Almost as if they are doing it in order to get the free trips and normal people would have to pay for. It's part of the grift. To annoy the public so much they give in and take you on an all expense paid trip to "verify".
Heres a little experiment that will disprove flatz idea of density over gravity. Fill a bottle with water then put a hole near the bottom of the bottle, the water starts pouring out the hole right ? Now do the same again but drop the bottle while the water is pouring out. What happens is the water stops pouring out as the bottle is falling. Why ? You didnt change the density of anything, all you did was nullify the downward vector of gravity so the water stops pouring. Density disproven. Gravity confirmed 👌😊
An interesting experiment. I also like the Cavendish experiement. When done carefully, it shows that gravity can have a vector other than 'down'. Density can't explain both 'down' when dropping an object and 'sideways' when the Cavendish experiment shows attraction.
Another route to take - ask the flerf for their explanations/formulas for the well-established variations to downward acceleration as showcased in Critical Think's TFE weight experiments. We let flerfs off the hook with generalization and oversimplification of 9.8m/s^2. Calculation of localized variations to 9.8m/s^2 based on Newton's Laws are easy and provide extremely accurate results. Flerfs have zero ability to predict or explain them via density/buoyancy/electrostatics/etc. Elevation: Since there is an inverse square law that causes a reduction in the force between two masses as distances increases - according to Newton, things should weigh less at higher elevations than when closer to the earth's core at sea level. And they do: F = GMm / (R+h)2 Earth's Spin: Since the earth is rotating, there should be different amounts of centrifugal force counteracting gravity base on where on the globe you are located. At the equator, this reduction will be the highest and at the poles it will be the lowest. Formula: g’ = g - Rω2 cos2θ In the debate with Fkatzoid11Frames, have the calculations on a slide for a few locations around the globe that illustrate changes to 9.8m/s^2 from elevation, from latitude and from both. Then put it on Fkatzoid to provide his prediction for those locations with the non-gravity method of his choice. Obviously, he won't have any ability to calculate any changes or even provide a plausible explanation that holds up to a few basic follow up questions.
It doesn't even have to be that complicated: just ask why density makes things go _downward_ (that is, toward the Earth) specifically. Flerfs cannot for the life of them answer this.
He made the fatal mistake of saying you can measure the height of the sun using trigonometry on a flat earth, even though you get a different result from every location
Correct. And that's when you have him prove it. Given him two different locations and have him show his math. I find that they don't want to ever show their math. They just want to make claims while telling you your results don't work.
Flatz would probably say that the height of the sun is not actual but apparent so you can't actually measure it, you can only calculate it. And that calculations is math and math doesn't prove anything
@@planetpeterson2824 several reasons. it only can be done for ONE location at a time. as soon as you use TWO observers, the measurements cannot be reconciled with a flat planet. there is also the question of what the sun IS, and the fact that its angular size is the SAME for ALL observers. in general, as soon as you get a flat earther to agree that a thing is measurable, you have sunk them, because their "model" fails any comparison with reality.
What I learned from Fkatzoid in this is that when I look at things going away from me, I shoot light beams from my eyes, and that is somehow how we see. The more you know
The air pressure difference inside of a dome was the best part, he was drowning in his own “logic”. I used to think they were lying on purpose in the debates, but I remember Witsit posting a video after a debate with Professor Dave where he was saying how he was super happy with the debate and how he was sure Dave wouldn’t post it on his channel. Then when he saw that Dave did post it he was genuinely surprised. Unbelievable stuff
Not all of them, but probably very many believe it. One just has to look at the literally billions of God believers, of which a good part makes himself not question it, and of those a lot truly believe, that the Bible is LITERALLY true. For me the core of cult is to declare a slogan as irrefutable Truth, and to accept that Truth makes you OWN The Truth, the ONLY knowable Truth. Now you are correct in ALL you think, say and do. No need to KNOW anything about the truth, how anything works. Only the slogan is knowable. Extremely convenient and satisfying - especially for people that always had trouble understanding logical connections. And it seems that the new gut feeling of being a genius OWNing The Truth is so addictive that people tend to fall for it it in all kinds of variants. Of course there can be more than one slogan in a cult, and you can subscribe to the slogans of many different cults. Doesn't matter when they are not consistent, people learn to circumstantially pick one slogan as the one they cite as exclusively true, and another one in another situation.
Re: Failzoid's diagram Now, take those exact same angular measurements, and wrap them around a curve with a radius of 3969mi, and all those lines pointing at various places all suddenly line up and are all pointing at the exact same point in space.
A simple demonstration that earth has a gravitational field whose strength is proportional to mass can be found using a gravimeter to discover minerals deep underground. The gravimeter exploits one of the main effects of an object caught in the gravitational field, namely it accelerates in the direction of the field. So the magnitude of acceleration is a measure of the strength of the field. If you want to locate deep mineral deposits, the gravimeter will display a greater acceleration over areas where more dense minerals exist and visa versa. This is the preeminent method of preliminary mineral exploration these days. In fact this change in acceleration that measures a change in the earth’s gravitational field strength is also done by satellites. Naturally, “relative density disequilibrium” fails to explain why a gravimeter is able to detect minerals deep underground. It also fails to explain why falling objects accelerate when they fall.
That's a really good example, because it doesn't make any sense to say the ground below you "weighs" anything, so what's causing it to "pull"? I knew about gravimeters but would never have thought of that as an example.
I never really see this brought up in debates enough. Gravity isn't uniform or consistent. The equator has reduced gravity due to centrifugal force of the spin of the planet, and gravitational pull is affected by things like elevation and the makeup of the ground beneath you. This is completely defeating to the concept of gravity not being real.
@@planetpeterson2824 What I'd suggest as an example is to demonstrate with math precisely how much force you're being 'flung away' from the equator while standing on it, assuming the circumference of the earth. And then show how that subtracts only slightly from gravity, and how a known weight will stretch a spring by varying amounts depending on whether you're on the equator versus the north pole, no matter where on the equator you're standing. You can add a vacuum chamber to really drive it home if he starts saying something like the equator has less dense air or whatever. Demonstrable, repeatable test showing that gravity must be responsible for weight
@@planetpeterson2824 yes.. gravimetric mineral prospecting is a great example of gravity as an experiment as demanded by FErs. Most instantly run away from it. All you need to ask them is: why does this method works? Its a paid service in mining and works by measuring variations in downward acceleration. We detect, mine and find. What alternative to gravity explains that underground mass distribution variations affects the measured downward acceleration above the surface?
Never forget: flatearthers equal "model" to "miniature," like a model airplane or a model car. They literally ask for a small Earth floating in a space (inside a room) and rotating and with oceans sticking to it to believe our Earth is a spinning ball etc. For debates, I think, it's better going beyond Dubay's list by showing the practical consequences. For example, 2024 was a leap year, had both northern and southern lights (there are videos), and it had a very noticeable eclipse. All of which was predicted/regulated by globe Earth scientists and entities. If flat Earth were real, flat Earth gurus should make better predictions, better calendars, better maps, better weather forecasts, better everything, and also explain how earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorites, tides, Moon phases, climate, everything on Earth works *with one single explanation that encompasses everything.* They never do anything practical better than globers.
