I have some issues with YouGov. I can only do surveys they suggest, and they are very few and far between. Maybe the app in Italy work’s differently, but I have no idea how to choose what surveys to do when I have time to spare.
I also loved that he ignored the equation on the right in his google search, pressure = force/area. If pressure itself is a force, what is the F in the equation?
@@dave9242 With my kids, I used to call it selective hearing but at least they grew out of that. Poor Failzoid seems stuck at that 9 year old level of mental growth.
@@anotherzombie8330 The one I heard was "Arguing with stupid people is like playing chess with a pigeon -- No matter what you do, the pigeon can just knock off your pieces and claim victory".
I don't think flatties know what debunk means... "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)".. I don't see ANY exposing faults at all, just ad hominem attacks and unfounded claims...
It's crazy when you pull a vacuum and remove all air, air pressure, and any gas to to cause buoyancy objects still fall instead of float or move up or sideways or whatever. Almost like some sort of force is pulling objects down.
I love how he's obviously heard the term "strawman argument" and thinks it sounds clever, so now applies it to everything without understanding what it means.
I know the answer to that, straight out of the Kent Hovind School of Logic. A pound of feathers is heavier than a pound of rocks. Since 'evolutionists believe that we came from rocks' it must follow that rocks have lost some mass and therefore now weigh less than the equivalent weight of feathers. See? - It's obvious when you think about it.
There’s some variation of course, but a quick google search indicates that if you’re buying one pound of gravel in Britain it will probably weigh about 20 kg, whereas buying one pound worth of feathers in Britain will get you about 0.0002492 kg. So definitely a pound of rocks weighs more.
A while back I watched Dave debate Kent Hovind and I thought that Dave had completely destroyed the whole thing before Kent ever said a word. In his initial opening Dave not only explained everything Kent WOULD HAVE issue with but he also one-upped him by saying that Kent's argument is going to be "some book, somewhere says so." and he was 100% correct Kent went straight for the Bible in under 2 minutes using it as his evidence that Dave was wrong. The fact that the debate kept going was a surprise to me. The arbitrator should have stopped it there and forbidden Kent from referencing the Bible. It's not proof nor evidence. But it was Kent's "go to" for the entire rebuttal. I'm not academically talented and many of the things Dave explains goes over my head, but Kent ALWAYS sounds like he's trying to SELL his explanation; like a pushy used car salesman who insists that the utter wreck you're looking at is top of the line, straight off the assembly line quality. As Dave says in this debate, Kent is a conman.
It's why the entire idea of these 'debates' are stupid. They have absolutely no value in terms of ascertaining truth, they're just a spectacle for entertainment.
@@wraitholme Thats why potholer54 is one of the best channels on YT, if you dont know him yet. He usually does not accept debates on a livestream or else but instead makes well researched videos about things that crackheads like Hovind said.
I lurked on kent's channel for a while after that debate and all of his harem were utterly convinced that kent destroyed Dave. It was like a fever dream.
Even a flat earther must concede that the atmosphere has a gradient, the further away from the surface of the earth that you go the less dense the air becomes. That being the case it follows that wherever this apple is the air above it is less dense than the air below it even if by a microscopic amount. If apples moving through the atmosphere is due to air density it would mean that they would rise rather than fall. Flatzoid as usual debunks himself.
The armospheric pressure gradient is a strange one. The flatties SAY they understand it, but, in literally the next sentence, they will say something that completely contradicts that. It's almost as if they are incapable of logic.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt I think they're capable of focusing on one thing at a time and if something else comes along they forget the other so its impossible for them to have any sort of logical consistency.
I just can't handle this "argument" from them. Density only exists when a force is acting on whatever is being acted on. Something super dense doesn't just naturally sink "downward" without gravity. And suddenly, when you admit gravity exists the planet gets very.... round. Flerfs simply seem unable to think that far. Which is upsetting, since it's literally two steps. We're not exactly calculating energy to mass here.
The same genius who thinks pressure is a force. kg * m / s2 (force) is equal to kg * m / s2 / m2 (pressure)? Yes, the pressure dimension can be simplified.
@@iamTheSnark Indeed, however he found a definition of pressure as a force so he just failed to think critically about what he found. Density as a force must have been pulled directly from his arse.
@@graealex pressure is NOT a force. it's enough to look at the dimension of pressure [kg/(ms^2)] to see it's not a force, which would be (kg m)/s^2. however, pressure acting on an area will result in a force. I think that's what you wanted to say.
I think those people have a highly rigid mechanism of self preservation and something we could call a scientific anxiety disorder rooted in the deep disgust at being wrong.. it is so strong it bends their perception of time and space so strongly that they have to believe they are the source of truth and this leads them to believe that we are actually debating our opinions, ideas and beliefs... holy shit how it is wrong.. but again... that protective shield bends what I say into my beliefs against their beliefs... ohhh.. there is no way to argue the existence of concepts that one deems un-arguable, since there exists no absolute authority that decides who is right and who is wrong... the last time a book was written with this in mind, it led to wars, the bible... social consensus through scientific research on the other hand, exists... and you are free to go against it if you want... now... try to build bridges, put cars over them, and lets talk in a few years.
I specifically liked the part, where he googled pressure and started reading only the part that says something about a force. If he would have continued reading, or looked at the side, he might have noticed, that pressure isn't just a force either, strictly speaking, but the force divided by the area it acts on. But gravity isn't a force, because you need to multiply it with the mass first to get to the gravitational force, which is pretty much intuitive after 2 executions in 6th grade.
I agree. Even the definition he cites contradicts him as it states that pressure is when something exerts force on or against an object via physical contact. "continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something in contact with it." If he bothered to read past the part that he highlighted, he would've seen that his definition only implies that pressure is just a way things interact with physical objects via force and not strictly speaking a force per se. Saying otherwise would be like claiming barrel rolls are a type of aircraft or that refraction is a type of light. His arguement also seems to make zero sense. Based on my most charitable interpretation of his arguement, he seems to believe that falling objects exert greater pressure downwards than the air pressure directed upwards so they thus fall. He thus believes that objects naturally exert pressure downwards which is why they fall when they have no supports or he's implicitly admitting that there is a downward force that drags unsupported objects down. The first version of his arguement literally makes zero sense. Anyone who knows newtons 3rd law or has experience with bottle rockets knows that physical objects move in the opposite direction of the force they exert on the natural enviroment. Rockets go in the opposite direction of their exhaust, not the same. If this arguement was in agreement with reality, then objects should all fall upwards away from the surface of the planet. It's also extemely trivial to disprove. Just place your hand any under object that's being held up and if the object is exerting any pressuring downwards, then you should feel the air move against your hand due to the object exerting downwards pressure onto the air. Since this is obviously not true, then Flatzoid is implicitly admitting that objects only 'exert' this pressure when accelerating downward(falling) which would further imply that there is a downward force acting upon the object.
Flatzoid does this all the time. He'll Google things and right there on his own screen are the words that debunk him. He'll still just read the one cherry picked sentence that he thinks proves him right.
It must be nice to a flat earther, you can just make things be true simply be saying it is so. Imagine the power someone would have. We could end all wars simply by saying wars aren't real, or stop world hunger by stating it's fake. Damn I'd love that power.
Like Biden you mean, debunk inflation, debunk rising crime, debunk fuel prices, debunk world war three, whilst causing everything and making everyone poor, democrats are flattards.
@@tonymercer265 What a reasonable person. I sure am glad such fair-minded and not at all extremist individuals are involved in the political process on both sides of the left-right dichotomy
The mental gymnastics that the flat earthers to avoid acknowledging gravity is almost impressive. Everything from magnetism to making up new terms like Downity all to avoid admitting gravity does exist.
_"The mental gymnastics that the flat earthers to avoid acknowledging gravity is almost impressive"_ - and for no reason at all. They could just as well simply use the term "gravity" for the phenomenon that everything always falls down, without ascribing a cause for it. As such, it does not contradict flat Earth.
@@renedekker9806 They need to deny gravity because on a flat Earth it will not point down everywhere. The sides of the disk would experience an oblique gravitational force towards the center of mass of the disk, instead of directly downwards.
And they do not understand that they just blurt out random claims for any effect that all stand beside each other, all claimed "this could be it", and no one in the flat earth spherical bubble makes any attempts to come to ANY coherent conclusion. The sun is 5000 km up, and a few times higher than the clouds (say not more than 100 km, due to crepuscular rays), and rests peacefully in between the clouds. All at the SAME time. All while it MUST move with 1750-3490 kph to make its circle over the earth pizza. Some rockets bonk against the firmament and are stoppes in an instant, other rockets penetrate the firmament ceiling and continue accelerating while plowing through the heavenly waters. And any statement, no matter how absurd, is celebrated as long as you stay in the "earth is flat" doctrin.
My favourite thing is that due to the flat earthers saying pressure is what causes objects to fall, they forget that pressure reduces the higher you go, so why doesn't the higher pressure below push everything upwards?
Man I had this discussion sooooooooooooooooooooo many times with flerfs. They just start to talk about something else, or curse at you, or they just shut up. I stopped talking with those assholes (yes assholes, how rude of me) a long time ago. Or, it falls cuz it falls, you know and don't come with your math magic numbers and chemistryscience because I may not know a lot about astrology but science is stupid and me am smart.
@@thekwoka4707 The irony is that if you had a tall enough container - say, 200,000 meters tall - it wouldn't make any difference whether you sealed the top or not, the pressure differential would be almost exactly the same either way.
@@garrett7211 yeah that too. It’s just barely similar enough to a force that they feel they can get away with substituting gravity with it. So backwards
I love that you're out here combating this bullshit, but I don't know how much more of it I can watch. Every video I watch makes me want to lose my mind. I'll never understand how you can watch all of this and not go crazy
I watch most of his videos, however I never watch the whole episode because it is literally a waste of my time to listen to all that flat-earth nonsense.
This particular flat earther is possibly deeper into the dunning kruger effect that that charlatans he parrots. When someone is this deep into the effect there is no helping them, they have to continue on the chart until they hit the realization they are wrong all on their own. That is the one hope for all these flattards, that they eventually hit that point. Thankfully the dunning kruger chart does indeed have a point of realization on it, it comes not long after they reach the peak and fall off.
