Gravity and Density | FLERFPRATT 7
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2023
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Martymer81/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Flat earthers claim that gravity doesn't exist, and that things fall because of density. Of course, in reality, density (or density differential) alone won't make anything fall. In this video, I go over some of the problems with their idea of how physics works, and how it conflicts with easily verifiable empirical facts.
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
This video was sponsored by Brilliant.
Density is the force that pulls Flerfs to the bottom of the IQ scale
Buoyancy is what gets flerfs to the top left of the Dunning Kruger scale
As well as what allows them to resist external forces pushing them toward understanding
😄
@@serpentinious7745it’s a farce created by trolls to waste time and expose gullible people.
I always wondered why we would call someone dense😅
I'm a physiscs teacher, I'm here just for Marty's sarcasm...
Those couple of little barbs sprinkled throughout are hilarious.
He sounda like a high school teacher who has absolutely had enough with having to teach in the troubled school.
Density! It's what keeps simple scientific concepts from penetrating a Flerf's brain!
An alternative version by flerfers is, space pizza is constantly moving up, so things don't drop, the earth is moving towards them.
Crazy that we're still having this conversation considering since most people have known the earth to be a sphere since 300 BCE at least.
I begin to suspect enemy action. Just like how certain fascists like to incite a culture war in order to keep themselves safe from being torn down from their underserved and thoroughly abused positions of power and dragged through the streets in bloody pieces, I think the reason we have flerfs (among others) is because someone made a decision to propagandize to susceptible idiots in order to weaken perceived rivals.
We've seen the effectiveness of propaganda through social media the past several years. We've seen how it quiets down when certain countries are blocked from interacting with social media. I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a connection between the rise of subtle propaganda and the rise of aggressively ignorant morons.
People just keep getting dumber. To me it seems we (as a human race) peaked at around ‘80-90s.
@@alkestos Not really. As they say, every village has a village idiot, and there are a lot of villages out there. It's just that before the information age, they were isolated in their own little communities, while now they cal all get together online and share their idiocy.
Then add in the fact that our ape-brains were designed to operate on the tribal-scale and measure everything by that yardstick, and seeing a hundred thousand people on the internet believe in and advocate for flat earth makes you feel it's a huge, society-shaking number, when in reality, it's 0.00125% of the total human population.
shhhh, it's a Soro's and NASA plot to deny GAWD!!
We USED to all know that men can't become women, and that there are only two sexes, for thousands of years, too...
Never doubt people's capacity to deny simple, demonstrable, evidence-based reality (eg the globe, or evidence-based sex), in favour of braindead dribble with an alluring "conspiracy/oppression" narrative, like flat earth, or 100% evidence-free "gender" nonsense...
(Except even moonbat flatties aren't unhinged enough to irreversably chemically mutilate healthy, unconsenting children, because THEIR evidence-free nonsense says you need to use drugs, to make people to conform to those all-important gender stereotypes.... Imagine being MORE deranged, and contemptuous of simple, evidence-based truth, than a goddam flat earther....)
Your videos are among those which have inspired me to reapply to uni again, and now I'm doing a Geology degree in Helsinki, for an extra challenge! (Finnish isn't my native language)
Awesome 😉👍 I hope you do well, we can always do with more geologist in the world. If not just for the puns.)
So, Let’s whet your apatite.)
So many geologists are out standing in the field, Thrusting in orogenous zones. For as always, We come for the cleavage and stay for the joints.) But hey I'm no geologist myself, what do I know.
Igneous is bliss.
Still, Not to quarry-you'll do great on your science exam! 😎👌
@@guytheincognito4186 🤣🤣
It is a lot of fun trying to get flerfers to come up with a result, using only their notions of density and buoyancy, for the time a golf ball takes to hit the ground when falling from a certain height, and at what speed it hits the ground.
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
I wonder what a hypothetical gravity less universe would look like
It seems that for some people, stupidity is a badge of honor.
Flat Earthers themselves disprove the density hypothesis, as if it were true, all of them would just collapse into tiny black holes, and that is something someone would surely notice.
I'm watching Flatzoid's "analysis" of this video - and it's little more than giggling and talking about the colour of Marty's shirt.