Listening to the 'converging/ diverging' ranting, I thought if you only shifted to 'parallel/ non-parallel'. Railroad rails are effectively parallel, despite their APPEARANCE to not be parallel. And the whole 'taking measurements of the elevation angle' can be avoided if instead you use zenith angles. Flatzoid loves to say "you get the zenith angle by subtracting the elevation angle from 90", but you can measure it independently with a bubble-sextant, or a plumb-bob, even an ancient astrolabe.
Fkatzoid likes to obfuscate from zenith angles by saying you need a tangent as a baseline, and to have a tangent, you need a radius. Then he shifts the argument into questioning how the radius value is (or was) calculated. It's a complete red herring. Yes, there's a radius; yes, there's a tangent. Every convex surface has both. But you don't need to know the specific parameters of either, since the vertical vector independently provides your zenith reference point.
Yes. And yet SOMEHOW, they never bring this up when talking about Sunset. If the sun were moving away from you, it would not go DOWN (relative to the viewer)... it would go AWAY (which means it would become smaller and smaller until you couldn't see it... or it became a star). NO Flat Earther seems to acknowledge this fact. I never understood this.
Re "Down" and "it takes effort to raise things up", then according to Flatz, it also takes effort to move an object horizontally and the object should move back to it's starting point.
He mentioned potential energy, but is ignored of the fact that potential energy or more accurately gravitational potential energy, has earth’s gravitational field strength as one of its components. Ep = m x g x h.
08:00 - Mass doesn't change as you move through a gravity field. Weight does. Nitpicky, but that is the kind of thing we need to be careful about when talking with flat earthers.
16:54 I also want to point out that the graph that flatzoid shows there literally shows the approximated earth curvature. He's showing what the angle is at each latitude then you get the reflected curve. The plotted inverse of that is literally the curve of the earth. The guy refuted his own point by bringing that graph up in the first place.
10:31 you guys need to press them on the "perspective" cop-out. This admission that things that match the globe & not the flat earth are clearly distortions of sight, appeal to your mantra, is directly counter to their claim that you can trust your eyes to always reveal a mantra of flat earth.
With the convergent/divergent rays thing, he said the sun is only diverging because it's light, forgetting that the reason we see train tracks, or anything, with our eyes, is also because light bounces off those items and at us. This argument shows he doesn't know how our eyes or light rays work.
13:07 I like to point out the top of everest wich is roughly 5psi air pressure. So if we dont need a container stopping the 14 psi rushing to the 5 then why do we need one stopping the 5 rushing to the 0
@@gaza29 I always bring this up, surprisingly to no effect on the flat earther I'm arguing with. I thought this logic would make some light go up for anybody with more than half a brain.
I remember red rhetoric to make a pledge on an object that already lays on 0 potential on the ground or to takea sheet of ardboard under a 0 potential object with a hol so that you lay the object on the cardboard, dig a hole next to it and shift the cardboard plus object sideways over the hole....then let him think...(rhetorical expression, Flazzo can't think)
“Flatzoid, are you willing to publicly admit you were wrong about flat earth if we see a 24h sun in Antarctica this December?” Flatzoid, in the smuggest pose possible : “YES!”
@@zvezdanjasovic3185 He could have challenged him on gravitation. Why do objects accelerate when you drop them. Why don’t the fall with constant velocity? There are many more.
@@zvezdanjasovic3185 when debating these extremely dishonest flat earthers you can’t let them deflect, you have to keep them on topic, know their tactics and demand they answer your questions. If you give a flat earther an inch, they’ll take an Au.
Forget about trying to get them to understand Coriolis. They think Coriolis is if you leave the surface of the earth (even vertically) it should move from underneath you at 1000mph.
I find the easiest way to think of affirming the consequent is with cats and legs. Cats have 4 legs. This unknown animal has 4 legs. Therefore it is a cat. Sure, it doesn’t guarantee it’s a cat, but evidence of 4 legs at least allows it to be a cat. Flat earthers start with assuming a spider.
14:21 at that point, I wanted to ask what would happen if I picked a ball up from the ground, and had someone dig a hole, would the ball fall in the hole below it when let go, or if it only has the potential to fall to where the ground was?
I shudder at the implication of a second debate; on one hand, we get to see you dog walk Flatzoid yet again, but on the other hand, we have to hear Flatzoid speak.
The problem with flat earth is that it requires multiple contradictory models to describe a flat earth. By contrast the globe only requires one model to explain everything we see and make predictions as to future events.
When he 1st came up with that dumbass diagram it was typically used in Celestial Navigation arguments. It went something like: dist = observed elevation angle times 60nm, but why times 60nm ? BC "sextants ARE a 60 DEG", & he made a witch hat diagram trying to explain it. & only a few days earlier, "sextants WERE a 90 DEG". Also, "+/- 545 km is an OK fix in CelNav" ~ Flatzoid circa 2023 🤪
Flatzoid’s “the fence is curved” idiocy is referring to a curve next to light poles, not between them. The light poles were definitely on a straight section and producing parallel shadows. Immediately to the right the street curved away from that straight section.
Flerfs will never understand that gauge pressure (or container pressure) is not the same thing as atmospheric pressure. If a flerf has a tire inflated to 40psi at sea level where the atmospheric pressure is 14.7psi and opens the valve, the air in the tire will escape and the interior would equalize to 14.7psi. A pressure gauge will read zero. If the flerf did the same thing at the top of Mt. Everest the air in the tire would equalize to 5.1psi yet a gauge will still read zero.
That took me a few seconds to compute, but yeah! I doubt any Flerf would be able to understand the explanation, yet alone comprehend why or the implications it brings. So, it needs rephrasing in a way that they will grasp it. For example, they won't understand how a (relative) pressure gauge operates.
An honest question. If I inflate the tyre to 40psi and measure it at sea level, the gauge will show 40psi. What if I take that same tyre (inflated to 40psi) to the top of Mt Everest, what will the same gauge show when measuring the tyre pressure? My brain is too tired to work it out, but I am thinking it will measure higher... is it 40psi in respect to 14.7 psi @ sea level pressure, but then the reference pressure drops to 5.1 then does that mean 40 + 14.7 - 5.1= 59.6 psi? Or... argghhh too tired 😢😮😂
I feel like the case of 'equilibrium' is to follow up the case of what specific feature of ground causes it to be desirable position for an object to be as opposed to a table, or why digging a hole in the ground with have the object continue to go down.
The mass is an intrinsic property. The weight changes as a function of altitude. One possible set of observations that have gravity as the independent variable, is to look at orbital periods (of satellites) as a function of distance.