I watch them because they remind me of arguments I had with my late father. His trick was to "win" an argument by saying something that would make no sense to any logical person, but since it was a correctly formed sentence in English it was good enough for him to declare victory.
"it will move through the medium because it is denser" if that were universally true, a ball or brick made of lead, for example, should fall through a wooden table with ease.
@@djtomleeuwen As flearthlings are denser than any black hole, flearthlings cannot fall thorugh a wooden table, the wooden table falls into them. In best case the table reaches a stable orbit 😁
@@djtomleeuwen The lighter than air gas between their ears, constrained by a bone container, lets them float above everything, including logic and reason.
I want to hear a flat earther with their "no gravity and no gas pressure without a container" explain how a siphon works. You know the one where liquid flows up a tube from a cup above the water level and then down the tube into another cup.
Oh wow. This one was even more cringey and painful (yet hilarious) than the usual. And who would even dare take on Dave!? Excellent content as always SciManDan!
That happens if you claim to do physics and from a unit point of view you only know inches, miles and miles per hour... I don't think they even understand the differences of lb/lbs/lbm/lbf (citation: "no real wight, but space weight"). Heck even I as a civil engineer have problems getting those right, especially if the other engineer is lazy on the units and I am used to SI units (all hail to SI units!), but my problems in not understanding the differences is on a whole different level.
Yeah, I lost it when he said that. The guy can't even understand how regular communication and language works. He is unable to comprehend normal, everyday sentences. Of course discussing advanced topics like Physics is way beyond him. We can't even fault him for being a flat earther when he can't even have a consistent conversation. His speech is like a shitty chat AI trying to communicate with you, but it's all a jumbled mess of words that almost sound like coherent phrases (but they aren't) and discontinuous topics.
@@johnscaramis2515 In order to have problems understanding composite complex units at another level, you need first to accept the basic units.. the guy is having a debate on the existence of gravity...
And you do not find what dave said the slightest bit odd? I mean density is applying a force on EVERYTHING else in the universe just merely existing, see Machs Principle, and buoyancy not a force? So what is the buoyant force used in science for then, electro-magic-tism or something? "Buoyant Force Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force. Table of Contents What is Buoyant Force? What causes Buoyant Force? Demonstration of Buoyant Force Why does an object float or sink in water? Applications of Buoyant Force Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs What is a Buoyant Force? The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter. The following factors affect buoyant force: the density of the fluid the volume of the fluid displaced the local acceleration due to gravity An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water."
I love him checking the time to be like "Look how long he hasn't been talking directly to us! It's been... oh well only about a minute", like he was expecting to see 4 minutes have gone by. I think he thought the video was longer because he couldn't listen for more than 3 seconds without being confused lol.
No, no, no. I need to take a break from watching these types of videos. I have reached a point where the flat-earthers frustrate me so much that I want to scream. It's not funny anymore how they try to discredit science by showing they don't know what they are talking about. I have a lot of respect for you Dan for exposing yourself to this. Keep up the good work you are doing.🙂
Pressure is not force. Pressure is the way we measure the intensity of a force, i.e. force per unit area. But Dan, I’m disappointed you didn’t use Dersertophile’s “Gravity” clip at the end.
There's a reason he googled "pressure" in order to define "density." Incidentally, it's not because he's a smart man, but he still was able to puzzle out that density's definition would have shut down his entire argument. He's not only not smart, he's a deciever. Not that anyone is surprised.
I was going to say exactly that... even at the start, the basic argument... Pressure, is not a force... it is a concept that joins/related two measured values and also a composite unit of measurement. Yes, force (F [N]) divided by area (A [m^2]) ... We often say we can feel pressure? (haha like the song Under Pressure) ... what we are saying is that we are feeling the integral of the nerve ending signals on our skin that react to the difference of pressure between our internal pressure and the external pressure ... because our body is reacting against the forces applied to it externally ... in theory every force is exerted over an area, point forces are just simplifications for understanding and calculations that result in good approximations. But the concept of force is truly not same as the concept of pressure. Funny facts to think about: the atmospheric pressure we feel is due to the sum of all the air that is attracted by gravity to the center of mass of our earth... the pressure over your hand or your head is due to the column of 11km or so of air above it... etc...
I like how he looked up pressure when density and buoyancy is what was mentioned. Let's dodge what is really being said and go off in another direction, classic!
This is why Professor Dave has never bothered with a counter-response video. From his video about debunking flat earth using the stars: "First, there's this intellectual powerhouse... who tried to respond to my '10 Things That All Flat Eathers Say' by REPEATING the 10 things that all flat earthers say. Great work, Slick!" I hope Flatziod was going through this video blind, because if he did, then he'd realize blathering about pressure next to a vacuum during Dave's intro was not a good idea. Since he argued Dave's point about density and buoyancy before Dave even said it, this is likely the case, and I look forward to seeing more and watching him just rebut with a intellectually inept "Nuh-uh!"
Hello. I am a student. I have now worked out the correct value for gravity (within acceptable error) in two different locations. Note I said GRAVITY and not RELATIVE DENSITY. This is because I was measuring a force or something that acted like it and not the values of stuff per unit volume of different materials.
Hopefully you did not use the Buoyant Force as professor dave already deleted this from mainstream science at 11:45 just coz, so you best never use the buoyant force again ok! Oh and forget that gravity bit in there, NONE of it exists ok, you got it? Buoyant Force Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force. Table of Contents What is Buoyant Force? What causes Buoyant Force? Demonstration of Buoyant Force Why does an object float or sink in water? Applications of Buoyant Force Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs What is a Buoyant Force? The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter. The following factors affect buoyant force: the density of the fluid the volume of the fluid displaced the local acceleration due to gravity An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
Well to be fair I have used, in my research, an absolute gravimeter that measures gravity by dropping a mass in a vacuum (hmm density, buoyancy....). With this apparatus we can measure gravity down to 8 decimal places. Apart from measuring gravity at different places we can actually measure the changes in gravity due to earth tides. Yes the solid earth itself has tides and we can predict them.
Love how he starts by saying density and buoyancy are forces, then goes on to prove it by (incorrectly) using pressure to explain why stuff falls, completely ignoring his previous claim.
Yeah, picks up the object and says "I'm experiencing pressure between the object and my fingers as the objects weight pushes on my skin and of course the weight is just the mass times the gravitati... Oh shit".
I think that Flatzoid's problem is with language. As he isn't a native speaker he sometimes chooses the wrong word. For example when he says he has "debunked" Prof Dave, he meant to say "spoke gibberish over a video". Or "proven" density disequilibrium, he meant to say "spoke gibberish about gravity".
Flatzoid isn’t actually a flat earther. He just misunderstood the words used to describe the earth in English and nobody knew to correct him. It’s not his fault! 😃
A vid featuring a debunk of a debunking, where the one debunked is trying to debunk another debunking... In a case like this is all comes down to logic an applied technology, in this case physics.. And the one with the weakest arguments ( Flatzoid ), has to wear the cloak of shame..
I would love to hear his explanation why an object in space with no gravity around but yet denser than the vacuum surrounding it don't "fall" in any direction. Ah yes, space doesn't exist. How could i forget this? What a coincidental convinience, not having to explain what he can't explain
Even if "space" doesn't exist in Flattardia, vacuum chambers most definitely do. I once raised this point in a discussion with a flerf. He said that every object in the universe wants to travel to the center of said universe - which fortunately is placed smack in the center of the Earth. He did not explain what senses rocks use to detect which direction is the center, and what method of propulsion to travel there in a vacuum.
@@FrikInCasualMode I don't understand how they can see something and then immediately pretend it doesn't exist. Logic denial at its finest. This _MUST_ be religious in nature. There's no other way people can remain literally delusional, and expect to be taken seriously. I guarantee he ends his streams with some scammy sermon of some type of another.
If he had googled the definition of "gravity" like he did "pressure", he would have seen this... Notice the second word... "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."
It's a de-facto force, because it causes acceleration. It's just not something we consider a _traditional_ force because there is no energy-consuming mechanism as the causal agent. It's still very much a force in terms of modelling at the Newtonian level. You just have to differentiate it from traditional forces when moving to relativity. Obviously, density is none of these things. The whole density inequlibrium thing, or whatever they call it, is just insanity.
I think the most telling thing in this response is that the poor guy wasn't even smart enough to crop out or blur the right side of his Google search results... which showed the equation for pressure... disproving his own claim that it's a force in real-time.
Unbelievably, even while debating FTFE, playing the debate simultaneously on both FTFE's channel AND Failzoids, and being absolutely destroyed he was constantly proclaiming how thoroughly HE was destroying FTFE! The guy has something really screwed up in his way of thinking because he certainly wasn't winning anything except the booby prize. He was at least a lot friendlier and not abusive like the majority of the other flerfs at least and does seem like he might, maybe be starting to think a bit more about his beliefs. Ranty came around, STST came around along with plenty of others we don't hear about because they usually just vanish out of embarrassment but those 2 at least, tolerated ALL the flerfy hate and stuck around and stuck to reality too.
So this guy googles pressure and accepts the definition, but if he was to Google the shape of the Earth, he would no longer trust Google. Very selective.
I watch Professor Dave. He's a smart cookie who breaks things down very succinctly. The hallmark of someone who knows exactly what they're talking about.
However, that's not always the case. Case in point: ruclips.net/video/w5Y_V7CgmTg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ohcx72gwhYA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/NGNczRIkxD8/видео.html
Changes the argument from gas needing a container to needing containment, "the act, process, or means of keeping something within limits", which gravity does quite nicely.
It is even in the ideal gas law, which says that a gas that is being acted on by an outside force other than direct interaction with a solid containment makes it "not ideal"
I was talking to Flatzoid yesterday about snipers requiring the need to take coriolis effect into account when shooting over long distances. He claims they don't actually do that. I asked him if he had spoken to some snipers about it and he claimed he has, but couldn't tell me who he spoke to. He also mentioned that he will be attending an event soon at a firing range where he will ask some long range shooters if they take coriolis into account and will get back to me. I'm definitely looking forward to that.
Not sure if that was the same thread, but he was very evasive when being asked for specific names and just said "multiple" or so. I called him out for "pulling a McCarthy" there ....