So glad to see someone go through the entire Density vs Gravity misunderstanding the Flat Earther's get wrong all the time.
a|b science took it apart in great detail over a year ago.
ruclips.net/video/fp2PVt0yYQc/видео.html
@NathanOakley1980 made a response
Much algorithmic love to all ❤
Accurate scales need to be recalibrated when moved to a different latitude due to centrifugal force of the spin of the Earth. This can't be explained by density as a force.
There's no such thing as a centrifugal force
@@GigaBoost
Technically you are correct. It’s a pseudo-force. Like the Coriolis effect. But the effect of it is real enough. As you well know.
Like Newtonian gravity, which is a good approximation of how gravity works, but isn’t the whole story.
Hey, congratulations on the sponsor! Glad to see you getting paid for the work.
Best words of the whole video: “There’s more to come.” Excellent!
I'd like to add that water does stick to spheres. They get wet, and that amount of water is actually greater than the water held to the Earth's surface by gravity!
yep surface tension i think
Yes indeed I love blowing flurf brains with this fact.
This. Scaled to the size of a beach ball, the deepest parts of the Marianas trench wouldn't fill the grooves in your fingerprints. You'd be hard pressed to say it was wet at all. Water is about o.o2 of the volume of earth, clean drinking water .04% of that. Most of the atmosphere is actually toxic, and to explore anywhere more than a mile up or down from a possible 4,200 miles, we need to find a means, using science technology and engineering, to do it. This planet is not engineered for humans, nevermind the universe.
Density IS a force! I can feel it in my brain! - said every flat earther ever
Uhm... Brain? Flat earther? ... Think about that for a while. 😉
@@Martymer81 A flat earther corrected your videos channel name is Nathan Oakley 1980, however if you believe he is incorrect I would suggest hoping on Flat Earth Debate and express your views, he has a live show Monday thru Friday 9am Eastern, 2pm UK, 8am Central, AWST 10pm
@@earthisflatthe earth isn't flat lil bro.
I've heard some Flat Earthers claim that the reason objects fall down is that the (flat) earth is constantly accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s^2, and has been doing so since it was first created some 6000 years ago.
This would, of course, mean that the Earth is now going very very nearly the speed of light relative to its original velocity-at-creation. (If you accept special relativity. If you're a flerf who DOESN'T accept special relativity, it means the Earth is now moving at many many times the speed of light upward.)
I'd say neither case is a problem tbf. If you accept Special Relativity then you're allowed to accelerate like that (as you said). And if you don't then it means that Einstein's postulates are wrong so either physical laws are not universal or speed of light is not an universal speed limit.
I think it's only the Flat Earth Society (FES) that entertains 'Universal Acceleration' as an explanation. All the other flerfs think that the FES is 'controlled opposition' (whatever that is). 🙄
I like that there's more coming. Things I'd like to add to this topic are gravitation changing with latitude (demonstrating rotation, also with the Öetvös effect) and elevation, and aside from you mentioning measurement downward and Cavendish horizontal directions, gravity also working upwards in the sun & moon-caused tides.
I was late for work today because I couldn't flick my car hard enough 😅
My interaction with a flatard:
"Prove gravity exists"
*drops pen*
"Thats just weight"
"Then whats making it fall down?"
"Weight"
"No no, whats making it fall SPECIFICALLY down rather than up, sideways, or 38.927 degrees in that direction?" *points randomly*
*flustered flerf walks off* "i cant have this conversation anymore"
Me, a smartass: yea because your glass dome of delusion is being cracked by the hammer of basic reality 🥃
And he really didn't like when i reminded him that gravity is part of the weight calculation 😂
I have asked and explained the same question to many flattards, but they are so dense that didn't even get my point 😂😂
"What defines the downward direction?" is a good question, but "I don't know" is a valid answer.
Flat Earthers believe that God created the Earth as a flat disc under a dome surrounded by nothing; that God might just have picked some arbitrary direction to call "down", towards which all things are drawn, is not the craziest thing under that belief.
Awesome video once again.
the despair in your voice alway cracks me up.
My prefered summary of this "density" claim can be said in a Rick Sanchez voice: "That's just gravity with extra steps!"