Another debate tactic to watch out for is when the opponent concedes a point in order to move on from it as quickly as possible. This one's tricky because generally people see that as the entire point of a debate, but it can work in the opponents favor somtimes - particularly if it is one of your stronger talking points. You want to hammer it home and linger on it, make them engage with it. By conceding, they rob you of the chance to do that, and they may end up looking more "reasonable" which can play in their favor as well. It can also help them dictate the topic and flow of conversation. Destiny used to do this quite often back in the days of "internet bloodsports" and it was pretty effective.
Flatzoid takes monopoly over the word horizontal. No matter what you are talking about, if you say horizontal, he will be like "ahh haaah! You said horizontal, therefore earth am flat" He really is just brain dead.
One of the big problems with Flatzoid's "perspective" perspective is inconsistency. His "model," though he'd never call it that (so let's call it a contention), of the Sun and Moon is "small" and "local" lollipops on long sticks. In his perspective, the stick appears to get shorter as you move away from the stick. Fine. That's the way perspective actually does work. The problem that arises (fails to set?) is that the big ball of candy on the top of the stick does not change in apparent size ("angular size") as the distance between it and the viewer is increased. It is readily demonstrable that the angular size of the Sun is the same everywhere on Earth, every time a measurement is made. Almost the same for the Moon, though there is measurable but small variation. If the stick appears half as tall due to perspective, the ball on top of the stick should too. It doesn't. Polaris is too far away to allow any simple measurement of angular size which is unfortunate from the perspective of debunking his string art picture.
Flat-Earthers always claim "Globe Earth is dead" I would lead the conversation as "Fine TEACH us the flat Earth while we we make these observations & measurements
If we did live in an enclosed system, the gaz distribution should be equal everywhere. The gradiant atmospheric pressure that anyone can measure with a tool proves alone that we are not in an enclosed system.
Guys, I assume I might have found the logical chain that could be used to prove density explanation unfeasible for flerfs. What if you describe the following situation - you go up high in mountains, let's say 2 km high, that should be high enough for air to be less dense. And you throw an object up. Following the logic flerfs have, the object should keep going up, because air above is less dense, shouldn't it? But doesn't do that.
Air is always less dense above you than below. You can prove it with a smart phone and a flight of stairs. Flerfs have been told this but simply ignore it.
This. Something like 1/10th the pressure difference over 10x the distance or more. Should be constant vertical wind dwarfing the largest hurricane on record.
What's even more interesting is that Hurricanes can't and have never crossed the equator. You can visually see this by googling hurricane world tracking data.
In the gravity formula the distance between the centers of 2 masses is a parameter - so yes, varying the height of an object above ground is manipulating an independent variable. The height could also be the dependant variable - e.g. for the orbital height of a satellite. There the (tangential) speed of the satellite is the independent variable, depending on that the height of the obit adjusts.
About the "mesuring flat" there is a thing. You mesure the elevation of stars and sun from a boat, on a weavy sea, inclined, and in any sort of "non flat" condition. That is because a sexstant use gravity to tell what is down.
hey peterson! happy you were able to make a conclusion about local (non-)curvature and global curvature being entirely separate ideas. and you're right--the global "topology" of the surface in question is exactly what this is about. All measurements made are local phenomenon. however, there are methods in topology of identifying global characteristics of surfaces only by local patches, and these characteristics distinguish balls from torii, or manifolds in general. i have a feeling they'd apply to this silly FE discussion. happy to talk about it more if you'd like! :)
I haven't searched the comments so this may be a repeat. I think it was possibly Reds Rhetoric who did the animation starting with that diagram showing the different distances and angles, and the animation shows the base gradually curving downwards till eventually all the angles result in the same observed GP. I think it was actually a representation of actual observations made by several parties all over the world. The diagram fails 100% on a flat plane, but when converted to a globe curve it works 100%
I originally missed that the diagram shows Polaris getting physically lower the farther you go from the North Pole but you missed the fact that in the diagram the 600 nm distance was labeled +600 more for each point going left, but the distances looked shorter and shorter.
As I understand it mass is mass regardless of the local gravity. Things weigh 1/6 less on the moon than on Earth, but IKg of butter would still be 1Kg.
I used that soda can analogy on a flerf at one time. But i used specifically that one can that we sometimes catch in a batch, that is flat. You know that can that was sealed WITHOUT the carbonated soda inside, which when we open it, NO gas actually escape, because the pressure inside the can, is THE SAME as the atmosperic pressure outside... He blocked me... 🤣🤣🤣
Regarding gravity as the IV. This is best illustrated in the Cavendish experiment where you change the mass of the balls involved in the experiment. Changing the distance between the balls changes their position in the gravity well but it doesn't modify the gravity itself. That's my humble opinion.
Flatzoid saying that gravity is not a force is technically correct in that mass doesn't attract mass, but rather bends spacetime which has the effect that mass _appears to_ attract mass. However, since the effect of gravity is indistinguishable from that of a force, gravity is still considered as a force.
4:22 As I pointed out in the comments of the other video, using evidence is Logical Induction. It's a category error to say that Induction is "Affirming the Consequent". All logical induction has that structure, and it deals with probability rather than deductive certainty. *Only* deductive syllogisms can "affirm the consequent." So Flatzoid (and Oakley, who loves this even more) are just saying something nonsensical that sounds serious. It's not a real argument you have to take seriously.
Telling you, broseph, "No model, no debate" should be the mantra of anyone in the business of arguing with these nuts. If they don't have a coherent model that explains multiple observations, concurrently, they don't have anything to say.
I wouldn't even say that it has to explain "multiple observations," I'd say that until they have a map that accurately represents distances between locations on the earth, we have nothing to talk about. If the earth were flat, it would be possible to draw an accurate 2D map - by definition. Until they have that, there is nothing to talk about. And someone like Flatzoid can't argue that he's not claiming the earth is flat, just that it isn't a globe. It's literally in his name. "What's the distance from the North Pole to the equator?" 10K km "What's the circumference at the equator?" 40K km That's all you need to know. You can't do that on a flat earth. There is no more to discuss.
08:00 _The mass of something does change..._ I don't think that mass does depend on the position of a thing, though its weight does. (Weight is probably what you meant, though, I dare say.)
That diagram that he used actually plots a curve if you follow the leftmost line till it intersects with the next line.(20:47) which only gives more evidence to the globe. 90 degrees on the graph and a 1/4 of a circle hmmmm.
Apart from pressure gradient in the atmosphere, another good debunk, in my opinion, against stupid "pressure needs a container argument" is that how clouds can exert pressure but floats by in the atmosphere WITHOUT a container.
AutoCAD (or any CAD software) allows you to snap a line to a curve at a perpendicular. This means a perpendicular to a curve is mathematically possible.