It’s the “500 witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection” all over again. I’m saying this, because the majority of flatties seem to be getting their earth model from the bible.
In an age where you can watch a live video feed from an orbiting space station _anytime you want on your phone,_ we somehow still have this fella here.
Relative Density Disequalibrium (RDD) is so easy to disprove. It can be done using one of its adherents favourite methods of demonstrating the concept; the Density Tower. 1. Place a transparent, sealable, container (like a jam jar,) on a level table. 2. Make a "density tower" in the jar using fluids of different densities and fit the lid. Observation: After settling, the fluid layers are parallel to the bottom of the jar and the table. 3. Lay the jar on its side and allow fluids to settle. Observation: The fluid layers are still parallel to the table, but not the bottom of the jar. Nothing inside the sealed jar has changed. The density, bouyancy and their relationship to each other remain exactly the same. According to RDD, the fluid layers should have remained parallel to the bottom of the jar. They didn't. Therefore, there must be some type of external influence being exerted on the fluids.
Nope. That's not how it works. Every time you find a way to disprove RDD, flatearthers will come up with some new word salad to change the way it supposedly works.
I would like to hear the news / weatherforecast on a flat earth. "A high pressure container over the Azores causes good weather in Western Europe. The high pressure container over Russia forces low pressure containers from the Arctic to Great Britain, Denmark and Northern Germany and causes lots of snow fall. We want to remember our viewers that snow falls because of buoyancy. A dozen containers got lost from a conatiner ship and started swirling around. Florida is now preparing for the cyclone "Evergreen". And now the Chrismas speech of Flat Earth President Eric Dubay."
I love how they use pressure in a container. Fun fact, it is constant in a container. What do they think is the reason their ears pop when they go uphill enough or get on a plane to fly?
@@chrisantoniou4366 yes but they read things about ideal gas laws and apply them to the real world all the while arguing you can’t use any mathematical model because you aren’t taking every single thing that may or may not be present no matter how small the effect might be.
@@murph8411 I agree with you, but these idiots are denying the existence of gravity and that this is the reason you need a physical "container" for the atmosphere. By pointing out that a pressure gradient in a sealed container also exists, they cannot deny the existence of gravity or the central role it plays in confining the atmosphere to the Earth. The fact remains that no matter WHAT flat Earthers claim about the real world, they are completely and utterly wrong if they think the Earth is flat. All the bullshit about space being fake, NASA being liars and inventing the globe, gravity being fake, the stars being stuck on a rotating dome, the Sun and Moon being "local", are all demonstrable lies they had to invent to justify their ignorant and paranoid beliefs.
I love how well Prof Dave nailed the "but quite comically, most flat earthers don't even do this, most of you address this problem by simply listing two words: density and buoyancy". The look on his face as he just makes the claim that density is pressure, and begins an absurd condescending scene on proving pressure is a force, rather than focusing on density, his original claim.
Right. Now I won't blame someone for not understanding that equation.. but if you use it in an argument you better understand it lmao. I wonder if they even processed the equation being there.
Have to be honest Dan, you have given respect to absolutely the best person who lays waste to these absolute plonkers - if you had to respect anyone in this world, you know you chose well - absolute legend as are you - they are ridiculous in comparison. Enjoy the running mate! I’ve lately took it up myself, there we go!
I found it hilarious when he googles "what is pressure" to try and prove that pressure is a force, but then doesn't notice on the right side of the screen where it says pressure = force/area. He chooses to be pedantic about gravity being a force but then doesnt apply that same standard to his definition of pressure.
I agree, but PLEASE don't replace "Thanks Bob". It's just TOO precious. Can we not have "Thanks Bob AND Dave" perhaps? It's up there with CC's wife in the kitchen and the guys with the laser having to ask the guy furthest away to lift up his marker with the hole in it to then be able to see the laser and the leader saying "Hmm. Interesting". All absolute CLASSICS LOL.
They are opposite concepts. "Thanks Bob" is sarcasm, as a flat earth believer accidentally proved the earth's rotation. The best way to thank Professor Dave would be more channel subscriptions (incidentally, he has long since moved on from this idiocy and is putting out some great educational content, enough to bring anyone to about first-year undergraduate level in Physics, Chemistry or Geology).
Ok... "Thanks dave for just pressing delete on the buoyant force.... cheers I guess" see 11:45 in this very video... I cannot believe you are all supporting this nonsense? Buoyant Force Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force. Table of Contents What is Buoyant Force? What causes Buoyant Force? Demonstration of Buoyant Force Why does an object float or sink in water? Applications of Buoyant Force Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs What is a Buoyant Force? The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter. The following factors affect buoyant force: the density of the fluid the volume of the fluid displaced the local acceleration due to gravity An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
@@fruit3193 This was my point silly, I am not a flat earther, the Buoyant Force is a globe earth concept which contains gravity, yet at 11:45 Dave said its not a force... Why are you lot deleting 2500 years of physics history for no apparent reason to do so? You are so scared and nervous of flat earthers, that you totally missed the point, YES gravity is in there, so why is Dave pressing delete on it silly!??
I LOVE that they use the density argument. The ONLY reason air rises in water is BECAUSE of gravity. If there was no gravity then the air and the water would have absolutely no reason to move in any direction. Hilarious
Ben seriously do you not see how Dave deleting the Buoyant Force is way more ridiculus than anything you would have got from a flat earther.. Please explain as no one can seem to: 11:45 Buoyant Force Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force. Table of Contents What is Buoyant Force? What causes Buoyant Force? Demonstration of Buoyant Force Why does an object float or sink in water? Applications of Buoyant Force Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs What is a Buoyant Force? The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter. The following factors affect buoyant force: the density of the fluid the volume of the fluid displaced the local acceleration due to gravity An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
@@CNCmachiningisfun Yep so tiresome as your brain is working overtime trying to answer why the hell Professor Dave is literally saying the Buoyant Force DOES NOT EXIST! That is false, and pseudo-science as IF you went to high school they all teach you about it and their is no place to go other than personal attack mode instead of attacking Dave who is the one pretending the Buoyant Force is not a Force and you are defending his lies. Psst you do not have to read every comment on here btw, albeit I know you want to get friends and type the same old copy paste routine BEFORE I started doing it you damn hypocrit! CNCmachiningisfun 16 hours ago @Gleem CLUELESS flerfs! CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs! CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs! (different post)
Air Pressure Requires a container? Yeah, Gravity is a great container. It holds things like Air to the surface of the Earth. Oh, and climb a really tall mountain, or fly an open cockpit plane to 20,000 feet and stay up there a while. Did you ever wonder why Military Pilots all wear oxygen masks? Because when they fly as high as they do, you need supplemental oxygen (and even higher, a pressure suit - like the U2 or SR71 and probably many others). So yeah, the air pressure at the ground is significantly higher than at altitude. In fact, and 200 miles up, there is almost Zero pressure, because gravity has pulled most air to the ground and there is a gradient going up - it isn't constant from ground to the top. Also note that Gravity works in a vacuum. Things still fall down in a vacuum - there is no density or buoyancy in a vacuum.
I just discovered this guy recently... I had no ideea there are still people in our time that cannot understand even a little bit of physics... I love how you point out how they cannot understand they lost a battle only they were fighting :))) ps. Excuse my grammar
My first run in with failzoid was way back when on, I believe, Conspiracy Catz' channel he was peddling the Ether. Even back then he was posting high quality word salad with a side dish of complete gibberish and pretended that promoting hypothesises that have been debunked for several decades and which he clearly doesn't understand himself is the pinnacle of critical thinking.
I have to retract my initiomal response. It wasn't flatzoid peddling the Ether, it was gleem. Sorry, but to be fair: After a while all these flerfs somehow blur together into a stupid mess. Flatzoid delivering the most incredible (inedible?) word salad is still true, though.
Unfortunately, we live in age of popular ignorance surrounded by prodigous information, where an individual can take their lack of information and spread it around on the internet finding equally uninformed and unenlightened individuals to agree with them. They just dont do the hard work or use common sense. This type of ignorance is abundant in modern society. We see it in other areas too, denial of historical events, ie holocaust. In politics, denial of elections in USA, etc. The common belief that one's beliefs are as valid as another's is widespread, when it is the merit of these beliefs and there factual accuracy that matters.
...and to paraphrase someone earlier, the object would move towards the less dense matter which in this case would be up. What none of them can understand is that in a closed container the pressure is uniform throughout and therefore you could not have a pressure gradient..
@@kevinmould6979 Exactly!!! But then again, what do we know? We're just ball earth sheep that can't think for ourselves. I'll check the first random result on Google to make sure this logic is correct.🤣
@@kevinmould6979 That's not entirely correct, because even in a closed container gravity acts on the gas, leading to a pressure gradient. But from a technical/engineering point of view, that can be neglected.
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ hello thanks for watching, congratulations you have selected as a great Winner. Quickly send a direct message above to acknowledge your prize thank you❤️........
I have tried that on a few flat earthers - they never answer. You can also rub it in by downloading an app which can read the Accelerometer directly into x, y and z directions. Set to m/s2 and lay the phone on its back. I don't need to tell you what Z number comes up, but flat earthers won't like it.
I love how he can google that "pressure is force over area", and therefore not the same as just force, but completely ignore that. On the right side of screen is even a formula for pressure and different units, but no mention of that from Flatzoid.
The first thing you learn in physics lessons is that get your units right is MORE important than getting the numbers right. When you do not come out with the right unit, you effed up your formula. Was it Flatzoid who wanted to calculate something for a change, and juggled around with numbers in random order until he arrived at the number he wanted? Leaving ANY units of his numbers aside?
That was 5th grade, I remember I brought my model railroad along so that we could derive the law of speed from experimental observation.
Model railways are also fantastic for learning electronics. Just like how in school, you'd place a light bulb to complete the circuit, the rails are a broken circuit and the motor in the loco completes it... I also got in some great soldering iron practice building my railway...
I love how every flerf'er (but esp this one) say they "have the ability to think for ourselves", when they literally use the same phrases used by everyone else. Its like arguing that Great White sharks are all herbivores then saying "I can see that because Im not a sheep who thinks like everyone else".."Sheep" and "everyone else" meaning ppl who are educated and comprehend scientific fact when they see it, of course. Its literally denial and nothing else.. except well, maybe paranoia.