They explain the pen dropping by buoyancy and density, which naturally does not make sense, because without gravity those values are hardly relevant.
The simplest ways I've heard the buoyancy/density "answer" getting debunked was simply asking why less dense objects float "up" and more dense objects fall "down". Without a reference system created by gravity's downward pull, "up" and "down" make no sense on their own.
But the higher up you go, the less dense our atmosphere, so there's a density gradient.
Based on their explanation you would expect everything to go UP, not DOWN, because the atmosphere UP is every so slightly less dense than DOWN.
Whenever they can explain clouds and rain both being made of water yet one floats in the sky and one falls in a spherical droplet to the ground yet both are denser than air. Then I'll take them more seriously, not serious just more than I do now
Always fun when Martymer comes out to play...
i love your work
My son (7 year old) was reading a comics where some people in a lunar orbital station were floating whit diffrent relative orientations, so i asked "why aren't they standing all in the same direction?" "Because they are in space" "i see...and there is no up or down?" "No...they are in space!". 1 page later the astronauts were walking on the moon, so i asked "and why are they all standing vertical this time?" "Because they are on the moon" "and now is there up and dawn? Why is that?" "Because of gravity!". Childs 1, flerfs 0!
Woo hoo! Been waiting eagerly for this :)
Bonus points for including the mandatory Desertphile gravity ciip.
If Earth WAS flat? Cats like me woulda pushed everything off. LOL 😺
If the earth was flat, we would know it and teach it in schools. Why not? 🤷♂
@@arctic_haze True, but... it isn't flat
@@2ahdcat Who says it is?
@@arctic_haze I... don't get Your question. I just stated a fact. Earth isn't falt.
@@2ahdcat I never claimed it is, hence my question. By the way, I am reviewing just now a paper about meteorology of the Maritime Continent (roughly Indonesia) which is very interesting region because it is an equatorial region with practically no Coriolis force and because of that instead of cyclonic and antyclyclonic systems, it has the linear Madden-Julian oscillation system passing through it with all the Kevin and Rossby waves associated to it. Fascinating stuff.
it is always a great day when martymer 81 makes a flat earth debunking video
I loooove the way flerfs latch on to "gravity is a false force" then claim therefore there is no force. But density is a force???
That was an exceptionally loud clash for a pen. I suspect manipulation.
You never fail to inform with logic and humor. Thanks for great stuff. 👍
Flerf claims:
1# gravity doesn't exist
2# atmospheric gradient doesn't exist
3# Density causes things to fall
OK, so if there's no gravity and no gradient, that means if I hold up an object the density of the air surrounding it is the same everywhere.
How does the object know to go 'down' without anything indicating which direction the object is supposed to fall?
Why doesn't it stick to my even denser hand? Or if I hold it up higher; flies towards the ceiling since that's the closest high density region near it?
Flerfs make no sense and don't even do the simplest of reasoning on their 'ideas'.
The question I always ask flerfs about the density/RDD nonsense is why does anything move at all in a Zero G parabolic flight? No changes in density of anything, no pressure changes in the plane, yet things of differing densities start to first move up and then down and in between float around. All you get is crickets 🤣
Thanks for the video :)
"That's not gravity; that's just density!"
Ow, those numbnuts. What exactly do they think causes fluids to separate by density?
Hint to any flerfs who see this comment:
Acceleration, which when due to a mass is called...
Density doesn't explain things falling? Fine: falling is caused by perspetive.
Your video did a really good job at countering the semantic knots flerfs tend to tie the subject into while trying to explain away the evidence we see from scientific experiments.
Ahhhhh, but you failed to see the airtight rebuttal that all flatter earthers know: Nuh uhhhhhhhhh
DEBUNKED GLOBETARDS!!!
Can't argue against that, I'm now a flerf
Good arguments, good conclusion.
I approve of complying with the rule that you can't have a video about gravity without using a clip from Desertphile.
@Martymer 81 I see Flatzoid has had a live stream trying to debunk this debunk. It is hilarious the amount of derp coming out. I feel it deserves a response.
