"If Earth moves so fast, then why don´t we feel it?"-"Did you ever drive a car. Or a bike?" "If gravity is so strong, then why aren´t we getting squashed in to the ground?"-"Did you ever trip over and fall? Or drop an egg?" Edit: I´m not sure if I misunderstand the comments, or if I am the one being misunderstood. I just wanted to make fun of flatearthers, just like the video. English isn´t my native tongue, so sorry if I wrote something stupid xD
Favourite part regarding being squished into the ground is, you can always feel it, when you feel the ground under your feet, that feeling of the ground pushing back up against you being you're being pulled into it. Also why people who spend extended time in space need to readjust to living with a sense of weight again, and why someone who is born and raised in space would have a different physiology to us and find it very difficult to exist on the planet, turns out, shockingly, our body's structural dynamics evolved in an environment where there's gravity always acting on us.
I don't ever get gravity deniers who say it isn't real, then use an exact phenomema as gravity to explain why they're pulled to a flat Earth and how going off the edge would make them fall, or try to say those on the sides of the globe would fall off. So you're saying gravity is real and acknowledging up and down frames of reference based on it, amd therefore gravity cannot be real nor can we base up and down references on a gravity source... as clear a contradiction as any did see.
- ""If Earth moves so fast, then why don´t we feel it?" Humans feel ACCELERATION not Uniform VELOCITY. Try learning the difference before calling every engineer and physicist TO HAVE EVER LIVED a bunch of morons.
@@asneakychicken322 *👋😝❌ Sooo knowledgeable 😝😝😝‼️ So when was this irritable **_SPACE_** baby born that you’re Sooo Knowledgeable of🤪❓ and this an statements like this by Scientists is Why , everything they say is now questionable ✅*
Over and over and over and over and over, and it never sinks in. They just keep spouting the same BS about spinning at 1000 mph. It's pretty much hopeless.
Ex Flat Earther here. Well done man. You've got the youtube algorithm Gods shining down on you. There must be a need for another channel to blow up. And it looks like its you 👍
Why were you a flat earther, and what made anything convince you since in 99.99% of the cases flat earthers can stare something in the face and claim it's not there.
Yet its speed at the equator is about 1400 ft/second. And about 28 ft/second are holding us to the ground... Either scientific dark magic is occurring to make up for what Gravity is not doing. Or them Flat Earther's have realized there is a math problem. ...or its all a simulation, and science is just the physics coding that the if then else conditions determined it does or does not apply to you.
@jjevans1693 if you're trying to apply the speed of the earth to a merry-go-round without factoring in proportion please rethink your life choices. I mean he LITERALLY explained it in the video
@@andrevaz1289 No that's what your doing. If the merry- go- round was the size of the earth how fast would it be spinning. 1038mph. to make one revolution per day.
I actually did these centripetal force calculations for some Flerfs a while back, and transferred the same forces to a 6ft roundabout to demonstrate how fast it would spin to match the force of the earths spin. They then, as all flerfs do, moved the golaposts.
How fast did you come up with? Wild guess says something absurdly small, like 1 inch per hour, slow enough that those making the opposing argument feel really dumb :P Edit: OK he basically gave this answer near the end of the video; that's what I get for commenting before watching 😂
If you could grow a pair of brain cells then you literally could understand that a car with bigger wheels will drive faster with same engine rotations. And 1040 mph at equator is pretty fast. 😅 Look a simple experiment. Even a one cell brain will understand it. You take a tripod with a camera and make wheel from a pipe. Stick some things on that wheel, or make some marks to be able to observe the speed. Spin it. Then take a longer pipe and make a bigger wheel and spin it again with same rotations per minute. How is the speed on the edge? Faster? How big is the floating in space and dark energy ridiculous water ball? A wheel with such radius will have quite Faster speed. And people calculated it by using the measurements given by "science ". And it's 1040 mph. 😅😅 snowing calmly today in Wisconsin.