Waters above waters below. Even the people that made religion knew about pressure, and the lower the object goes the more pressure it gets. Also, as far as my eyes can see, the earth is flat(ish). However, there's something that shows me that there're bigger heights to look at the earth from, called sun and moon (the two major ones, besides quintillions if other stars and satellites). So, while it "may" look flat looking from the level of the field, I can't directly prove that it's a roundish 3D form. But it can be proven indirectly, something that they constantly divert from.
Yeah it's responses like that that show, to me at least, that these people are not interested in 'discovering the truth', but rather that they are far more concerned with protecting their narrative in which they are "neo in the matrix", people who know more than literally anyone else. Trying to debate a flat earther would yield the same results as talking to a wall.
So why don’t they go to the edge, take a picture or video, prove we’ve all been lied to, and collect their Nobel prize. I really wonder why they don’t do that?
It is protected by a singular icebreaker ship that can go from the north wall to the south wall in minutes/hours somehow. Even though they are slow ships but logickz don't exist here buddy
When the flerf repeatedly uses the term "strawman" and doesn't realise that's exactly what he's doing to Professor Dave's arguments by picking a tiny part where he can scrutinise semantics and parrot a word-salad in response 😂
That's basically the MO of right-wing nuts, just say the name of a logical fallacy and proclaim victory, because they heard a "smart" person do that once and they think it makes them sound "smart". It's even funnier when they say it like "he's doing a strawman" like they're still five years old and haven't figured out how adults speak yet.
13:20 - I'd also like to know how he'd explain what would happen if he let that object go by throwing it up in the air rather than simply letting it go... and why it wouldn't then go upwards forever with its "relative equilibrium"...
I love that when he Googled "Pressure" on the right of the screen is the formula for pressure which is p=f/a. Pressure = FORCE divided by area. So how can pressure be a force if you have to have a force to figure pressure? How did you miss this Dan?
It's the measure of a force being applied over an area. This force is usually the kinetic force of the particles creating that pressure, which naturally pushes in all directions. This doesn't explain why particles of higher atomic or molecular masses have a tendency to move downward (relative to being somewhat near the surface of the Earth) at a greater force than less massive particles.
@@t3hsilarn I am well aware of what pressure is. My point is the fact the man in the video (not Dan) characterized pressure as a force when pressure is obviously NOT a force, and it even says so in the definition he references for his video.
Hope you guys liked the video! I love using YouGov to make easy cash! Click my link: www.inflcr.co/SHF9a #YouGovPartner
Debunk Archaix
You should take one EXPATTAFFY1 He is truly a piece of work.
ruclips.net/channel/UCZdwl5A7besljn7enHhfb2Qvideos
He just loves AD HOMINEM attacks.
Me and Dave live in the same city. I can tell you he as confident ad soud online as he is in person. STONE COLD!
Link does not work
I have some issues with YouGov. I can only do surveys they suggest, and they are very few and far between. Maybe the app in Italy work’s differently, but I have no idea how to choose what surveys to do when I have time to spare.
Imagine thinking buoyancy exists without gravity.
I just can't get my head around how they think buoyancy knows what direction up is...
@@nightfox6738 Because they think the only direction IS up.
Imagine thinking potheads are productive. 💁
I can’t. But then, I’m not flat- tarded. ….
@@unbroken1010 potheads can be very productive, Greig aka FTFE is always blazing during his videos
How Flatzoid hasn't won a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking discoveries that overturn all of physics is beyond me.
😂😂
Thanks for making me laugh.
However Flatzoid has won the ignoramus prize for peanut brains 😂.
Engineers are pissing themselves listening at this shit . Please go back to school but , this time listen .
Maybe his "prize" got lost in those missing frames.😂
This guy is so smart yet he can't point the camera to his own face, amazing.
I was thinking the same thing. He can't keep his face in frame, how hard is that?
Amazing comment lmao
@@LadyDath Don't be too hard on him. With a head the size of his, it is not easy to point the camera.
He has got he camera on the angle of his head...but the curvature of the earth has it lopping the top of his head.
Love that he googled ''what is pressure'' and seems happy with the answer , but hasn't googled ''what is gravity'' to see how that works!
I also loved that he ignored the equation on the right in his google search, pressure = force/area. If pressure itself is a force, what is the F in the equation?
I also love how he never googled density to find out that its not a force either...
Selective learning.😂
I love how he earlier said pressure didn't exist unless it was in a container, yet it's the so-called explanation for gravity
@@dave9242 With my kids, I used to call it selective hearing but at least they grew out of that. Poor Failzoid seems stuck at that 9 year old level of mental growth.
Love it when they try so hard to disprove gravity and end up proving it.
“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”
- Albert Einstein
"Arguing with stupid people is like wrestling with a pig in the mud - you both wind up muddy, but the pig likes it."
- Some Guy I Forgot The Name of
@@anotherzombie8330 The one I heard was "Arguing with stupid people is like playing chess with a pigeon -- No matter what you do, the pigeon can just knock off your pieces and claim victory".
@@nikkiofthevalley isnt it like"...no matter what you do, the pidgeon will shit on the chessboard and walk around like it won"
@@Aochso Correct.
"Never argue with a stupid person; they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I don't think flatties know what debunk means... "expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief)".. I don't see ANY exposing faults at all, just ad hominem attacks and unfounded claims...
Debunking means to get out of bed right...? Or is that un-bunking...? Lol
@@alltaira5922 That would confuse the flerfs.
The Flat Earth Dictionary 3rd Edition defines "Debunk" as "To refute an idea or belief with no empirical evidence"
Interesting...
Who cares you all lazy pothead gamers 😜
@@alltaira5922 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
It's night time down here in Australia so I was watching in bed & was rolling around laughing so hard I debunked myself
It's crazy when you pull a vacuum and remove all air, air pressure, and any gas to to cause buoyancy objects still fall instead of float or move up or sideways or whatever. Almost like some sort of force is pulling objects down.
They think that "pulling a vacuum" means moving the Hoover from one room to the other.
@@pauldowding8185 lol I remember professor Dave says in a video “vacuums don’t suck” 😂😂😂
@@emmamarani6550 in this very video the reacter is watching
@@pauldowding8185 correction: they don't think. All they can do is believe. If they could think, they would not be flattards.
We actually just did this in science class in middle school while working on Newton's laws, including gravity... This is for 8th graders mind you.
I love how he's obviously heard the term "strawman argument" and thinks it sounds clever, so now applies it to everything without understanding what it means.
Dave thoroughly destroyed them, then washed his hands of it.
Prof Dave: takes a breath
Flatzoid: “you see? This guy doesn’t know anything!”
Oh my non existing god 🤣🤣🤣
@@thewatcher6312 or, in the words of Bender "Oh your God!" :D
Imagine that these guys wouldn’t understand even if explained the riddle…what’s heavier a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers.
I know the answer to that, straight out of the Kent Hovind School of Logic. A pound of feathers is heavier than a pound of rocks. Since 'evolutionists believe that we came from rocks' it must follow that rocks have lost some mass and therefore now weigh less than the equivalent weight of feathers. See? - It's obvious when you think about it.
He would definitely try to explain to you that a pound of rocks is heavier
There’s some variation of course, but a quick google search indicates that if you’re buying one pound of gravel in Britain it will probably weigh about 20 kg, whereas buying one pound worth of feathers in Britain will get you about 0.0002492 kg. So definitely a pound of rocks weighs more.
@@daerdevvyl4314 💀
@@daerdevvyl4314 I see what you did there. Clever.
A while back I watched Dave debate Kent Hovind and I thought that Dave had completely destroyed the whole thing before Kent ever said a word. In his initial opening Dave not only explained everything Kent WOULD HAVE issue with but he also one-upped him by saying that Kent's argument is going to be "some book, somewhere says so." and he was 100% correct Kent went straight for the Bible in under 2 minutes using it as his evidence that Dave was wrong. The fact that the debate kept going was a surprise to me. The arbitrator should have stopped it there and forbidden Kent from referencing the Bible. It's not proof nor evidence. But it was Kent's "go to" for the entire rebuttal. I'm not academically talented and many of the things Dave explains goes over my head, but Kent ALWAYS sounds like he's trying to SELL his explanation; like a pushy used car salesman who insists that the utter wreck you're looking at is top of the line, straight off the assembly line quality. As Dave says in this debate, Kent is a conman.
It's why the entire idea of these 'debates' are stupid. They have absolutely no value in terms of ascertaining truth, they're just a spectacle for entertainment.
@@wraitholme Thats why potholer54 is one of the best channels on YT, if you dont know him yet. He usually does not accept debates on a livestream or else but instead makes well researched videos about things that crackheads like Hovind said.
Kent was not prepared for that xD
@@wraitholme they are useful to people interested in the impact of ideology and the psychology of people who commit logical fallacies.
I lurked on kent's channel for a while after that debate and all of his harem were utterly convinced that kent destroyed Dave. It was like a fever dream.
Damn, I love Dave's presentation and way of speaking.
"If that's something you can't understand, that's not my problem." Legend!
I love that Professor Dave’s position is supported by reason and calculations. Flatzoid’s is supported by incredulity, nun uh, and semantics.
I feel like every flat earth response to peoples arguments is "nuh uh"
Even a flat earther must concede that the atmosphere has a gradient, the further away from the surface of the earth that you go the less dense the air becomes. That being the case it follows that wherever this apple is the air above it is less dense than the air below it even if by a microscopic amount. If apples moving through the atmosphere is due to air density it would mean that they would rise rather than fall. Flatzoid as usual debunks himself.
It's going to be bad weather over here, the air pressure is low.
On a flat earth they don't have something like 'weather'.
The armospheric pressure gradient is a strange one. The flatties SAY they understand it, but, in literally the next sentence, they will say something that completely contradicts that. It's almost as if they are incapable of logic.
@@JohnSmith-ux3tt I think they're capable of focusing on one thing at a time and if something else comes along they forget the other so its impossible for them to have any sort of logical consistency.
Flat Earther.
Concede.