I did some rough math and to scale the earth, atmosphere, and oceans down to the scale of a bowling ball (a model) the oceans would be less than a millimeter. (I forget the specifics but it’s super small) and at that size you can get that much water to “stick” to it. Granted it may be for other reasons than gravity, but it is indeed a scaled model with the appropriate amount of water on it. Then you just have to spin it at one revolution per day……
That diagram showing different angles to Polaris is so obviously, slap-in-the-face wrong, that flerfs don't see it; all those different observers are looking at different Polaris's, at the same time - quite impossible. All those viewing angles to the same object are only possible from a curved surface.
I listen to this channel with headphones at work normally....this whole thing this week about train tracks and light beams.....broke me. He was sooooo dumb, but not dumb enough to outright give up.
4:03 This is an important message about how evidence works! The more advanced version of it is full-on Bayesian reasoning... but I suspect most flat earthers are likely to be ignorant of that, and of how to use it properly. Do you know whether any of them ever mention it? I'm curious now.
Some uses of gravity as an independent variable are planetary orbits, the Cavendish experiment, and plumb bobs. Planets obviously have different masses especially rocky planets versus gas giants. The masses in the Cavendish are physically changed by the experimenter! Plumb bobs are attracted by the various masses of mountains. Newton discussed this possibility but thought the deflection too small to measure. It was first measured by the Schiehallion experiment in 1774.
anyone who say "show me the independent/dependent variables" is using a pre-school level of "understanding" of science. it's just another example of the mindless drivel that flat earthers spew. nobody who actually does experiments talks like that, any more than a paper on advanced mathematics starts by proving that integers exist.
You did your best. Must have been difficult trying to explain things to people who, at this point, we must believe are just non-capable of understanding basic sentences, let alone Math.
Gravity as the independent variable: Cavendish? I mean technically you're manipulating the gravitic acceleration by directly manipulating the distance between the centers of mass of the two pairs of masses. Thus it's just a more stringent version of the 'weight goes down as altitude goes up' experiment mentioned. Cavendish removes a couple of potential variables. The problem is that we can't directly manipulate gravity (yet). If we could directly manipulate gravity there wouldn't be any possible questions about the shape of the Earth, because everything from gravitationally induced nuclear fusion to gravitic space drives become commonplace.
Every video I've seen dealing with Nathan Oakley recently he's been screaming about affirming the consequent, then silencing the reply. At this point flerfs are just giving me a headache.
On earth, elevation can be an independent variable, but the acceleration of gravity is then the dependant variable. This is because the mass of the Earth stays the same. The only way to make gravity the independent variable is to compare different celestial bodies; ie orbits of moons around various planets.
If you want to do the sun rising in the South East, Fkatzoid himself demonstrated that it does. His excuse is that his measurement is off by 5° compared to the globe prediction.
An experiment type I know of that has gravity as the independent variable are micro-boiling drop tower experiments. The point of the experiments are to gather data on how a liquid trasitons to gas in low of zero gravity (really useful for optimization of fuel flow and combustion for space vehicles) a test apparatus is dropped from a tower and observed as it reaches or meets free fall. But Flatzoid doesn’t get the concept of “no weight in free fall” so I’m not sure if it’s a useful example.
The mass will not change if you increase elevation. The weight will as weight is a product of mass and gravity and gravity will decrease as you increase distance. -- Also, I believe Flatoid said things go down due to density and atmospheric pressure. But we can make vacuum chambers and things will still react to gravity
To manipulate gravity, that is for gravity to be the independent variable, all one has to do is change the mass or the distance between the masses. This is because, while the independent variable is unaffected by the dependent variable, is not necessarily independent of everything. You can manipulate gravity by manipulating the variables it is dependent on, such as mass and distance.
Set theory Flow charts Cross reference charts That covers pretty much all fallacies. When you look at evidence as proof , disproof, confirms and contradicts
The diagram at 15:00. All the lines approximates the shape of a quarter circle in the negative space above them. If I interpret it correctly, where the lines intersect this "curve" you should get 10° difference on the Earth. The length of the shape is just the arc length of a circle sector. We should be able to calculate the radius of the Earth based on this diagram. Let the arc length be L, the angle between two locations be theta och the radius be R. We plug in L = theta * R and rearrange for the radius R = L/theta. We know the angle between two points, which is between 0 nm and 5400 nm, and we get theta = 90° = pi/2 radians. Lets convert nautical miles to km, 5400 nm = 10000.8 km Plug into formula for: R = 10000.8/ (pi/2) = 6366.2 km = 3956 miles. The generally accepted value for the Earths radius is 6378 km or 3963 miles. We are really close. Some could say "within 1%".
i remember people saying you could put flerfs onto antarctica or in space and they would still deny it. They were right.
At least Jeran is accepting it
@@EricBurns1 is he accepting that the earth is a globe now?
@@Soapy-chan He said "I am no longer a flat earther"
Almost as if they are doing it in order to get the free trips and normal people would have to pay for. It's part of the grift. To annoy the public so much they give in and take you on an all expense paid trip to "verify".
@@EricBurns1 that is equally as shocking as pleasing, I am glad that he got that far
Heres a little experiment that will disprove flatz idea of density over gravity.
Fill a bottle with water then put a hole near the bottom of the bottle, the water starts pouring out the hole right ?
Now do the same again but drop the bottle while the water is pouring out. What happens is the water stops pouring out as the bottle is falling.
Why ? You didnt change the density of anything, all you did was nullify the downward vector of gravity so the water stops pouring.
Density disproven.
Gravity confirmed 👌😊
Or, put two bowling balls on a scale. Are they heavier than one bowling ball? Weird, they have the same density
An interesting experiment. I also like the Cavendish experiement. When done carefully, it shows that gravity can have a vector other than 'down'. Density can't explain both 'down' when dropping an object and 'sideways' when the Cavendish experiment shows attraction.
Didn't Rachie once try to show how that worked doing squats 🧐
Another route to take - ask the flerf for their explanations/formulas for the well-established variations to downward acceleration as showcased in Critical Think's TFE weight experiments.
We let flerfs off the hook with generalization and oversimplification of 9.8m/s^2. Calculation of localized variations to 9.8m/s^2 based on Newton's Laws are easy and provide extremely accurate results. Flerfs have zero ability to predict or explain them via density/buoyancy/electrostatics/etc.
Elevation: Since there is an inverse square law that causes a reduction in the force between two masses as distances increases - according to Newton, things should weigh less at higher elevations than when closer to the earth's core at sea level. And they do:
F = GMm / (R+h)2
Earth's Spin: Since the earth is rotating, there should be different amounts of centrifugal force counteracting gravity base on where on the globe you are located. At the equator, this reduction will be the highest and at the poles it will be the lowest. Formula:
g’ = g - Rω2 cos2θ
In the debate with Fkatzoid11Frames, have the calculations on a slide for a few locations around the globe that illustrate changes to 9.8m/s^2 from elevation, from latitude and from both. Then put it on Fkatzoid to provide his prediction for those locations with the non-gravity method of his choice. Obviously, he won't have any ability to calculate any changes or even provide a plausible explanation that holds up to a few basic follow up questions.