Ah i felt nostalgia with that low quality "Gravity" clip
/s Well there is a 100% accurate rebuttal from Sleeping warrior - "This is an egg!"... You can't debate that.
Well, the thing is: it is an actual egg. This is obviously the truth. So what he says must be true!
Ah, Desertphile's legacy continues.
Ive always said to flerfs that if I drop a ball then the ball is more dense than the air on all sides. So why doesn't it "fall" to the side, or up? Why the bias towards the floor?
And If I drop a brick in water the brick is more dense than both the air and water. So why would the brick travel through the more dense medium (water) instead of somehow being attracted to the air which is less dense, which, by their logic, would be what must happen.
None of them responded.
Been a minute since you played the GRAVITY clip
Imagine a ring of jelly that gets gradually denser, starting soft and foamy at the top, then getting denser as you go clockwise, until it's really solid right next to where it started. Then it jumps back to being soft and foamy suddenly.
Put a marble in it, denser than any of the jelly.
According to the FLERF density model, the marble should accelerate clockwise in the jelly, 'falling' in the direction of increasing density. (Then when it hits the sudden jump back to foamy jelly, it should have inertia and punch through, and start another loop. Free energy?)
Create a straight track of jelly that has increasing density, and hold it upsidedown so the densest stuff is on top. According to the FLERF model, marbles should fall upwards through this.
I know all this, but I still watch these. Why? Because it helps me explain these things in as simple terms as possible. That's not for the flat-earthers, who aren't listening anyway. (They only listen for the presence of certain trigger words so they can spew another Point-Refuted-A-Thousand-Times.) When I do get into arguments about these things, it's always with a set of secondary people in mind. Those are the people who don't know enough to refute the flat-earth "proofs" and might be taken in by them.
I’ve got a new conspiracy theory : Martymer is immortal, he hasn’t aged a single day in 10 years
I strongly recommend you to read Clifford D Simak’s book Way Station, then you know all about this topic.😊
Ha! Tell that to my knees and my beer belly! :)
If Martymer is immortal, where's greenscreen Cleetus?
See-Gee-EYE!!! ;-)
ruclips.net/video/fp2PVt0yYQc/видео.html
@NathanOakley1980 made a response
Much algorithmic love to all❤
in a sense it DID fall because of density. If that pen was lighter then air it would have floated away faster then it fell
but the only reason density actually did that was because of the underlying gravity
They cling to density because they're clinging to their density.
It makes them feel special!
Damn, i didn't even know you were back 😢
Don't think I ever clicked this fast!
Let's see one of my faves tear apart some BS
How to destroy Flattard:
Step 1: Ask them why object dont go up if the density is smaller on top...
Step 2: Well... There is no step 2 🤣🤣🤣
In 1778 Charles Hutton estimated the average density of the Earth using the 1776 measurement of the deflection of a plumb bob from vertical by a mountain. 20 years later in 1798 Henry Cavendish published his more accurate measurement of the average density of the Earth. The method used gathered data that could be used to calculate Newton's big G. In 1894 C V Boys published his big G measurement obtained using his improved version of the Cavendish setup. Up to then people had published measurements of the average density of the Earth rather than big G specifically. After C V Boys it seems people switched to talking about big G.
The presumption of a universal down seems to be extremely common among modern flat Earthers but I haven't spotted it in my brief look through Samuel Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy. Number 113 in Eric Dubay's 200 claims is a clear instance of the presumption in the modern flerf. My favourite object to use to observe varying down is the Moon at Moon rise.
I have seen a flerf argument, rarely, where they are (of course) very wrong where this is *also* wrong. Because gravity is not, exactly, a force. Some flerf argument I saw said that there is no gravity, but the Earth is somehow accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s². Which would generate the same observations, in a small scale lab with no windows, unless you have precise equipment (we do) or do any of the other things that show the Earth is curved. And would have its own problems like where the energy for the acceleration is coming from.
What would probably make a flerf's brain hurt is the fact that the 'Vomit Comet' weightless effect will be apparent for the *whole* of the aircraft's parabolic flight path, meaning that it (and everything inside) will be in free fall even when it is travelling the *upward* part of the parabola.
The concept an object being in free fall whilst travelling up would undoubtedly be too hard for a flerf brain to accept.