Nope, you've lost me there, I'm afraid.
I just can't handle this "argument" from them.
Density only exists when a force is acting on whatever is being acted on.
Something super dense doesn't just naturally sink "downward" without gravity. And suddenly, when you admit gravity exists the planet gets very.... round.
Flerfs simply seem unable to think that far. Which is upsetting, since it's literally two steps. We're not exactly calculating energy to mass here.
The genius who thinks density is a force. Thanks Dan and keep up the good work.
The same genius who thinks pressure is a force.
kg * m / s2 (force) is equal to kg * m / s2 / m2 (pressure)? Yes, the pressure dimension can be simplified.
@@iamTheSnark Hmm? Pressure is a phenomenon that acts as a force on objects.
@@iamTheSnark Indeed, however he found a definition of pressure as a force so he just failed to think critically about what he found. Density as a force must have been pulled directly from his arse.
@@graealex pressure is NOT a force. it's enough to look at the dimension of pressure [kg/(ms^2)] to see it's not a force, which would be (kg m)/s^2.
however, pressure acting on an area will result in a force. I think that's what you wanted to say.
@@tobiaslang3621 That is literally what I wrote...
Watching this has left me with an urge to apologise on behalf of rational South Africans, not all of us are like that.
yeah the accent got me bad... As South Africans, we don't claim him
@@RancidAlic3 RIIIIGHT? LOL!
Most South Africans i know are acctually intelligent people (real intelligence of course) not a self deluded sheep 🤣
As an American who's partner is South African, I know.
Don't worry. Only an idiot would generalise like that.
He sits there full of selfconfidence, and gets it all wrong. Very funny, thanks Dan!
he is one of those people with average intelligence that speaks with an abundance of confidence.........same as a used car salesman
@@perry92964 I think you’re being kind by crediting him with average intelligence, but otherwise good point 👍
I think those people have a highly rigid mechanism of self preservation and something we could call a scientific anxiety disorder rooted in the deep disgust at being wrong.. it is so strong it bends their perception of time and space so strongly that they have to believe they are the source of truth and this leads them to believe that we are actually debating our opinions, ideas and beliefs... holy shit how it is wrong.. but again... that protective shield bends what I say into my beliefs against their beliefs... ohhh.. there is no way to argue the existence of concepts that one deems un-arguable, since there exists no absolute authority that decides who is right and who is wrong... the last time a book was written with this in mind, it led to wars, the bible... social consensus through scientific research on the other hand, exists... and you are free to go against it if you want... now... try to build bridges, put cars over them, and lets talk in a few years.
@@tjfSIM It is even more hillarious if you watch Daves original video. He checks all the boxes for the things Dave said about flat earthers.
Full blown Top-Leftness.
I like how he can’t even get his camera pointed in the right direction yet wants to act super smug about everything
That’ll be due his own density… 😂
He just wants to give us a good view of the vast empty space in his cranium via his nostrils. Can't argue with a good ol booger cam.
I want 360 camera view in space till then sit down
I specifically liked the part, where he googled pressure and started reading only the part that says something about a force. If he would have continued reading, or looked at the side, he might have noticed, that pressure isn't just a force either, strictly speaking, but the force divided by the area it acts on. But gravity isn't a force, because you need to multiply it with the mass first to get to the gravitational force, which is pretty much intuitive after 2 executions in 6th grade.
I agree. Even the definition he cites contradicts him as it states that pressure is when something exerts force on or against an object via physical contact.
"continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something in contact with it."
If he bothered to read past the part that he highlighted, he would've seen that his definition only implies that pressure is just a way things interact with physical objects via force and not strictly speaking a force per se. Saying otherwise would be like claiming barrel rolls are a type of aircraft or that refraction is a type of light. His arguement also seems to make zero sense. Based on my most charitable interpretation of his arguement, he seems to believe that falling objects exert greater pressure downwards than the air pressure directed upwards so they thus fall. He thus believes that objects naturally exert pressure downwards which is why they fall when they have no supports or he's implicitly admitting that there is a downward force that drags unsupported objects down. The first version of his arguement literally makes zero sense. Anyone who knows newtons 3rd law or has experience with bottle rockets knows that physical objects move in the opposite direction of the force they exert on the natural enviroment. Rockets go in the opposite direction of their exhaust, not the same. If this arguement was in agreement with reality, then objects should all fall upwards away from the surface of the planet. It's also extemely trivial to disprove. Just place your hand any under object that's being held up and if the object is exerting any pressuring downwards, then you should feel the air move against your hand due to the object exerting downwards pressure onto the air. Since this is obviously not true, then Flatzoid is implicitly admitting that objects only 'exert' this pressure when accelerating downward(falling) which would further imply that there is a downward force acting upon the object.
I'd probably get that down too, if I watched two of my classmates get execu-...... wait. This is a dialect difference isn't it?... nevermind.
Its funny how he checked the definition of pressure online but didn't do the same from buoyancy. He knew he would get caught, in 4K. LOL
He probably did and had to restart his video recording lol
@@nightfox6738 haha… quite possible…
Flat earthers and personal incredulity are never far enough… 😁
I was thinking the same. He says it's due to density and buoyancy, and then looks up pressure instead.
He's so mentally unstable, it might have shattered his world view... seeing in black and white that he's wrong.
Flatzoid does this all the time. He'll Google things and right there on his own screen are the words that debunk him. He'll still just read the one cherry picked sentence that he thinks proves him right.
It must be nice to a flat earther, you can just make things be true simply be saying it is so. Imagine the power someone would have. We could end all wars simply by saying wars aren't real, or stop world hunger by stating it's fake. Damn I'd love that power.
Not that different from current political atmosphere
@@displayer6023 I was gonna say you don't have to be a flat earther to do that... look at Trump.
Like Biden you mean, debunk inflation, debunk rising crime, debunk fuel prices, debunk world war three, whilst causing everything and making everyone poor, democrats are flattards.
@@tonymercer265 What a reasonable person. I sure am glad such fair-minded and not at all extremist individuals are involved in the political process on both sides of the left-right dichotomy
@@displayer6023 your TDS is showing.
Professor Dave is great, I especially love the 4 videos of debunking the flat Earth without using any science.
The mental gymnastics that the flat earthers to avoid acknowledging gravity is almost impressive. Everything from magnetism to making up new terms like Downity all to avoid admitting gravity does exist.
_"The mental gymnastics that the flat earthers to avoid acknowledging gravity is almost impressive"_ - and for no reason at all. They could just as well simply use the term "gravity" for the phenomenon that everything always falls down, without ascribing a cause for it. As such, it does not contradict flat Earth.
I like "droppity".
@@renedekker9806 They need to deny gravity because on a flat Earth it will not point down everywhere. The sides of the disk would experience an oblique gravitational force towards the center of mass of the disk, instead of directly downwards.
And they do not understand that they just blurt out random claims for any effect that all stand beside each other, all claimed "this could be it", and no one in the flat earth spherical bubble makes any attempts to come to ANY coherent conclusion.
The sun is 5000 km up, and a few times higher than the clouds (say not more than 100 km, due to crepuscular rays), and rests peacefully in between the clouds. All at the SAME time. All while it MUST move with 1750-3490 kph to make its circle over the earth pizza.
Some rockets bonk against the firmament and are stoppes in an instant, other rockets penetrate the firmament ceiling and continue accelerating while plowing through the heavenly waters.
And any statement, no matter how absurd, is celebrated as long as you stay in the "earth is flat" doctrin.
@@1ermejo4ever1 _"a flat Earth it will not point down everywhere"_ - they can just define it to point down. They don't need to ascribe a cause for it.
My favourite thing is that due to the flat earthers saying pressure is what causes objects to fall, they forget that pressure reduces the higher you go, so why doesn't the higher pressure below push everything upwards?
Man I had this discussion sooooooooooooooooooooo many times with flerfs. They just start to talk about something else, or curse at you, or they just shut up. I stopped talking with those assholes (yes assholes, how rude of me) a long time ago.
Or, it falls cuz it falls, you know and don't come with your math magic numbers and chemistryscience because I may not know a lot about astrology but science is stupid and me am smart.
Also,o how does containerized atmosphere have varying pressure at all?
@@thekwoka4707 The irony is that if you had a tall enough container - say, 200,000 meters tall - it wouldn't make any difference whether you sealed the top or not, the pressure differential would be almost exactly the same either way.
@@brucetucker4847 Yep, because of gravity, ironically enough.
@@brucetucker4847 why do airplanes pressurize the cabin at high altitudes? Why do athletes do high-altitude training?
I love how he just equates density with pressure as if they’re synonymous, then uses that to claim that density is a force because pressure is a force
Also, pressure is not itself a force. It is a measurement of force per unit area.
@@garrett7211 yeah that too. It’s just barely similar enough to a force that they feel they can get away with substituting gravity with it. So backwards
I love that you're out here combating this bullshit, but I don't know how much more of it I can watch. Every video I watch makes me want to lose my mind. I'll never understand how you can watch all of this and not go crazy
I watch most of his videos, however I never watch the whole episode because it is literally a waste of my time to listen to all that flat-earth nonsense.
Today during this video I was actually thinking the same thing!
Me too. It's sooo tedious! 🙄
This particular flat earther is possibly deeper into the dunning kruger effect that that charlatans he parrots. When someone is this deep into the effect there is no helping them, they have to continue on the chart until they hit the realization they are wrong all on their own. That is the one hope for all these flattards, that they eventually hit that point. Thankfully the dunning kruger chart does indeed have a point of realization on it, it comes not long after they reach the peak and fall off.
I watch them because they remind me of arguments I had with my late father. His trick was to "win" an argument by saying something that would make no sense to any logical person, but since it was a correctly formed sentence in English it was good enough for him to declare victory.
"it will move through the medium because it is denser" if that were universally true, a ball or brick made of lead, for example, should fall through a wooden table with ease.
Even flerfs would fall through a wooden table as they are very dense.
Lighter objects would fall slower than heavier ones.
@@djtomleeuwen flerfs(and science deniers in general) are an enigma..their heads are so dense...yet when you look into it.. It's as empty as the void
@@djtomleeuwen As flearthlings are denser than any black hole, flearthlings cannot fall thorugh a wooden table, the wooden table falls into them. In best case the table reaches a stable orbit 😁
@@djtomleeuwen The lighter than air gas between their ears, constrained by a bone container, lets them float above everything, including logic and reason.