@@rainbowwizard1821 that is simple math and logics. If it's to complicated for you then it's not my fault. And your answer is not even an argument. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
So I have a few things to add: 1. Flerfs cannot deal with more than one force acting on an object at a time. So, explaining to them that the centrifugal force and gravity act on an object at the same time will probably fry their shared neuron. 2. Flerfs don't generally believe in gravity, so I doubt they would listen to facts anyway. 3. At 2:58 you called Earth a "contained system". This will most likely prompt flerfs to say "AHA! So there's a firmament! You admitted it!", because they wrongly believe that the Earth is a snow globe, apparently. So, I would recommend you avoid such phrasing in the future, just to spare us a headache. Otherwise, keep up the good work!
The 'one force at a time' is sadly true. I was trying to explain gravity to a flerf and his wonderful retort was to ask me why gravity doesn't affect a helium ballon.
@@juanausensi499 the question is so stupid, it's really sad. it's even more sad when flerfers tell us to not just belive in science but think about it but just parrot such nonsense like the butterfly argument...
@@juanausensi499Use this retort: The balloon is lighter than air due to the quantity of helium. In any vacuum, even a home vacuum. And air pushes the balloon, but at a point it stops going up and is pulled by gravity. Though they’ll give you a headache by telling you you just said “buoyancy” and “density” like that bible-ist Daniel that i debated with.
I need to share a conversation I just had below another of Dave's flat Earth videos. Some guy was saying that you can see far too much of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan for the Earth's surface to be curved. I told him that was due to refraction caused by differing amounts of water vapour in the air and we know it differs because more or lesser amounts of the upper parts of the hi-rise skyline were visible on different days or at different times on the same day. I then asked him, if he can sometimes see the upper parts of the buildings, why can he never see the waterfront? Shouldn't he be able to on a flat Earth? His reply - and I shit you not - was that the waves block the view. He wrote: "the waves in front of ur vision block the bottoms. a 12 inch wave at 30 miles blocks alot of horizon behind it." So he thinks that a wave that is about as high as a domestic cat, when its 30 miles away is big enough to hide half a sky scraper. There is no hope for these people.
I have to correct you. Water vapour only has a minor effect on atmospheric refraction. The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation. Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance. The math with similar triangles is straightforward. However, his explanation fails when you take the camera to any reasonable elevation, say 5m or 10m above sea level, because as we get higher, the waves need to be higher and higher to block the buildings. There's no question that it's the curve of the earth, unless someone has an objection.
@@wiggles7976 "The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation." That's the reason I mentioned time of day. "Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance" But that was not what he wrote. If a person wants to specify they are laying on a beach with their head half in the water they need to do that. What he wrote was without any qualification and implied standing at the water's edge. Or near it. If you were laying on your side, head in the water you would not see any of Chicago's skyline at all, irrespective of refraction conditions. He then went on to say that sometimes you CAN see Chicago's waterfront which I know is not the case. The guy is the King of the Morons to suggest what he did.
@@ShizukuSeiji If he's specifically talking about that Chicago photo by Joshua Nowicki taken at the top of the sand bank (which they almost always are), then yes, a 12in wave is irrelevant. I don't think you have a complete understanding of the refraction though. There do exist refraction conditions that would let you see all of Chicago's skyline laying on your side with your head in the water. Andrew Thomas Young tells us that these conditions do actually happen on rare occasion. A temperature inversion that causes a very steep air density gradient will cause light to bend with a radius equal to or less than Earth's radius. When it comes to doing these long distance observations across the ocean, you really need as many observations from the same location as possible to get the average result, and that's what I've collected and archived on my channel.
The real reason you can't see the waterfront is that light has negative weight, so it tends to bend away from the flat surface of the earth. The density of the air changes with the weather and the time of day, so the rate at which light drifts upwards also changes slightly-in some conditions it floats a little more than others. No, I'm not serious, and I'm not a flat earther, but the intention is to illustrate that you can always add enough epicycles to “fix” an explanation. The thing that's missing with these people is not knowledge, but an appreciation of Occam's razor. Physicists are, to a lesser extent, the same: both relativity and quantum mechanics _tell_ them that space is not ℝ³-shaped (or even that topology), but they persist in using an ℝ³ intuition and adding corrections, rather than trusting the maths and working on the real question of how a quantum foam connected by information patterns _appears_ to be ℝ³-shaped at large scales-in short, not how locality is violated, but how it arises.