It doesn't even have to be that complicated: just ask why density makes things go _downward_ (that is, toward the Earth) specifically. Flerfs cannot for the life of them answer this.
He made the fatal mistake of saying you can measure the height of the sun using trigonometry on a flat earth, even though you get a different result from every location
Correct. And that's when you have him prove it. Given him two different locations and have him show his math. I find that they don't want to ever show their math. They just want to make claims while telling you your results don't work.
How was that fatal? There's nothing wrong with assuming the Earth is flat, because that's how you test it and prove it fails.
Flatz would probably say that the height of the sun is not actual but apparent so you can't actually measure it, you can only calculate it. And that calculations is math and math doesn't prove anything
@@planetpeterson2824 several reasons. it only can be done for ONE location at a time. as soon as you use TWO observers, the measurements cannot be reconciled with a flat planet.
there is also the question of what the sun IS, and the fact that its angular size is the SAME for ALL observers.
in general, as soon as you get a flat earther to agree that a thing is measurable, you have sunk them, because their "model" fails any comparison with reality.
@@victorfinberg8595 I thought they meant I made the fatal mistake... but I guess they meant Flatzoid did
What I learned from Fkatzoid in this is that when I look at things going away from me, I shoot light beams from my eyes, and that is somehow how we see.
The more you know
I mean, it works for Superman and Cyclopes, so it’s gotta be true!
The air pressure difference inside of a dome was the best part, he was drowning in his own “logic”.
I used to think they were lying on purpose in the debates, but I remember Witsit posting a video after a debate with Professor Dave where he was saying how he was super happy with the debate and how he was sure Dave wouldn’t post it on his channel.
Then when he saw that Dave did post it he was genuinely surprised.
Unbelievable stuff
Not all of them, but probably very many believe it.
One just has to look at the literally billions of God believers, of which a good part makes himself not question it, and of those a lot truly believe, that the Bible is LITERALLY true.
For me the core of cult is to declare a slogan as irrefutable Truth, and to accept that Truth makes you OWN The Truth, the ONLY knowable Truth.
Now you are correct in ALL you think, say and do. No need to KNOW anything about the truth, how anything works. Only the slogan is knowable.
Extremely convenient and satisfying - especially for people that always had trouble understanding logical connections.
And it seems that the new gut feeling of being a genius OWNing The Truth is so addictive that people tend to fall for it it in all kinds of variants.
Of course there can be more than one slogan in a cult, and you can subscribe to the slogans of many different cults.
Doesn't matter when they are not consistent, people learn to circumstantially pick one slogan as the one they cite as exclusively true, and another one in another situation.
*REASONING.
Please can everyone stop misusing the word logic.
Re: Failzoid's diagram
Now, take those exact same angular measurements, and wrap them around a curve with a radius of 3969mi, and all those lines pointing at various places all suddenly line up and are all pointing at the exact same point in space.
exactly. arctan is not a linear function
A simple demonstration that earth has a gravitational field whose strength is proportional to mass can be found using a gravimeter to discover minerals deep underground. The gravimeter exploits one of the main effects of an object caught in the gravitational field, namely it accelerates in the direction of the field. So the magnitude of acceleration is a measure of the strength of the field. If you want to locate deep mineral deposits, the gravimeter will display a greater acceleration over areas where more dense minerals exist and visa versa. This is the preeminent method of preliminary mineral exploration these days. In fact this change in acceleration that measures a change in the earth’s gravitational field strength is also done by satellites.
Naturally, “relative density disequilibrium” fails to explain why a gravimeter is able to detect minerals deep underground. It also fails to explain why falling objects accelerate when they fall.
That's a really good example, because it doesn't make any sense to say the ground below you "weighs" anything, so what's causing it to "pull"? I knew about gravimeters but would never have thought of that as an example.
I never really see this brought up in debates enough. Gravity isn't uniform or consistent. The equator has reduced gravity due to centrifugal force of the spin of the planet, and gravitational pull is affected by things like elevation and the makeup of the ground beneath you. This is completely defeating to the concept of gravity not being real.
@@planetpeterson2824 What I'd suggest as an example is to demonstrate with math precisely how much force you're being 'flung away' from the equator while standing on it, assuming the circumference of the earth. And then show how that subtracts only slightly from gravity, and how a known weight will stretch a spring by varying amounts depending on whether you're on the equator versus the north pole, no matter where on the equator you're standing. You can add a vacuum chamber to really drive it home if he starts saying something like the equator has less dense air or whatever.
Demonstrable, repeatable test showing that gravity must be responsible for weight
@@korbit8307every time you use math flerfs say math doesn't prove anything. Flerfs can't math, don't forget that
@@planetpeterson2824 yes.. gravimetric mineral prospecting is a great example of gravity as an experiment as demanded by FErs. Most instantly run away from it. All you need to ask them is: why does this method works? Its a paid service in mining and works by measuring variations in downward acceleration. We detect, mine and find. What alternative to gravity explains that underground mass distribution variations affects the measured downward acceleration above the surface?
Never forget: flatearthers equal "model" to "miniature," like a model airplane or a model car. They literally ask for a small Earth floating in a space (inside a room) and rotating and with oceans sticking to it to believe our Earth is a spinning ball etc.
For debates, I think, it's better going beyond Dubay's list by showing the practical consequences. For example, 2024 was a leap year, had both northern and southern lights (there are videos), and it had a very noticeable eclipse. All of which was predicted/regulated by globe Earth scientists and entities. If flat Earth were real, flat Earth gurus should make better predictions, better calendars, better maps, better weather forecasts, better everything, and also explain how earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorites, tides, Moon phases, climate, everything on Earth works *with one single explanation that encompasses everything.*
They never do anything practical better than globers.
They never do anything, full stop. Apart from blatantly lying to people from a screen in their mum's cellar.
Listening to the 'converging/ diverging' ranting, I thought if you only shifted to 'parallel/ non-parallel'. Railroad rails are effectively parallel, despite their APPEARANCE to not be parallel.
And the whole 'taking measurements of the elevation angle' can be avoided if instead you use zenith angles. Flatzoid loves to say "you get the zenith angle by subtracting the elevation angle from 90", but you can measure it independently with a bubble-sextant, or a plumb-bob, even an ancient astrolabe.
Fkatzoid likes to obfuscate from zenith angles by saying you need a tangent as a baseline, and to have a tangent, you need a radius. Then he shifts the argument into questioning how the radius value is (or was) calculated. It's a complete red herring. Yes, there's a radius; yes, there's a tangent. Every convex surface has both. But you don't need to know the specific parameters of either, since the vertical vector independently provides your zenith reference point.