I want to hear a flat earther with their "no gravity and no gas pressure without a container" explain how a siphon works. You know the one where liquid flows up a tube from a cup above the water level and then down the tube into another cup.
I just want them to explain why air pressure drops with altitude if it in a closed container
Oh wow. This one was even more cringey and painful (yet hilarious) than the usual. And who would even dare take on Dave!? Excellent content as always SciManDan!
My thoughts exactly lol
I know, right? Professor Dave is one of the most IMPRESSIVE individuals I've ever seen.
Professor Dave: "density and buoyancy are not forces".
Flerf: "No, pressure is a force"
Right...
That happens if you claim to do physics and from a unit point of view you only know inches, miles and miles per hour...
I don't think they even understand the differences of lb/lbs/lbm/lbf (citation: "no real wight, but space weight"). Heck even I as a civil engineer have problems getting those right, especially if the other engineer is lazy on the units and I am used to SI units (all hail to SI units!), but my problems in not understanding the differences is on a whole different level.
Yeah, I lost it when he said that. The guy can't even understand how regular communication and language works. He is unable to comprehend normal, everyday sentences. Of course discussing advanced topics like Physics is way beyond him. We can't even fault him for being a flat earther when he can't even have a consistent conversation. His speech is like a shitty chat AI trying to communicate with you, but it's all a jumbled mess of words that almost sound like coherent phrases (but they aren't) and discontinuous topics.
@@johnscaramis2515 In order to have problems understanding composite complex units at another level, you need first to accept the basic units.. the guy is having a debate on the existence of gravity...
And you do not find what dave said the slightest bit odd? I mean density is applying a force on EVERYTHING else in the universe just merely existing, see Machs Principle, and buoyancy not a force? So what is the buoyant force used in science for then, electro-magic-tism or something?
"Buoyant Force
Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force.
Table of Contents
What is Buoyant Force?
What causes Buoyant Force?
Demonstration of Buoyant Force
Why does an object float or sink in water?
Applications of Buoyant Force
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs
What is a Buoyant Force?
The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter.
The following factors affect buoyant force:
the density of the fluid
the volume of the fluid displaced
the local acceleration due to gravity
An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water."
@@Gleem Ahhhhhh, Gleem. A proven liar bobs to the surface like a lone turd in the toilet bowl of life.
I love him checking the time to be like "Look how long he hasn't been talking directly to us! It's been... oh well only about a minute", like he was expecting to see 4 minutes have gone by. I think he thought the video was longer because he couldn't listen for more than 3 seconds without being confused lol.
No, no, no. I need to take a break from watching these types of videos. I have reached a point where the flat-earthers frustrate me so much that I want to scream. It's not funny anymore how they try to discredit science by showing they don't know what they are talking about.
I have a lot of respect for you Dan for exposing yourself to this. Keep up the good work you are doing.🙂
Pressure is not force. Pressure is the way we measure the intensity of a force, i.e. force per unit area.
But Dan, I’m disappointed you didn’t use Dersertophile’s “Gravity” clip at the end.
I was expecting it too
It's been overdone at this point. They have their standard responses waiting.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb . I disagree, It’s not overplayed, however it needs to be used sparingly and when it has the greatest impact.
There's a reason he googled "pressure" in order to define "density."
Incidentally, it's not because he's a smart man, but he still was able to puzzle out that density's definition would have shut down his entire argument.
He's not only not smart, he's a deciever. Not that anyone is surprised.
I was going to say exactly that... even at the start, the basic argument... Pressure, is not a force... it is a concept that joins/related two measured values and also a composite unit of measurement. Yes, force (F [N]) divided by area (A [m^2]) ... We often say we can feel pressure? (haha like the song Under Pressure) ... what we are saying is that we are feeling the integral of the nerve ending signals on our skin that react to the difference of pressure between our internal pressure and the external pressure ... because our body is reacting against the forces applied to it externally ... in theory every force is exerted over an area, point forces are just simplifications for understanding and calculations that result in good approximations. But the concept of force is truly not same as the concept of pressure. Funny facts to think about: the atmospheric pressure we feel is due to the sum of all the air that is attracted by gravity to the center of mass of our earth... the pressure over your hand or your head is due to the column of 11km or so of air above it... etc...
I like how he looked up pressure when density and buoyancy is what was mentioned. Let's dodge what is really being said and go off in another direction, classic!
This is why Professor Dave has never bothered with a counter-response video. From his video about debunking flat earth using the stars: "First, there's this intellectual powerhouse... who tried to respond to my '10 Things That All Flat Eathers Say' by REPEATING the 10 things that all flat earthers say. Great work, Slick!"
I hope Flatziod was going through this video blind, because if he did, then he'd realize blathering about pressure next to a vacuum during Dave's intro was not a good idea. Since he argued Dave's point about density and buoyancy before Dave even said it, this is likely the case, and I look forward to seeing more and watching him just rebut with a intellectually inept "Nuh-uh!"
They will never see it like that. In their mind they have a valid argument, and to them, even Dave mentioning that argument is a validation of it.
@@P1nkR Yeah, it reminds me of buffoons like Hovind who never change their script despite the countless rebuttals to have come out.
He said that in the video verbatim? I wouldn't doubt it 😂 Dave is a professional smartass
Hello. I am a student. I have now worked out the correct value for gravity (within acceptable error) in two different locations. Note I said GRAVITY and not RELATIVE DENSITY. This is because I was measuring a force or something that acted like it and not the values of stuff per unit volume of different materials.
Unit volume?
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb Thanks I'll edit.
Hopefully you did not use the Buoyant Force as professor dave already deleted this from mainstream science at 11:45 just coz, so you best never use the buoyant force again ok! Oh and forget that gravity bit in there, NONE of it exists ok, you got it?
Buoyant Force
Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force.
Table of Contents
What is Buoyant Force?
What causes Buoyant Force?
Demonstration of Buoyant Force
Why does an object float or sink in water?
Applications of Buoyant Force
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs
What is a Buoyant Force?
The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter.
The following factors affect buoyant force:
the density of the fluid
the volume of the fluid displaced
the local acceleration due to gravity
An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
Well to be fair I have used, in my research, an absolute gravimeter that measures gravity by dropping a mass in a vacuum (hmm density, buoyancy....). With this apparatus we can measure gravity down to 8 decimal places. Apart from measuring gravity at different places we can actually measure the changes in gravity due to earth tides. Yes the solid earth itself has tides and we can predict them.
Haha true! It would be like saying "Hmmm something is off about my gum because it doesn't taste like spaghetti!"
Love how he starts by saying density and buoyancy are forces, then goes on to prove it by (incorrectly) using pressure to explain why stuff falls, completely ignoring his previous claim.
Yeah, picks up the object and says "I'm experiencing pressure between the object and my fingers as the objects weight pushes on my skin and of course the weight is just the mass times the gravitati... Oh shit".
Probably the earliest I've been to a Scimandan video. I always seem to miss the upload of time of these. Great work as always.
I think that Flatzoid's problem is with language. As he isn't a native speaker he sometimes chooses the wrong word. For example when he says he has "debunked" Prof Dave, he meant to say "spoke gibberish over a video". Or "proven" density disequilibrium, he meant to say "spoke gibberish about gravity".
Flatzoid isn’t actually a flat earther. He just misunderstood the words used to describe the earth in English and nobody knew to correct him. It’s not his fault! 😃
Where is he from then? The accent seems South African to me.
Lots of synonyms for "speak gibberish" in his language, apparently.
@@DavidSmith-vr1nb yes, he is
He is South African. His accent is quite extreme, but English is definitely his first language.
I love when you debunk someone debunking Dave it's hilarious. I want more !
It is kinda sad tbh. I also hope I'm not like this guy about some topic.
A vid featuring a debunk of a debunking, where the one debunked is trying to debunk another debunking... In a case like this is all comes down to logic an applied technology, in this case physics.. And the one with the weakest arguments ( Flatzoid ), has to wear the cloak of shame..
I would love to hear his explanation why an object in space with no gravity around but yet denser than the vacuum surrounding it don't "fall" in any direction.
Ah yes, space doesn't exist. How could i forget this? What a coincidental convinience, not having to explain what he can't explain
Even if "space" doesn't exist in Flattardia, vacuum chambers most definitely do. I once raised this point in a discussion with a flerf. He said that every object in the universe wants to travel to the center of said universe - which fortunately is placed smack in the center of the Earth. He did not explain what senses rocks use to detect which direction is the center, and what method of propulsion to travel there in a vacuum.
Does Space even exist? Its just a movie for them 😆
@@FrikInCasualMode I don't understand how they can see something and then immediately pretend it doesn't exist.
Logic denial at its finest.
This _MUST_ be religious in nature. There's no other way people can remain literally delusional, and expect to be taken seriously.
I guarantee he ends his streams with some scammy sermon of some type of another.
@@FrikInCasualMode Every object, regardless of size is being told which direction it should travel by God. Simples.🤣🤣
@@jonathanmormerod That sounds like a totally logical and reasonable explanation! Thanks! ;o)
If he had googled the definition of "gravity" like he did "pressure", he would have seen this... Notice the second word...
"the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."
A lot of scientific web sites do refer to it as a force.
It's a de-facto force, because it causes acceleration. It's just not something we consider a _traditional_ force because there is no energy-consuming mechanism as the causal agent.
It's still very much a force in terms of modelling at the Newtonian level. You just have to differentiate it from traditional forces when moving to relativity.
Obviously, density is none of these things. The whole density inequlibrium thing, or whatever they call it, is just insanity.
Gravity is a property of matter, but it’s easier for most people to think of it as a force.
I really like how he's talking about pressure being a force, while on screen the fact that pressure is force over area is shown
"Hello and welcome to making sense school"
*Flatzoid opens his mouth*
"Aaaaaand you failed!"
That's why I call him failzoid.
When people think they know a lot and they end up making fools out of themselves. Great work pointing this out SCIMANDAN.