Not the WHOLE path. The cessation of acceleration/thrust during the plane's ascent = free fall. One would think that anyone who's ridden a roller coaster should be able to understand that. Even a flerfer!
@@colormedubious4747 "The cessation of acceleration/thrust during the plane's ascent = free fall."
That is not completely accurate. It is not the "cessation of thrust" that is important; it is the following of a flight path that accelerates at the desired rate. The pilots don't just turn off the engines and let the aircraft fly through the air like a thrown rock. All that is necessary is for them to follow a flight path that is accelerating downwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2. If the plane is doing this then everything inside the aircraft will be in free fall, even if the engines still have thrust.
(The aircraft is not a perfect frictionless object thrown through through the air; It has drag & lift which must be compensated for)
@@johnwellbelove148 I admit that I phrased that sloppily. As a certificated pilot, I really should have done better. As the aircraft approaches apogee, the pilot adjusts the throttle to maintain the required parabolic arc, retarding it smoothly as the plane transitions to descent. If he just chopped it at apogee, skulls would bounce off the overhead and he'd have a mutiny on his hands.
I hope that's a little more accurate. Here's a bonus anecdote for you that flerfers would not understand: Everyone knows the four fundamental forces of flight (thrust, drag, lift, and weight/gravity), but do you know which force actually makes aircraft fly? Money. Money makes aircraft fly.
@@colormedubious4747 I think the main point I was trying to make was that I imagined flerfer's maths/physics skills are so poor that they would have trouble accepting the concept that an object can simultaneously have upward velocity *and* downward acceleration.
This community is toxic
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Martymer81/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
You mentioned when dropping the bottles that they would fall at slightly different speeds, but I'm unclear why? surely they would fall at the same speed since the only 2 forces are gravity and air resistance, Gravity affects the water bottle more but the increased mass equally counteracts that, and the air resistance is identical?
Create a tube of jelly that has gradually increasing density, and hold it so the densest stuff is on top. According to the FLERF model, marbles should fall upwards through this. Right?
@@LordCreo In addition to air resistance, which is negligible in this case, there is also a force of buoyancy from the air. This force is equal on both bottles, since they displace equal volumes of equally dense air. However, they have different weight, so the net force (pointing down) on them is mg-F_b. This, divided by m, gives the net acceleration. Since m is different on the two bottles, F_b has less of an influence on the resulting force on the bottle with the greater m. The more massive bottle will accelerate _slightly_ faster. In a vacuum, where there F_b=0, they will fall at the same rate.
@@Martymer81 Interesting never thought about that. With 330ml plastic bottles the effect is 0.19% difference in acceleration, or 0.23% if you used Whisky instead of water lol (ChatGPT astounds me more every day!)
@@Martymer81 Hey. Jordan is at it again. Now he is showing an actual PhD holder spewing nonsense on his channel.
ruclips.net/video/qJ0dUAdkVW0/видео.html
I bet the guy got his PhD in word salad.
Flat earthers are among the most dense objects in the universe.
A pen (or mike) drop is enough to show there is a force of gravity. It is because the object was stationary but started to move when released which is what acceleration is all about. And acceleration is always the result of a force. We can name the force whatever we want but it will still be equivalent to gravity.
Force as in "an acceleration of mass in a direction". Not force like in "something flerfers will be willing to comprehend".
Not to mention, if it's a matter of density, that still doesn't explain down. Why not fall to the left or right when dropped like he dropped his pen?
@@denverarnold6210 It should fall up, since air is less dense the further up you go.
It highlights the issue that they don't even understand at a base level what the term Gravity means. It's by definition what makes things fall down, regardless of the actual physics of it. Saying things don't fall down because of gravity is inherently nonsensical.
It's the usual misunderstanding/lack of understanding of the difference between a theory of something and that thing itself. The existence of gravity is unquestionable. The nature of gravity is actually still fairly unclear.
@@Llortnerof Gravity is the result of mater and energy curving the time-space. This is the direct conclusion of the General Relativity theory of Einstein which has so far been confirmed in every experiment over the 108 years since it was published.