Yes. And yet SOMEHOW, they never bring this up when talking about Sunset. If the sun were moving away from you, it would not go DOWN (relative to the viewer)... it would go AWAY (which means it would become smaller and smaller until you couldn't see it... or it became a star). NO Flat Earther seems to acknowledge this fact. I never understood this.
Re "Down" and "it takes effort to raise things up", then according to Flatz, it also takes effort to move an object horizontally and the object should move back to it's starting point.
He mentioned potential energy, but is ignored of the fact that potential energy or more accurately gravitational potential energy, has earth’s gravitational field strength as one of its components. Ep = m x g x h.
He seems to think that an object that has been moved remembers where it came from
08:00 - Mass doesn't change as you move through a gravity field. Weight does. Nitpicky, but that is the kind of thing we need to be careful about when talking with flat earthers.
Well said.
Balance scales wouldn't work if they depended on 'density disequilibrium'; a 1 gramme lump of lead would displace a 10 gramme lump of polystyrene.
16:54 I also want to point out that the graph that flatzoid shows there literally shows the approximated earth curvature. He's showing what the angle is at each latitude then you get the reflected curve. The plotted inverse of that is literally the curve of the earth.
The guy refuted his own point by bringing that graph up in the first place.
10:31 you guys need to press them on the "perspective" cop-out.
This admission that things that match the globe & not the flat earth are clearly distortions of sight, appeal to your mantra, is directly counter to their claim that you can trust your eyes to always reveal a mantra of flat earth.
Even in a sealed coke can, the air bubble goes to the up and the coke goes down relative to the ground no matter the orientation of the can
With the convergent/divergent rays thing, he said the sun is only diverging because it's light, forgetting that the reason we see train tracks, or anything, with our eyes, is also because light bounces off those items and at us. This argument shows he doesn't know how our eyes or light rays work.
13:07 I like to point out the top of everest wich is roughly 5psi air pressure. So if we dont need a container stopping the 14 psi rushing to the 5 then why do we need one stopping the 5 rushing to the 0
@@gaza29 I always bring this up, surprisingly to no effect on the flat earther I'm arguing with. I thought this logic would make some light go up for anybody with more than half a brain.
I agree with FTFE in that I was impressed with your performance. And you managed to keep most of your brain cells.
I remember red rhetoric to make a pledge on an object that already lays on 0 potential on the ground or to takea sheet of ardboard under a 0 potential object with a hol so that you lay the object on the cardboard, dig a hole next to it and shift the cardboard plus object sideways over the hole....then let him think...(rhetorical expression, Flazzo can't think)
Your intro reminds me of a Far Side comic where a dog says "all.cats have four legs. I have four legs, therefore I'm a cat."
“Flatzoid, are you willing to publicly admit you were wrong about flat earth if we see a 24h sun in Antarctica this December?”
Flatzoid, in the smuggest pose possible : “YES!”
"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person" - Bill Murray
lol Bill Murray at least you didn’t use Samuel Clemens …
You let him get away with too much
My sentiments exactly
What exactly if you don’t mind me asking
@@zvezdanjasovic3185 He could have challenged him on gravitation. Why do objects accelerate when you drop them. Why don’t the fall with constant velocity? There are many more.
@@profphilbell2075 exactly.
@@zvezdanjasovic3185 when debating these extremely dishonest flat earthers you can’t let them deflect, you have to keep them on topic, know their tactics and demand they answer your questions. If you give a flat earther an inch, they’ll take an Au.
Forget about trying to get them to understand Coriolis. They think Coriolis is if you leave the surface of the earth (even vertically) it should move from underneath you at 1000mph.
There’s a reason why we call him “Failzoid”…
I find the easiest way to think of affirming the consequent is with cats and legs.
Cats have 4 legs.
This unknown animal has 4 legs.
Therefore it is a cat.
Sure, it doesn’t guarantee it’s a cat, but evidence of 4 legs at least allows it to be a cat.
Flat earthers start with assuming a spider.
14:21 at that point, I wanted to ask what would happen if I picked a ball up from the ground, and had someone dig a hole, would the ball fall in the hole below it when let go, or if it only has the potential to fall to where the ground was?
You can add "I debated a moron." on your life checklist now. 🤣🤣🤣
Flatzoid eats corn on the cob the long way.
@Jim - the "long way", or the LOOONG way? (As in reverse through the intestines?)
@Starhawke_Gaming i mean, he does use alot of butter. So either way will work for him
I shudder at the implication of a second debate; on one hand, we get to see you dog walk Flatzoid yet again, but on the other hand, we have to hear Flatzoid speak.
Better than hearing Nathan Oakley speak
@@bdshort Fair, but the only thing worse than hearing Oakley speak is hearing Oakley speak on higher volume
It's like watching you mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new car.
The problem with flat earth is that it requires multiple contradictory models to describe a flat earth. By contrast the globe only requires one model to explain everything we see and make predictions as to future events.
When he 1st came up with that dumbass diagram it was typically used in Celestial Navigation arguments. It went something like: dist = observed elevation angle times 60nm, but why times 60nm ? BC "sextants ARE a 60 DEG", & he made a witch hat diagram trying to explain it. & only a few days earlier, "sextants WERE a 90 DEG". Also, "+/- 545 km is an OK fix in CelNav" ~ Flatzoid circa 2023 🤪
Flatzoid’s “the fence is curved” idiocy is referring to a curve next to light poles, not between them. The light poles were definitely on a straight section and producing parallel shadows. Immediately to the right the street curved away from that straight section.
Flerfs will never understand that gauge pressure (or container pressure) is not the same thing as atmospheric pressure. If a flerf has a tire inflated to 40psi at sea level where the atmospheric pressure is 14.7psi and opens the valve, the air in the tire will escape and the interior would equalize to 14.7psi. A pressure gauge will read zero. If the flerf did the same thing at the top of Mt. Everest the air in the tire would equalize to 5.1psi yet a gauge will still read zero.
That took me a few seconds to compute, but yeah!
I doubt any Flerf would be able to understand the explanation, yet alone comprehend why or the implications it brings.
So, it needs rephrasing in a way that they will grasp it. For example, they won't understand how a (relative) pressure gauge operates.
An honest question. If I inflate the tyre to 40psi and measure it at sea level, the gauge will show 40psi. What if I take that same tyre (inflated to 40psi) to the top of Mt Everest, what will the same gauge show when measuring the tyre pressure?
My brain is too tired to work it out, but I am thinking it will measure higher... is it 40psi in respect to 14.7 psi @ sea level pressure, but then the reference pressure drops to 5.1 then does that mean 40 + 14.7 - 5.1= 59.6 psi?
Or... argghhh too tired 😢😮😂
I feel like the case of 'equilibrium' is to follow up the case of what specific feature of ground causes it to be desirable position for an object to be as opposed to a table, or why digging a hole in the ground with have the object continue to go down.
The mass is an intrinsic property. The weight changes as a function of altitude.
