with the tiny sun and moon flying in a circle over the flat Earth? They've no explanation why the sun and moon are spheres, how the sun casts a D-shaped spotlight, and no explanation for what makes them fly in circles forever through the atmosphere.
It's just god casting a magic spell to keep them afloat - or something.
@@abelis644 yet magic is exactly what gravity is! It magically sticks you to the earth while also making sure the moon sticks away from you! LOL
@@vladdawoken4181 Nope, they are opposing forces. The moon is pulled towards the earth but missed since it moves to the side fast enough to go on an orbit
It has a centripetal force from the gravity turning it ina circle. The fact that they are pretty much constant is because any other matter would have been recaptured by earth or flung into space but it has all collected in a quoire spherical shape.
Now tell us how our model does not work but this time, using actual facts.
@@lizekamtombe2223 I think your brain has been flung into space... nothing what you said has been proven! The moon isn't even a solid object, just look at it with your own eyes...
I'm giving you thumbs up for saying "that is another flat earth compilation video done and dusted"
And for the music at the end.
I tried to take out gravity from the stability of ships calculation once. And discovered that without gravity when you move an object to the (say) Starboard side, that side will go up instead of down due to the increase of the buoyant force. In reality, it will still go down because gravity is a thing
It's also interesting that a ship's centers of buoyancy and gravity are different things - and so important they remain within an acceptable relationship.
Pretty hard to figure how redistributing load affects the center of gravity if relative density is of any real use. The density relationships don't change, yet the ship still capsizes with careless loading.
not really because buoyancy can't exist without gravity, because it is the effect of a massive object pushing on the liquid below it, leading to an increase in pressure that 'pushes back'
@@johnnyragadoo2414 Especially because when a ship starts to lean to his side, the stability increases, till it passes a certain point. At that point, the centre of gravity and the centre of buoyancy will pass either, and the ship will capsize.
@@decare696 exactly, But for the downward vector, we need gravity. Gravity has vectors in all directions towards all masses, but the biggest mass still is earth and has the biggest factor. This factor is important for the calculation of buoyancy. It was very hard to do ship stability without gravity because it is in all equations. In the end, I found a view calculation where it was easier to just skip the 'g' and keep the vectors of the items. That is why I did not calculate with loading an item, but rather moving an item and seeing the vectors' shifting.
@@TinyCaptainSailingTheGlobe What the hell are "vectors of the items"? Vectors of what? I'm afraid whatever calculations you've done are total nonsense. Gravity is not just "important" to buoyancy, it is literally fundamental to its very existence. No gravity, no buoyancy; it just doesn't exist as a concept anymore. You might as well try removing air from aerodynamics equations and complaining about how hard it is. You're literally removing the entire foundation of what the equations are based on.
I think CC is acting is a manner consistent with someone who might have ingested hallucinogenic substances.
You've got to admire Chris' dedication to the bit; great sitcom character
Have these flat earthers ever thought about career in stand-up comedy ?
Semantics: You covered this quickly, but I want to make sure it gets hit hard. (Though reading this again, I get a bit rambly... posting it anyway)
The density of the submerged part of the object does not play a role in determining _the buoyant force._
The density of the submerged part of the object has _a lot_ to do in determining "How well (and in what manner) does this thing float," commonly referred to as an object's "buoyancy." Flerfs have a tendency to conflate the two.
The buoyant force is only half the equation for "buoyancy," which is part of where Flerfs go way wrong, because they want _simple_ answers to _complicated_ questions. So much so that they deliberately simplify the questions to the point of irrelevancy. Then they wonder why the simple answer to their simple question bears little if any relevance to the (infinitely complicated) real world.
The average density of the object creates the balance of forces necessary to determine if something sinks or floats, and if it floats, how high out of the fluid. While it does come down to comparing the forces, those forces can appear to be governed chiefly by the average densities of the object and medium.
If the average density of the whole object is greater than the density of the fluid that it would displace (a volume exactly equal in shape and size to the object) then that object will sink. The _reason_ it sinks is due to the inequality in the buoyant force and the apparent force provided by gravitational acceleration (aka force of gravity) on the object. How _fast_ the object sinks is governed in part (fluid dynamics and such also play large roles) by the magnitude of disparity between those forces.
If the average density of the _whole_ object is _not_ greater than the density of the fluid it would displace, then the object will not sink. It will float in an orientation where the average density of the _submerged part_ of the object is equal to the average density of the medium. In the case where the object is exactly the same average density as the medium (neutrally buoyant) it will float just under the surface. For the case where the object is significantly less dense than the water, it will float with a significant portion out of the water, and a tendency to have the densest areas at the bottom. You _can_ build something that floats with the densest areas out of the water, but such an arrangement is purpose-designed and is usually inherently unstable.