Weight is a vector, it has magnitude and direction (towards the center of the earth). Density is a scalar (mass/volume) and it just has a magnitude, there is no intrinsic direction. Thus you cannot use density arguments to show that a mass will move in any given direction. Q.E.D.
One flat Earther claimed the density gradient of the atmosphere provides the direction. I never got an answer that as air is rarer upwards, the greater density difference should be greater upwards.
Nathan Oakley says he is going to cover one of your videos tomorrow. Should offer many Lolz to be mined.😅
Adding to the point about the units of a force vs of density: Density can't be the reason objects fall, and we can see it because density is measured by grams over liters, or mass over volume. None of this units measure distance, so they can't measure something moving
Lost every flerf at "measure"
Excellent ! J'avais suggéré, sur certains groupes FB, la balance mais avec des bouteilles d'eau faute de poids.
You know density is not a force because it is not a vector. A "Force" without direction is simply nonsensical it have to has both direction and magnitude.
And last I heard, density is a scalar with no preferred direction.
Ask them to do something practical, like show, using density differential how they would determine the volume of a helium balloon required to lift a 1 kg mass.
In itself, saying that density differences cause things to fall down is not a dumb idea. So okay, make an actual testable, measurable, calculable prediction: density difference makes things fall, okay, but HOW FAST? How do you derive that? What factors does it depend on? Does the mass of the object matter? Does it work the same in all fluids, or does that vary too? What about two solids stacked inside a vacuum?
Every flerf either avoids being specific, or if they actually try, they inevitably discover... well, the buoyancy equation. Which relies on a constant acceleration. That we call gravity.
Vectors doesn't work with a flat earth.
Flat earthers doesn't work with vectors.
Why is walking up the stairs harder than walking down. And how does density explain this.
Well, you could take it even one small step further. They claim that an object falls because it is more dense than the medium that is below the object. But, since our atmosphere is a provable pressure gradient, that would mean that technically the air is ever so slightly less dense above the object than below the object, so going by their density theory, objects should fall up.
NO MO RON... the object itself is more dense than air below or above,so it will fall down
@@ivanpajovic9228 No, read it again. According to flat Earth science, an object falls down because it is more dense than the air below it so therefore it falls down, but since the air above the object is even less dense than the object, it should fall up instead. Of course, this completely falls apart when you throw in the fact that the object would still fall down and only down in a vacuum. Or the fact that density is not a force and cannot cause acceleration, or the fact that density doesn't mean much without gravity and buoyancy literally doesn't exist without gravity.
I also want you to especially notice that I did not call you a moron... even though I really wanted to.
@@JodiTrommler
You didn’t want to call him a moron. But by telling him that, you did. Subtle.
@@brianfileman 😎
So how does a helium balloon work? Does it defy the laws of gravity?
You know flerfs won't watch anything with real science like this. It just confuses them. Especially when math is used
Why do objects fall in a vacuum chamber? If there is no medium around an object, then shouldn't it float? If gravity doesn't exist and the only medium is the object in the chamber, then nothing would apply a force in any direction.
Can you talk about gemintria and current events
But the second law of flerfodicentrics states "We don't need no got dang gravy-dee" 😜
A question for flerfs: The average specific gravity of a human is 1.01. The average of specific gravity of the wood in my stairs is around 0.46 which means I am about twice as dense as my stairs. Why do my stairs hold me up. Since I am more dense, shouldn't I sink through my stairs?
Your videos are absolutely fantastic in that you explains physics in detail, not giving room for any discussions - fact are fact! I wanted to mention another guy that explains stuff in a similar way, but more focused on optics (the guy sitting in an armchair with his dog - lost his name).
There are lots of people out there, doing a great job, but your detailed explanations are worth gold.👍👍👍👍👍
Sadly, there will be no discussion in flerf circles. They will either completely ignore it, or move goalposts somewhere else.
The dog's name is Rusty. His only slightly less entertaining ape sidekick is Dave McKeegan, my favorite newly discovered RUclipsr and a worthy intellectual descendant of our legendary host here.
so if density is the thing, a ton of feathers should still be lighter than a ton of concrete.
To play devils advocate: The Scale experiment could be explained using the "density" model by factoring not just the density of the object, but also the volume of the object.