I think the most telling thing in this response is that the poor guy wasn't even smart enough to crop out or blur the right side of his Google search results... which showed the equation for pressure... disproving his own claim that it's a force in real-time.
Unbelievably, even while debating FTFE, playing the debate simultaneously on both FTFE's channel AND Failzoids, and being absolutely destroyed he was constantly proclaiming how thoroughly HE was destroying FTFE! The guy has something really screwed up in his way of thinking because he certainly wasn't winning anything except the booby prize. He was at least a lot friendlier and not abusive like the majority of the other flerfs at least and does seem like he might, maybe be starting to think a bit more about his beliefs.
Ranty came around, STST came around along with plenty of others we don't hear about because they usually just vanish out of embarrassment but those 2 at least, tolerated ALL the flerfy hate and stuck around and stuck to reality too.
One does not simply "debunk" professor freaking Dave
Especially not with a bunch of tired old standard lies and other bullshit.
Well they do ....in their imagination that is
@max fourth eagle of the apocalypse Can’t tell if you’re being serious
@@BigFatWedge Nothing on his channel, so who knows. But I think he's NOT serious.
@max fourth eagle of the apocalypse Ok ok. Was just just a little ambiguous
So this guy googles pressure and accepts the definition, but if he was to Google the shape of the Earth, he would no longer trust Google. Very selective.
I watch Professor Dave. He's a smart cookie who breaks things down very succinctly. The hallmark of someone who knows exactly what they're talking about.
However, that's not always the case. Case in point:
ruclips.net/video/w5Y_V7CgmTg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ohcx72gwhYA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/NGNczRIkxD8/видео.html
12:10 imagine telling him that there’s an equation in the right side of the screen, he would just say google is lying
Changes the argument from gas needing a container to needing containment, "the act, process, or means of keeping something within limits", which gravity does quite nicely.
It is even in the ideal gas law, which says that a gas that is being acted on by an outside force other than direct interaction with a solid containment makes it "not ideal"
Is he in South Africa?
Can he take a picture of the North Star Polaris?
Embarrassingly He is from SA - I hoped we were free from FE'er but no.
I find it interesting/telling that he Googled the definition of "pressure" but NOT the definition of "density".
I was talking to Flatzoid yesterday about snipers requiring the need to take coriolis effect into account when shooting over long distances. He claims they don't actually do that. I asked him if he had spoken to some snipers about it and he claimed he has, but couldn't tell me who he spoke to. He also mentioned that he will be attending an event soon at a firing range where he will ask some long range shooters if they take coriolis into account and will get back to me. I'm definitely looking forward to that.
He'll just lie to you.
Not sure if that was the same thread, but he was very evasive when being asked for specific names and just said "multiple" or so.
I called him out for "pulling a McCarthy" there ....
It’s the “500 witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection” all over again.
I’m saying this, because the majority of flatties seem to be getting their earth model from the bible.
He's a flerf, he's going to bravely run away and if you push him on it, he'll just lie
He'll probably badger them so much about it that one of them gets so frustrated that they end up shooting him...
Everybody can fail at something, but nobody fail like a flerfer at everything.
He is called Failzoid
Hahaha, he will never get a Nobel prize or something like that, but at least he is good at; failing.
In an age where you can watch a live video feed from an orbiting space station _anytime you want on your phone,_ we somehow still have this fella here.
And what's even worse is that he's not the only one. There are loads more who have fallen for the same bullshit religion.
They'd just probably say, "OOH, IT'S A RECORDING! IT'S JUST CGI!" though.
@@SniperJoeLieutenant I read your comment in a Lawrence Brown voice. (Lost in the Pond) Don't know why.
Relative Density Disequalibrium (RDD) is so easy to disprove. It can be done using one of its adherents favourite methods of demonstrating the concept; the Density Tower.
1. Place a transparent, sealable, container (like a jam jar,) on a level table.
2. Make a "density tower" in the jar using fluids of different densities and fit the lid.
Observation: After settling, the fluid layers are parallel to the bottom of the jar and the table.
3. Lay the jar on its side and allow fluids to settle.
Observation: The fluid layers are still parallel to the table, but not the bottom of the jar.
Nothing inside the sealed jar has changed. The density, bouyancy and their relationship to each other remain exactly the same. According to RDD, the fluid layers should have remained parallel to the bottom of the jar. They didn't. Therefore, there must be some type of external influence being exerted on the fluids.
Nope. That's not how it works. Every time you find a way to disprove RDD, flatearthers will come up with some new word salad to change the way it supposedly works.
No flerf is going to understand the impeccable logic you just demonstrated.
"Gas pressure requires a container, its an antecedent" I'd love to hear his explanation of WHY it's an antecedent!
I would like to hear the news / weatherforecast on a flat earth.
"A high pressure container over the Azores causes good weather in Western Europe.
The high pressure container over Russia forces low pressure containers from the Arctic to Great Britain, Denmark and Northern Germany and causes lots of snow fall.
We want to remember our viewers that snow falls because of buoyancy.
A dozen containers got lost from a conatiner ship and started swirling around.
Florida is now preparing for the cyclone "Evergreen".
And now the Chrismas speech of Flat Earth President Eric Dubay."
Density and bouancy? They absolutely don't mean a thing without gravity making them work.
Well done, Dan. This is a great video. Debunking the Debunker.
I love how they use pressure in a container. Fun fact, it is constant in a container. What do they think is the reason their ears pop when they go uphill enough or get on a plane to fly?
Oh, that's just the magic ear pixies burping. Lol.
Not so! A pressure gradient also exists in a container because it too is subject to gravity.
They probably think it's another word with magnet in it.
@@chrisantoniou4366 yes but they read things about ideal gas laws and apply them to the real world all the while arguing you can’t use any mathematical model because you aren’t taking every single thing that may or may not be present no matter how small the effect might be.
@@murph8411 I agree with you, but these idiots are denying the existence of gravity and that this is the reason you need a physical "container" for the atmosphere. By pointing out that a pressure gradient in a sealed container also exists, they cannot deny the existence of gravity or the central role it plays in confining the atmosphere to the Earth.
The fact remains that no matter WHAT flat Earthers claim about the real world, they are completely and utterly wrong if they think the Earth is flat. All the bullshit about space being fake, NASA being liars and inventing the globe, gravity being fake, the stars being stuck on a rotating dome, the Sun and Moon being "local", are all demonstrable lies they had to invent to justify their ignorant and paranoid beliefs.
I love how well Prof Dave nailed the "but quite comically, most flat earthers don't even do this, most of you address this problem by simply listing two words: density and buoyancy". The look on his face as he just makes the claim that density is pressure, and begins an absurd condescending scene on proving pressure is a force, rather than focusing on density, his original claim.
Well, density and pressure are both scalars, so calling either of them a force is about equally as absurd ....
Looks up pressure, reads definition. On the other side of the screen is P = F/A which literally explains it.
Right. Now I won't blame someone for not understanding that equation.. but if you use it in an argument you better understand it lmao. I wonder if they even processed the equation being there.
So he Googles the word Pressure to explain the word Density. _Brilliant_ 🤨🤨🤣🤣
Have to be honest Dan, you have given respect to absolutely the best person who lays waste to these absolute plonkers - if you had to respect anyone in this world, you know you chose well - absolute legend as are you - they are ridiculous in comparison. Enjoy the running mate! I’ve lately took it up myself, there we go!
I found it hilarious when he googles "what is pressure" to try and prove that pressure is a force, but then doesn't notice on the right side of the screen where it says pressure = force/area. He chooses to be pedantic about gravity being a force but then doesnt apply that same standard to his definition of pressure.
I like how the people who say they most definitely aren’t sheep absolutely bleat and say “baa” the most of any other human lol 😂
No-one does it quite like Lord Melchett.
This is too precious! Please, we need more of this guy!
Can we replace the “thanks Bob” joke with a genuine “thanks Dave”? Or maybe in addition to it. Dave deserves the thanks for the work he’s done.
I agree, but PLEASE don't replace "Thanks Bob". It's just TOO precious.
Can we not have "Thanks Bob AND Dave" perhaps?
It's up there with CC's wife in the kitchen and the guys with the laser having to ask the guy furthest away to lift up his marker with the hole in it to then be able to see the laser and the leader saying "Hmm. Interesting".
All absolute CLASSICS
LOL.
They are opposite concepts. "Thanks Bob" is sarcasm, as a flat earth believer accidentally proved the earth's rotation. The best way to thank Professor Dave would be more channel subscriptions (incidentally, he has long since moved on from this idiocy and is putting out some great educational content, enough to bring anyone to about first-year undergraduate level in Physics, Chemistry or Geology).
Ok... "Thanks dave for just pressing delete on the buoyant force.... cheers I guess" see 11:45 in this very video... I cannot believe you are all supporting this nonsense?
Buoyant Force
Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force.
Table of Contents
What is Buoyant Force?
What causes Buoyant Force?
Demonstration of Buoyant Force
Why does an object float or sink in water?
Applications of Buoyant Force
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs
What is a Buoyant Force?
The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter.
The following factors affect buoyant force:
the density of the fluid
the volume of the fluid displaced
the local acceleration due to gravity
An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
Good job, you played yourself. Gravity is right there in the definition of buoyancy lol
@@fruit3193 This was my point silly, I am not a flat earther, the Buoyant Force is a globe earth concept which contains gravity, yet at 11:45 Dave said its not a force... Why are you lot deleting 2500 years of physics history for no apparent reason to do so?
You are so scared and nervous of flat earthers, that you totally missed the point, YES gravity is in there, so why is Dave pressing delete on it silly!??
I would never post just for the purpose of feeding the algorithm and I never lie.
I LOVE that they use the density argument. The ONLY reason air rises in water is BECAUSE of gravity. If there was no gravity then the air and the water would have absolutely no reason to move in any direction. Hilarious
What a coincidence, I also had the most ridiculous response from a flat earther just this morning!
its what they do!
Ben seriously do you not see how Dave deleting the Buoyant Force is way more ridiculus than anything you would have got from a flat earther.. Please explain as no one can seem to:
11:45
Buoyant Force
Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float in a fluid. All liquids and gases in the presence of gravity exert an upward force known as the buoyant force on any object immersed in them. Buoyancy results from the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. After reading this article, you will be able to explain the buoyant force and why fluids exert an upward buoyant force on submerged objects. Let’s go through buoyancy meaning and different aspects of buoyant force.