At least that's how the math _can_ be interpreted. The real world cares nothing for the shape of the object, or the density. It's simply a massive set of equations being solved in real-time. The biggest of which (at least if you're trying to float a ship) is if Fa = Fb at any given moment. As long as Fa = Fb before water begins filling your ship (and thus changing Fa, for the worse), you should be good.
The cause of a 99,000 ton ship floating on the surface of the water, is the exact same cause of a helium balloon rising toward the sky... the major difference is the Flerf's natural predator.
Scale.
Rather strangely, as the Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the Sun you would expect different heights of high tides and the lows of low tides to vary between each tide. I wonder what actually happens?
They do. Veristratum latest YT tangentially has a fascinating breakdown of the factors that affect tides ... czcams.com/video/IgF3OX8nT0w/video.html
(Doing my best Gigantor impression) Of course we cannot know these things, because they are a complete mystery. Unknowable, yeah?
Ever hear of a 'spring tide'? (Nothing to do with 'spring' the season btw)
Tide goes out, tide comes in..
Umm, Wiki is your friend. Look up neap and ebb tide.
7:07 that's another topic flat earthers really struggle with. They have no concept of net force and think that if a force wins over others, it means that those others have disappeared somehow
Density is actually really simple, if things are more dense than the air around them, then it falls. If it's less dense it rises... you can forget about gravity and explain everything with density! Problem solved!
@@vladdawoken4181 And why do they all fall at the same rate? Shouldn't denser materials fall faster than lighter ones?
Also, why do they float up or fall down? Density has no direction, so why is there a preferred direction for things to fall or float?
@@sniperwolf50 why don't you explain why gravity was never proven first! LOL Y'all are some sad peeps!
@@vladdawoken4181 Every flat earther since Rowbotham acts the same. They spew their nonsense until, when challenged to back their claims, they deflect and runaway.
You are making the extraordinary claim that gravity, which is an established and demonstrated fact, isn't real so you should provide the extraordinary evidence to back your claim. Answer my questions and move on with your miserable life
@@vladdawoken4181 You believe that gravity has never been proven only because other flat Earthers have told you this. In fact, gravity has been proven and continues to be proven in classroom demonstrations today via the Cavendish experiment.
In addition, gravity and the spherical Earth are both proven by the fact that the same object weighs slightly less at the equator than at the poles. This is for two reasons. 1) The Earth's rotation imparts a slight centripetal force at the equator, while this force is not present at the poles. 2) The Earth is an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, meaning its diameter is slightly greater at the equator than at the poles due to the above-mentioned centripetal force (27 miles greater at the equator, or 0.0034%), and since an object is slightly further away from Earth's center of gravity, the object would feel a slightly lesser pull (per the inverse square law).
Taken together, these two add up to a 0.5% reduction of gravity at the equator than at poles, so the same object would weight 0.5% less. Density cannot explain this, as the density of the object does not change by moving it to a new location.
In fact, density is dependent on gravity. Density is calculated as follows: density equals mass divided by volume (d = m/V), and mass is calculated as follows: mass equals weight divided by gravitational acceleration (m = w/g). Therefore, d = (w/g)/V. Gravity is literally used to determine the density of an object.
Likewise, buoyancy is also dependent on gravity. Buoyancy is the density of the liquid the object is in, times the volume of the water displaced by the object in the liquid, times the force of gravity (B = d * V * g). Gravity is literally used to determine buoyancy.
If gravity is just density why doesn't a flat earth conference immediately collapse into a black hole with such a large number of dense people close together it must be inevitable
It’s called ‘Riley’s Paradox’ because they are empty headed, yet incredibly dense!
Irrespective of everything else -- CC calls the comet "Haley's" comet when it's "Halley's" comet. This has been an issue since circa 1952 when Bill Haley and his Comets burst on the scene.
Sounds like a band name, Haley and the Comets.
@@Planarwalk That's exactly who/what it is. The name is an obvious pun.
From Wikipedia:
"Bill Haley & His Comets were an American rock and roll band, founded in 1952 and continued until Haley's death in 1981. The band was also known as Bill Haley and the Comets and Bill Haley's Comets (and variations thereof)."
Point being, Bill Haley (long a) has eclipsed Edmond Halley (short a) in the pronunciation of "Halley's Comet."
look, i'm standing on the ground and not falling through... gravity fails once again!
Tin foil made into a bowl - floats
Same tin foil crumpled into a ball - sinks
Same density and weight and mass
Geez, every time I see Chris "from Westchester" on one of these, I cringe. I grew up in Westchester County, and it's a well to do suburb with some very good schools. There's no excuse for someone t be as monumentally ignorant as he is. I wonder if his long-suffering wife has finally left him.
Some have convinced themselves into ignorance. I hope she gets the house in the future.