Ofcourse: This is just a fancy way to say "it was gravity all along".
Because then the ruff formular would be this:
F = a * deltaD * V
Where "a" is the acceleration, "deltaD" is the density differential and "V" is the volume. And since Density is mass per unit volume, then D = m / V.
Meaning: F = a * m * V / V = m * a.
Awesome Info. Does gravity pull is towards the center of the earth because is the closest denser point in relation of the other masses in it's relative radius?
I'm still waiting for a Flerf to tell me whether Relative density is a division (with no units) or a subtraction (with the wrong units for a force i.e. Mass/Volume).
Awesome
What is the density of a vacuum? Much less than the density of air, or water on a ”spinning ball”.
What is the direction of the rotation? To the left north of the equator and to the right south of the equator, and from west to east in the same direction anywhere on the earth.
"Density is what makes things fall down."
Okay. Why _down_ ?
Release an object in a vacuum chamber, which way will it fall?
I can imagine an alternative universe where the meme guy shouts "Density!" to people wrongly arguing about a conspiricy theory they have come up with called "gravity". Fun 😅
Yeah, the scary thing is you don't need an alternate universe -- just use a little AI to create a deep fake.
It's sad, really.
I have a legit question about measuring gravitational acceleration on earth. I know that when you use say your phone to do so, the acceleration is Upwards. Why is that?
I feel like it has something to do with the logic of how it is measured and that I am missing why it basically is display that the earth is accelerating up to us instead of us down to it. I have heard this explained in terms like "we aren't actually falling towards earth" provable by vacuum chambers or some such. It has been several years since I engaged with this so I am sorry for being less than comprehensive or accurate in translating the idea.
I just wonder why it measures as "up" instead of down on a phone app.
That makes sense as long as an object is more dense, then the velocity of the sink is equal.
All his arguments make sense why objects sink - but what force pulls a Helium Baloon UP?? Thats density
The "density" 😅
And density is a scalar value. It doesn’t explain the direction of acceleration. Gravity does
It's hilarious how you need to explain basic physics to these people.
They will come along and say it's all pressure, displacement, and density of medium anyway
It’s not that they don’t know these answer, they just deny it. Refuse the evidence. The la-la land is more comfortable for their feeble minds.
2nd graders know enough to debunk their crap.
When a rock sinks in water the viscosity also greatly affects the speed at wich it sinks.
I've never understood how these two observations square with each other:
1. All objects fall at an equal rate in a vacuum without regard to mass.
2. The gravitational attraction between two bodies is proportional to the inverse square of distance between them.
These seem to contradict each other. From this video, I think I understand that both of these are true, and that the objects don't fall at exactly the same rate, the difference is only significant when one body has the mass of a planet and the other is tiny in comparison?
The acceleration is the same, but the forces are different because the masses are.
In vacuum there is no frictional force to affect the velocity and acceleration of falling objects
Is your confusion over why the acceleration is the same for two falling bodies of the different mass, or whether or not the acceleration changes with distance? Or is it something else?
If the former: the most intuitive way it's been described to me is that although the attraction (to the Earth, just for reference) is greater for a more massive object, the amount of force needed to overcome its inertia is also greater. It gets pulled harder, but it also takes more to pull, so it ends up going the same speed.
If the latter: the acceleration is the same on both objects _compared to each other._ They do feel a greater pull and accelerate faster as they get closer to the Earth, but the difference between the pull on the ground and the pull from a few feet up is basically nothing. On the surface, the force of gravity is about 9.8 m/s; in low-Earth orbit (over a thousand miles up), it's 9.0 m/s. So it _does_ get smaller as you travel outwards, but the scale at which we live is so small that you have to go _faaar_ before you really notice the difference.
Good to see you around again blowing up flat Earth nonsense 👍
6:27 also, don't forget the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forces that resist movement.
7:12 if gravity didn't exist, neither would we. that is a fact that flerfs can neither understand nor accept.
Video interaction 😊
Video comment interaction.
Thank you.
Keep fighting the stupid stuff.
On the surface, stupid stuff may seem harmless, but it's not.
Was I the only one temporarily confused by die/dye?
You are my density…