Table of Contents
What is Buoyant Force?
What causes Buoyant Force?
Demonstration of Buoyant Force
Why does an object float or sink in water?
Applications of Buoyant Force
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs
What is a Buoyant Force?
The buoyant force is the upward force exerted on an object wholly or partly immersed in a fluid. This upward force is also called Upthrust. Due to the buoyant force, a body submerged partially or fully in a fluid appears to lose its weight, i.e. appears to be lighter.
The following factors affect buoyant force:
the density of the fluid
the volume of the fluid displaced
the local acceleration due to gravity
An object whose density is greater than that of the fluid in which it is submerged tends to sink. If the object is either less dense than the liquid or is shaped appropriately (as in a boat), the force can keep the object afloat. In terms of relative density, if the relative density is less than one, it floats in water and substances with a relative density greater than one sink in water.
@@Gleem
Your *COPY / PASTE* routine is getting tiresome, kiddo!
@@CNCmachiningisfun Yep so tiresome as your brain is working overtime trying to answer why the hell Professor Dave is literally saying the Buoyant Force DOES NOT EXIST! That is false, and pseudo-science as IF you went to high school they all teach you about it and their is no place to go other than personal attack mode instead of attacking Dave who is the one pretending the Buoyant Force is not a Force and you are defending his lies. Psst you do not have to read every comment on here btw, albeit I know you want to get friends and type the same old copy paste routine BEFORE I started doing it you damn hypocrit!
CNCmachiningisfun 16 hours ago @Gleem CLUELESS flerfs!
CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs!
CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs! (different post)
@@CNCmachiningisfun "Your COPY / PASTE routine is getting tiresome, kiddo!" = Pretty rich coming from Mr Spamathon himself?
CNCmachiningisfun 16 hours ago @Gleem CLUELESS flerfs!
CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs!
CNCmachiningisfun 1 day ago CLUELESS flerfs! (different post)
A feather and a hammer both fall at the same rate in a vacuum chamber. Is that caused by buoyancy?
Air Pressure Requires a container? Yeah, Gravity is a great container. It holds things like Air to the surface of the Earth. Oh, and climb a really tall mountain, or fly an open cockpit plane to 20,000 feet and stay up there a while. Did you ever wonder why Military Pilots all wear oxygen masks? Because when they fly as high as they do, you need supplemental oxygen (and even higher, a pressure suit - like the U2 or SR71 and probably many others). So yeah, the air pressure at the ground is significantly higher than at altitude. In fact, and 200 miles up, there is almost Zero pressure, because gravity has pulled most air to the ground and there is a gradient going up - it isn't constant from ground to the top.
Also note that Gravity works in a vacuum. Things still fall down in a vacuum - there is no density or buoyancy in a vacuum.
I just discovered this guy recently... I had no ideea there are still people in our time that cannot understand even a little bit of physics... I love how you point out how they cannot understand they lost a battle only they were fighting :))) ps. Excuse my grammar
My first run in with failzoid was way back when on, I believe, Conspiracy Catz' channel he was peddling the Ether.
Even back then he was posting high quality word salad with a side dish of complete gibberish and pretended that promoting hypothesises that have been debunked for several decades and which he clearly doesn't understand himself is the pinnacle of critical thinking.
I have to retract my initiomal response. It wasn't flatzoid peddling the Ether, it was gleem. Sorry, but to be fair: After a while all these flerfs somehow blur together into a stupid mess.
Flatzoid delivering the most incredible (inedible?) word salad is still true, though.
Unfortunately, we live in age of popular ignorance surrounded by prodigous information, where an individual can take their lack of information and spread it around on the internet finding equally uninformed and unenlightened individuals to agree with them. They just dont do the hard work or use common sense. This type of ignorance is abundant in modern society. We see it in other areas too, denial of historical events, ie holocaust. In politics, denial of elections in USA, etc. The common belief that one's beliefs are as valid as another's is widespread, when it is the merit of these beliefs and there factual accuracy that matters.
@@digitalboy80 those uneducated troglodytes don't even know what critical thinking means.
I used to work with a guy who claimed to believe in a flat Earth. I could never fully believe he wasn't just saying it to troll me.
So gravity isn't responsible for air pressure...yet air pressure decreases the higher up you get? 🤔
...and to paraphrase someone earlier, the object would move towards the less dense matter which in this case would be up.
What none of them can understand is that in a closed container the pressure is uniform throughout and therefore you could not have a pressure gradient..
@@kevinmould6979 Exactly!!! But then again, what do we know? We're just ball earth sheep that can't think for ourselves. I'll check the first random result on Google to make sure this logic is correct.🤣
@@kevinmould6979 That's not entirely correct, because even in a closed container gravity acts on the gas, leading to a pressure gradient.
But from a technical/engineering point of view, that can be neglected.
I'm so impressed by your patience. Some of these videos are a drain on the brain
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ hello thanks for watching, congratulations you have selected as a great Winner.
Quickly send a direct message above to acknowledge your prize thank you❤️........
I wonder how Flatzoid thinks the accellerometers in Smartphone know which direction is down while being completely sealed off from the atmosphere.
I have tried that on a few flat earthers - they never answer. You can also rub it in by downloading an app which can read the Accelerometer directly into x, y and z directions. Set to m/s2 and lay the phone on its back. I don't need to tell you what Z number comes up, but flat earthers won't like it.
I love how he can google that "pressure is force over area", and therefore not the same as just force, but completely ignore that. On the right side of screen is even a formula for pressure and different units, but no mention of that from Flatzoid.
He doesn't know what a fraction is, please be respectful!
Density is a force. The force is strong in flatzoid.
The first thing you learn in physics lessons is that get your units right is MORE important than getting the numbers right.
When you do not come out with the right unit, you effed up your formula.
Was it Flatzoid who wanted to calculate something for a change, and juggled around with numbers in random order until he arrived at the number he wanted? Leaving ANY units of his numbers aside?
That was 5th grade, I remember I brought my model railroad along so that we could derive the law of speed from experimental observation.
Model railways are also fantastic for learning electronics. Just like how in school, you'd place a light bulb to complete the circuit, the rails are a broken circuit and the motor in the loco completes it...
I also got in some great soldering iron practice building my railway...
Funny thing is, when he does debate these Flat Earthies the titles end up saying "Professor Dave HUMILIATES Flat Earther"
That was both entertaining and painful to watch :)
12:00 I love the way he illogically concludes the pressure is a result of density and buoyancy yet decides to google "pressure" to make his point. 🙂
I love how every flerf'er (but esp this one) say they "have the ability to think for ourselves", when they literally use the same phrases used by everyone else. Its like arguing that Great White sharks are all herbivores then saying "I can see that because Im not a sheep who thinks like everyone else".."Sheep" and "everyone else" meaning ppl who are educated and comprehend scientific fact when they see it, of course. Its literally denial and nothing else.. except well, maybe paranoia.
That was... really sad. He didn't even understand where things began, let alone the content of the argument.
It's funny he said 'not only rely on our senses' when he tried to explain critical thinking. But then claim look at it, our eyes say it's flat.
Waters above waters below.
Even the people that made religion knew about pressure, and the lower the object goes the more pressure it gets.
Also, as far as my eyes can see, the earth is flat(ish).
However, there's something that shows me that there're bigger heights to look at the earth from, called sun and moon (the two major ones, besides quintillions if other stars and satellites).
So, while it "may" look flat looking from the level of the field, I can't directly prove that it's a roundish 3D form.
But it can be proven indirectly, something that they constantly divert from.
Every time I ask a flerfer "why down?" they just blue screen and change the subject. Please do the whole video!
Yeah it's responses like that that show, to me at least, that these people are not interested in 'discovering the truth', but rather that they are far more concerned with protecting their narrative in which they are "neo in the matrix", people who know more than literally anyone else. Trying to debate a flat earther would yield the same results as talking to a wall.
Let's all say it again folks,
'gravityyy'.
where's desertphile when you need him :P
He's the flat earth Neymar. Dribbling around the actual talking point like a god.
Good ol' Professor Dave! I listen to his videos all the time while playing Minecraft. Really gets me in the building spirit.
So why don’t they go to the edge, take a picture or video, prove we’ve all been lied to, and collect their Nobel prize. I really wonder why they don’t do that?
Because the gubberment won't let them! They're holding back the trooth! It's all a conSPIRAcy!
professor dave once said, "the ice wall is guarded by NASA Jew Penguins."
It is protected by a singular icebreaker ship that can go from the north wall to the south wall in minutes/hours somehow. Even though they are slow ships but logickz don't exist here buddy
When the flerf repeatedly uses the term "strawman" and doesn't realise that's exactly what he's doing to Professor Dave's arguments by picking a tiny part where he can scrutinise semantics and parrot a word-salad in response 😂
That's basically the MO of right-wing nuts, just say the name of a logical fallacy and proclaim victory, because they heard a "smart" person do that once and they think it makes them sound "smart".
It's even funnier when they say it like "he's doing a strawman" like they're still five years old and haven't figured out how adults speak yet.
He googled pressure and believed th definition, so why can't he google "is the Earth round or flat?" Is he afraid of the answer?
13:20 - I'd also like to know how he'd explain what would happen if he let that object go by throwing it up in the air rather than simply letting it go... and why it wouldn't then go upwards forever with its "relative equilibrium"...
Because the object knows to fall down - flatzoid, probably
I love that when he Googled "Pressure" on the right of the screen is the formula for pressure which is p=f/a. Pressure = FORCE divided by area. So how can pressure be a force if you have to have a force to figure pressure? How did you miss this Dan?
It's the measure of a force being applied over an area. This force is usually the kinetic force of the particles creating that pressure, which naturally pushes in all directions. This doesn't explain why particles of higher atomic or molecular masses have a tendency to move downward (relative to being somewhat near the surface of the Earth) at a greater force than less massive particles.
@@t3hsilarn I am well aware of what pressure is. My point is the fact the man in the video (not Dan) characterized pressure as a force when pressure is obviously NOT a force, and it even says so in the definition he references for his video.