One possible set of observations that have gravity as the independent variable, is to look at orbital periods (of satellites) as a function of distance.
Another debate tactic to watch out for is when the opponent concedes a point in order to move on from it as quickly as possible. This one's tricky because generally people see that as the entire point of a debate, but it can work in the opponents favor somtimes - particularly if it is one of your stronger talking points. You want to hammer it home and linger on it, make them engage with it. By conceding, they rob you of the chance to do that, and they may end up looking more "reasonable" which can play in their favor as well. It can also help them dictate the topic and flow of conversation. Destiny used to do this quite often back in the days of "internet bloodsports" and it was pretty effective.
Flatzoid takes monopoly over the word horizontal. No matter what you are talking about, if you say horizontal, he will be like "ahh haaah! You said horizontal, therefore earth am flat"
He really is just brain dead.
One of the big problems with Flatzoid's "perspective" perspective is inconsistency.
His "model," though he'd never call it that (so let's call it a contention), of the Sun and Moon is "small" and "local" lollipops on long sticks. In his perspective, the stick appears to get shorter as you move away from the stick. Fine. That's the way perspective actually does work. The problem that arises (fails to set?) is that the big ball of candy on the top of the stick does not change in apparent size ("angular size") as the distance between it and the viewer is increased. It is readily demonstrable that the angular size of the Sun is the same everywhere on Earth, every time a measurement is made. Almost the same for the Moon, though there is measurable but small variation. If the stick appears half as tall due to perspective, the ball on top of the stick should too. It doesn't.
Polaris is too far away to allow any simple measurement of angular size which is unfortunate from the perspective of debunking his string art picture.
@@d614gakadoug9 Perspective is the flerf wildcard for everything they cannot explain
20:20 i love how theg say it's because you're just looking at it a different way, like through a window.
Flat-Earthers always claim "Globe Earth is dead" I would lead the conversation as "Fine TEACH us the flat Earth while we we make these observations & measurements
If we did live in an enclosed system, the gaz distribution should be equal everywhere. The gradiant atmospheric pressure that anyone can measure with a tool proves alone that we are not in an enclosed system.
That wasn't a debate. It was a massacre.
It was funny how FTFE said "subscribe to planet Peterson." I was laughing because I was already subbed, anyway that debate was beautiful. 😂😂😂
There is something viscerally wrong about typing out "right now" instead of just saying 'rn'. It's like typing out "LOL".
Guys, I assume I might have found the logical chain that could be used to prove density explanation unfeasible for flerfs. What if you describe the following situation - you go up high in mountains, let's say 2 km high, that should be high enough for air to be less dense. And you throw an object up. Following the logic flerfs have, the object should keep going up, because air above is less dense, shouldn't it? But doesn't do that.
Air is always less dense above you than below. You can prove it with a smart phone and a flight of stairs.
Flerfs have been told this but simply ignore it.
Hurricanes are powered by horizontal pressure differences a fraction of the difference between sea level and the top of Everest.
This. Something like 1/10th the pressure difference over 10x the distance or more. Should be constant vertical wind dwarfing the largest hurricane on record.
What's even more interesting is that Hurricanes can't and have never crossed the equator. You can visually see this by googling hurricane world tracking data.
In the gravity formula the distance between the centers of 2 masses is a parameter - so yes, varying the height of an object above ground is manipulating an independent variable.
The height could also be the dependant variable - e.g. for the orbital height of a satellite.
There the (tangential) speed of the satellite is the independent variable, depending on that the height of the obit adjusts.
When you brought the parallel rays video, he had a panic attack.
Flatzoid was more level headed than I expected based on his prior interactions.
About the "mesuring flat" there is a thing. You mesure the elevation of stars and sun from a boat, on a weavy sea, inclined, and in any sort of "non flat" condition. That is because a sexstant use gravity to tell what is down.
Maybe a good chess anaolgy would be giving check just for the checks sake.
hey peterson! happy you were able to make a conclusion about local (non-)curvature and global curvature being entirely separate ideas. and you're right--the global "topology" of the surface in question is exactly what this is about. All measurements made are local phenomenon.
however, there are methods in topology of identifying global characteristics of surfaces only by local patches, and these characteristics distinguish balls from torii, or manifolds in general. i have a feeling they'd apply to this silly FE discussion. happy to talk about it more if you'd like! :)
Pressure gradients do exist horizontally, its effect is wind.
I haven't searched the comments so this may be a repeat. I think it was possibly Reds Rhetoric who did the animation starting with that diagram showing the different distances and angles, and the animation shows the base gradually curving downwards till eventually all the angles result in the same observed GP. I think it was actually a representation of actual observations made by several parties all over the world. The diagram fails 100% on a flat plane, but when converted to a globe curve it works 100%
Responding to pawn aggression.
I originally missed that the diagram shows Polaris getting physically lower the farther you go from the North Pole but you missed the fact that in the diagram the 600 nm distance was labeled +600 more for each point going left, but the distances looked shorter and shorter.
As I understand it mass is mass regardless of the local gravity. Things weigh 1/6 less on the moon than on Earth, but IKg of butter would still be 1Kg.
Weight depends on g, mass is universal
That is an entirely self-inflicted wound, fella...
I used that soda can analogy on a flerf at one time.
But i used specifically that one can that we sometimes catch in a batch, that is flat.
You know that can that was sealed WITHOUT the carbonated soda inside, which when we open it, NO gas actually escape, because the pressure inside the can, is THE SAME as the atmosperic pressure outside...
He blocked me...
🤣🤣🤣
Regarding gravity as the IV. This is best illustrated in the Cavendish experiment where you change the mass of the balls involved in the experiment. Changing the distance between the balls changes their position in the gravity well but it doesn't modify the gravity itself. That's my humble opinion.
Why isn't there a link to the debate in this video?
Flatzoid saying that gravity is not a force is technically correct in that mass doesn't attract mass, but rather bends spacetime which has the effect that mass _appears to_ attract mass.
However, since the effect of gravity is indistinguishable from that of a force, gravity is still considered as a force.
4:22 As I pointed out in the comments of the other video, using evidence is Logical Induction.
It's a category error to say that Induction is "Affirming the Consequent". All logical induction has that structure, and it deals with probability rather than deductive certainty. *Only* deductive syllogisms can "affirm the consequent."
So Flatzoid (and Oakley, who loves this even more) are just saying something nonsensical that sounds serious. It's not a real argument you have to take seriously.
well put
For some reason(s) it wasn't as crystal clear as usual but, Flatzoid is one the most dishonest flerfs that I'm aware of.
Telling you, broseph, "No model, no debate" should be the mantra of anyone in the business of arguing with these nuts.
If they don't have a coherent model that explains multiple observations, concurrently, they don't have anything to say.
I wouldn't even say that it has to explain "multiple observations," I'd say that until they have a map that accurately represents distances between locations on the earth, we have nothing to talk about.
If the earth were flat, it would be possible to draw an accurate 2D map - by definition.