There's no gravity? well that explains where their brains went. 🤣
It always baffles and irritates me when flerfs can't hold more than one thought at one time. Great explanation of the density vs buoyancy issue.
12 bottles of alcohol behind Chris. Checks out.
With the Flerfer demonstration with the blueberries, why is it in their model does the blueberries sink AT ALL into the milk. Their disbelief in gravity and their misunderstanding of relative density would not allow this, the blueberries should be sitting on top of the milk, not submerged.
To be fair, it is absolutely their density that is keeping them down.
They are in equilibrium, because the air in their heads doesn't make them float either.
Because there's no such thing as gravity! You don't need it when there's something real like density!
@@vladdawoken4181 Hey, i think you lost your tinfoil hat.
@@julianh9347 it turns out the tin foil actually protects your brain from cancerous wifi waves! You might wanna put one on before your brain gets microwaved completely....
@@vladdawoken4181 I can't figure out if you're trying to be sarcastic or genuine. I assume it's the latter which makes your comments just more cringeworthy though
The guy with the berries sounds like his education ended in primary school
3rd Guy: Tell me you don't understand the difference between weight and mass without telling me you don't understand the difference between weight and mass!
Buoyancy has to do with total volume vs total mass. If a lead ball contains enough air, it will bounce (look at a submarine, which can take in or release air to make itself go down or up).
The density of the components of the ball DOES matter, but if the average density of the entire ball is low, it still floats.
Displacement of water using the crown story.
if the blueberries did sink to the bottom of the protein shake, presumably he'd worry about why the protein shake was floating on top of the blueberries
Trying to understand the world around you while steadfastly refusing to accept that anyone else has ever thought about it before you, or if they did they got it wrong. That is true idiocy.
the worst thing about flerfs is they cant even agree on their own arguments everyone will tell you a different story
For the thinkers: Apologies in advance, I did not have the symbol for rho and used "p" instead.
Buoyancy formulas
Formula 1:
F(b)=p*g*h*A
F(b)= buoyant force
p= density of liquid
g= acceleration due to gravity
h=height of immersed object
A= area of the object
V= volume of the object {h*A}
Formula 2:
F(b)=P*A
F(b)= buoyant force
P= pressure
A= area
Pressure = p*g*h
p= density
g= acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s^2)
h = height of a column of gas or other fluid
Density = m/V
m= mass of object
V= volume
Gravity force formula:
F=m*g
F= net force
m= mass
g= acceleration due to gravity
The formula is also written as F=ma, where "a" is the acceleration. It could be the acceleration of a car or an object thrown.
Newton's Second Law:
The net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration of the object. Force equals mass times acceleration.
Flat earthers:
There's no gravity, things just sort by density!
Me:
Try putting a less-dense-than-water cube on the surface of a filled bathtub.
See how a part of it is under water?
As if there's a force, pulling it down?
Flat earthers: TILT
CC's been snorting a line of chemtrail that stretches from Texas to Tennesee.
Flat earthers asking now the questions they neglected to ask in the 2nd grade.
Great video as always. I like this nail polish colour on you btw.
I’ve repeatedly posted my offer of an easy $10K to any Flat Earther who can predict the next three lunar eclipses in San Diego using a consistent Flat Earth model. So far, crickets.
2:01 “...these so called planets...”
Yes. They are called planets. That’s how we know they’re planet. Because we call them planets.
Flerfs cannot think with more than one force at a time. They cannot comprehend that when you lift an object off the ground, gravity is not "turned off", it still acts on the object, but it is counteracted by the force that lifts the object.
0:52, face plated so hard I hurt myself. lol
i'd like them to explain why boats sink.
clearly, the metal isn't being replaced with water.
Psst. Pssssssst. PSSST!! A ball do not float on the water due to "density", it often float for it filled with air that is less dense than water, if you fill the ball with water that have the same density as water the ball will probably sink for it is denser than water :D
3:51 He's never washed that blender, has he.
I'm happy we got some non-flerfer jokes in at the end!
I wonder why the berries fell into the jug instead of floating about.
Only a flat earther can make a video of milk sitting in the bottom of a blender and say "gravity fails."
KLINGON to certain things - But ROMULANS use a quantum singularity as an engine.
I mean if gravity doesn't exist, what, pray tell, was keeping the blueberries from continuing to rise out of the mixer and onto his ceiling?
Tell me you watch SciManDan without saying you watch SciManDan. Lol
I am proud to say that I lost these guy’s arguments as they came out of their mouths. Sounds like a flat brain argument ;-)
Surely bouyancy only exists because of gravity. It is gravity that provides the force that makes bouyancy work.
OMG. The collective level of DERP from all those Flerfs...
These flerfs' ignorance is only matched by their arrogance.
*watches something fall*
Why no gravity?
I’m just here trying to learn the difference between your -a’s, -e’s and -i’s.