Until they have that, there is nothing to talk about.
And someone like Flatzoid can't argue that he's not claiming the earth is flat, just that it isn't a globe. It's literally in his name.
"What's the distance from the North Pole to the equator?"
10K km
"What's the circumference at the equator?"
40K km
That's all you need to know. You can't do that on a flat earth. There is no more to discuss.
08:00 _The mass of something does change..._
I don't think that mass does depend on the position of a thing, though its weight does. (Weight is probably what you meant, though, I dare say.)
Yeah I misspoke
"Affirming the consequent" is a favorite fallacy fallacy of Oakley, who is Fkatzoid's papa flerf.
That diagram that he used actually plots a curve if you follow the leftmost line till it intersects with the next line.(20:47) which only gives more evidence to the globe. 90 degrees on the graph and a 1/4 of a circle hmmmm.
Apart from pressure gradient in the atmosphere, another good debunk, in my opinion, against stupid "pressure needs a container argument" is that how clouds can exert pressure but floats by in the atmosphere WITHOUT a container.
AutoCAD (or any CAD software) allows you to snap a line to a curve at a perpendicular. This means a perpendicular to a curve is mathematically possible.
I did some rough math and to scale the earth, atmosphere, and oceans down to the scale of a bowling ball (a model) the oceans would be less than a millimeter. (I forget the specifics but it’s super small) and at that size you can get that much water to “stick” to it. Granted it may be for other reasons than gravity, but it is indeed a scaled model with the appropriate amount of water on it. Then you just have to spin it at one revolution per day……
Fkatzoid is the most dishonest of all the flerfs.
You misspelled Fkatzoid 😂
How about flipping the density opposed to gravity argument. Saying the weight of the above air causes the air below to be more dense.
That diagram showing different angles to Polaris is so obviously, slap-in-the-face wrong, that flerfs don't see it; all those different observers are looking at different Polaris's, at the same time - quite impossible. All those viewing angles to the same object are only possible from a curved surface.
I listen to this channel with headphones at work normally....this whole thing this week about train tracks and light beams.....broke me. He was sooooo dumb, but not dumb enough to outright give up.
Being fair, and you mentioned this as well... at least the conversation was civil.
08:10 when you elevate something its mass doesn't change, its *weight* does
16:06 I noticed during he debate that this flat earth perspective chart is literally tracing out a semi circle…
4:03 This is an important message about how evidence works! The more advanced version of it is full-on Bayesian reasoning... but I suspect most flat earthers are likely to be ignorant of that, and of how to use it properly. Do you know whether any of them ever mention it? I'm curious now.
The only real debate strategy that I've seen have any real effect was Professor Dave....just call em out in real time and pull few punches!
Some uses of gravity as an independent variable are planetary orbits, the Cavendish experiment, and plumb bobs. Planets obviously have different masses especially rocky planets versus gas giants.
The masses in the Cavendish are physically changed by the experimenter!
Plumb bobs are attracted by the various masses of mountains. Newton discussed this possibility but thought the deflection too small to measure. It was first measured by the Schiehallion experiment in 1774.
Do you also see how his distances on the base line get closer & closer despite being the same length ?
anyone who say "show me the independent/dependent variables" is using a pre-school level of "understanding" of science.
it's just another example of the mindless drivel that flat earthers spew.
nobody who actually does experiments talks like that, any more than a paper on advanced mathematics starts by proving that integers exist.
You did your best. Must have been difficult trying to explain things to people who, at this point, we must believe are just non-capable of understanding basic sentences, let alone Math.
Gravity as the independent variable: Cavendish?
I mean technically you're manipulating the gravitic acceleration by directly manipulating the distance between the centers of mass of the two pairs of masses. Thus it's just a more stringent version of the 'weight goes down as altitude goes up' experiment mentioned. Cavendish removes a couple of potential variables.
The problem is that we can't directly manipulate gravity (yet). If we could directly manipulate gravity there wouldn't be any possible questions about the shape of the Earth, because everything from gravitationally induced nuclear fusion to gravitic space drives become commonplace.
Every video I've seen dealing with Nathan Oakley recently he's been screaming about affirming the consequent, then silencing the reply. At this point flerfs are just giving me a headache.
On earth, elevation can be an independent variable, but the acceleration of gravity is then the dependant variable. This is because the mass of the Earth stays the same. The only way to make gravity the independent variable is to compare different celestial bodies; ie orbits of moons around various planets.
If you want to do the sun rising in the South East, Fkatzoid himself demonstrated that it does. His excuse is that his measurement is off by 5° compared to the globe prediction.
Also on Failzoids colourful diagram the Nautical miles measurement on the baseline are not linear, basically disproving flat earth.
An experiment type I know of that has gravity as the independent variable are micro-boiling drop tower experiments. The point of the experiments are to gather data on how a liquid trasitons to gas in low of zero gravity (really useful for optimization of fuel flow and combustion for space vehicles) a test apparatus is dropped from a tower and observed as it reaches or meets free fall. But Flatzoid doesn’t get the concept of “no weight in free fall” so I’m not sure if it’s a useful example.
The mass will not change if you increase elevation. The weight will as weight is a product of mass and gravity and gravity will decrease as you increase distance.
--
Also, I believe Flatoid said things go down due to density and atmospheric pressure. But we can make vacuum chambers and things will still react to gravity
To manipulate gravity, that is for gravity to be the independent variable, all one has to do is change the mass or the distance between the masses.
This is because, while the independent variable is unaffected by the dependent variable, is not necessarily independent of everything. You can manipulate gravity by manipulating the variables it is dependent on, such as mass and distance.
Has Flatzoid ever solved a physics problem?
Set theory
Flow charts
Cross reference charts
That covers pretty much all fallacies.
When you look at evidence as proof , disproof, confirms and contradicts
12:59 nice try, but they will say "Buyoncy is vertical, not horizontal"
so ask him "how far can you throw a baseball" (a trivial ballistics problem) and watch him flounder
5:04 make sure you say 'whatever your name is' even if it's your friends
The diagram at 15:00. All the lines approximates the shape of a quarter circle in the negative space above them. If I interpret it correctly, where the lines intersect this "curve" you should get 10° difference on the Earth. The length of the shape is just the arc length of a circle sector. We should be able to calculate the radius of the Earth based on this diagram.
Let the arc length be L, the angle between two locations be theta och the radius be R.
We plug in L = theta * R and rearrange for the radius R = L/theta.
We know the angle between two points, which is between 0 nm and 5400 nm, and we get theta = 90° = pi/2 radians.
Lets convert nautical miles to km, 5400 nm = 10000.8 km
Plug into formula for: R = 10000.8/ (pi/2) = 6366.2 km = 3956 miles.
The generally accepted value for the Earths radius is 6378 km or 3963 miles. We are really close. Some could say "within 1%".
Now that you have had three lobotomies will you admit the world is flat?