This is how flerfers must feel when confronted with actual physics ..
great show ! Long awaited classic FE debunk ! I love it ! And I vote for more FE stuff, stupidity to point at and LOL ! Also purple looks cool !
Just caught this:
6:18 "Objects weigh less in a vacuum than they do in air." You misspoke, and swapped the two.
I'd love to work on Planarwalk's hair with wax or clay. It would look even cooler. If it was feathered and floofed up he could be a model easy.
I'm sorry, I'm autistic and have a horrible feeling this is a bad comment to send. If it's inappropriate, I'll delete it.
fun fact: buoyancy is direct result of gravity pushing down air/water
“These are the things I think about when it’s two am and the power goes out.” -George Carlin
Love how you mock these numpties Planarwalk, it actually hurts my head sometimes, the incredulity and Dunning Kruger is stunning at times 💪🌍
The Dunning Krugers will never get over their painting of a globe LOL
@@vladdawoken4181
Agreed. Flat earthers ARE *dimwits!*
Bouyancy is gravity acting on the liquid pulling it down under the less dense empty bowl. A full bowl is obviously heavier than water ( more dense as they have the same volume) if the bowl material is denser than water.
It's great to see these guys thinking about this stuff, but such a shame they don't think about it enough to actually understand it.
They should stop "thinking" about it and just go back to school.
And yes, it is a rather large assumption that they ever went to school 😉
CC must be a Star Trek fan, he said Klingon! CC's hair is exempt from gravity!!! As a Canadian I must apologize for Mikey! An airplane is an example of an four forces acting on it. Lift, Gravity, Drag and Momentum
Density equals Mass (kg) divided by Volume (m³).
My tennis ball measures 57 g and 65 mm.
Therefore it's density equals 0.057 kg / 0.000143793 m³ = 396.40 kg/m³
Where the density of Water measures 1000 kg/m³
Normally I’d say you’ve got to love a trier but in the case of the flat earther’s I’ll make an exception.
So for the first guy trying to debunk Gravity using the Sun and the Moon... I like to imagine that he's gotten into a fight with me and Mike Tyson. Mike is wearing a shirt that says "The Sun", the guy is wearing a shirt that says, "Haily's comment", and I'm wearing a shirt that says, "The Moon". Okay now, then I give a swing at the guy with all my moonly might. Sure the guy feels it, but ultimately it doesn't affect him that much. Heck, he can even give a swing at me, fair is fair after all. But now it's time for Mike and him to exchange swings. Come on my guy, are you seriously going to say that my punch and Mike's punch had the same effect on you? Are you going to try to say that your swing at Mike was effective against him as your swing against me?
Next, to round it all out, let's run the three of us over with a train that has "Black Hole" painted on the side. Are you going to suggest that any three of us were more than a blip for the train?
6:58 "As we know, objects weigh more in a vacuum.".
No.
Indeed. The density of an object's direct environment has no influence on the brute weight of that object.
You may not know it, but it's true. Well it depends. People usually refer to "weight" as what they see when putting an object on a scale (they are "weighing" the object). A scale doesn't show weight though, it shows the mass of an object, by calculating it.
In a scientific sense "weight" means the gravitational force of an object. When an object is sitting on a scale, there is more than one force acting on it. Gravity and buoyancy (as well as the centrifugal force from the Earths rotation, but lets ignore that for this explanation). The scale can only measure the combined force acting on the object. Therefore the scale would show a larger value when it is in a vacuum chamber (if it is accurate enough to be able to show the small difference). But the weight of the object (gravitational force) is still the same, the mass is still the same, only the buoyant force is gone. As the scale shows more now, one might say "the object weighs more".
Brian was specifically speaking of a vacuum chamber in Earth's gravity, and he's right.
Objects do weigh more in a vacuum.. the mass is the same but the buoyant force of the atmosphere would make a tiny difference in what the scales read.. try weighing something under water and again in air, that's a more extreme version of the buoyant force but you get the idea
@@markshort9098 Only by some definitions of weight.
A common definition is the force on an object due to gravity, and that doesn't change in a vacuum. There are also a definition based on how you measure the weigth, which includes all the forces acting on the object, which is what you are talking about.
If we use the last defintion, we have to acknowledge the force of bouancy, thus also the force of gravity. This would completely destroy the argument that the flat earther is trying to make, so we can assume that he would not use that definition.
The "done and dusted" from Dan i instantly recognize ad feel odd why you would use it... But at the very end with his ending melody i just feel nothing wrong...it was like normal and just when mention i realized it 🤣🤣🤣👍🏻
Nice video, like and sub from me.
Greetings from Taiwan 🙋🏼♂️
My nails would look like yours if I would pass out drunk and my girls found me but you don't want to know how my hair would end up looking 😱
CC what the F... do you think keeps feet on the floor.