„Why aren‘t we thrown off a spinning globe?“ You know how you weigh less at the equator than on the poles? Yeah. That is centrifugal force at work. Earth‘s gravity is just stupendously huge. Great video, keep up the good work.
It's also because you're closer to the center of the earth at the poles. Though that is indirectly a result of centrifugal force. But the thing to remember is that centrifugal force isn't just from the velocity you're spinning. It's mass times velocity squared divided by the radius. Sure the velocity squared is really fast, but Earth's radius is really big.
This evening, 2023-01-22, I observed a most spectacular sunset. It was partly cloudy; the Sun had just set; the waxing crescent moon was just 1.4 days old, and four planets were visible in the early evening sky. The western sky was aglow in oranges transitioning to shades of purple. As I noticed each part of this beautiful sunset, the first thing that caught my eye was the magenta color of the underside of the clouds. The Sun had slipped below the horizon, yet its rays still illuminated the cloud bottoms. Next, the moon was one of the thinnest crescents I had ever seen. It had the faintest glow inside the crescent. When I look at it with my 8x binoculars, I saw the Earthshine barely visible against the still bright afterglow of the sunset. Some wisps of clouds passed in front of the moon. As I watched them glide by, I noticed that the terminator was not as smooth an arc as the limb of the moon. Some lunar mountains were casting irregulars shadows in the lunar sunrise. The planets were flitting in and out of view as the clouds moved overhead. Just above the crescent moon was the very bright planet Venus in conjunction with a much dimmer Saturn, though this furthest naked eye planet was still brighter than any of the visible stars in that part of the sky. Overhead and slightly west was Jupiter. Seen through my binoculars, I could also see three of the Galilean moons, which had moved a bit since my view of them the previous night. Finally, Mars was seen pretty much unobstructed by clouds in the constellation Taurus. It was a big red orb and much brighter when compared to either Aldebaran or Betelgeuse, which are its match in color. Truly, this was a breath taking and awe inspiring view of the early evening sky. If you have partly cloudy or clear skies in you part of the world, I invite you over the next couple of nights to look and see what nature has wrought for our wonder and pleasure. Then ponder and ask yourself how this is even possible on anything but a globular Earth in a heliocentric solar system.
One more point about why we can't see the motion of Earth through space: not only are the stars we see very far away, but they are also orbiting the center of the galaxy at roughly the same speed and direction that we are.
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Geeze ! The assumption that earth rotates , and those lights in the sky are in fact millions of billions , of trillions of light years away.
You used an example of pouring a drink on an airplane and I have an example similar to that. So I was on a flight out of Dallas and the flight attendant had just pour juice for me. The cup was on my tray table but because of turbulance that had started, I was grasping a hold of my glass. All of sudden plane dropped suddenly and I witnessed a good amount of juice come straight up out of the glass about about 8 to 12 inches above the glass and came straight back down into the glass without spilling and without hitting me going 600mph.
@@cartesiancircle Yep. The religion of incredulity. Yet they’ll happily believe in an infinite being, outside of space & time, that created the universe & cares who you have sexual relations with. Who will reward, or torture you eternally, based on his pleasure, even though the universe has trillions of galaxies & hundreds of trillions of planets, suns & black holes. They’ll believe all that, but going two times faster than a bullet (which we actually have FILM of) is beyond their capacity to imagine. You can’t make this shit up🤣
Thank you for indicating the force, although I think that you presenting it in Newtons will likely confuse most flat earth proponents. But, if they look at 8:14, it also shows the acceleration as 0.031334m/s^2, which is at least 300 times less than the 9.81m/s^2. And when you consider that these forces are acting on your body simultaneously, that means the force they expect to feel would just alter the overall feeling of being pulled down, instead of experiencing 9.81m/s^2 it would be about 9.78m/s^2. It isn't something anyone would be able to feel with their senses.
Exactly! And thats why if you got weights and measured them at the poles compared to the equator, there would be a difference in calculated weight! Even though it's the same weight and measuring tool/scales.
Considering flerfers are confused by spheres, one of the simplest objects in the universe, presenting force in Newtons (instead of dynes or pound-force) is most likely immaterial 😁
@@shuggiemcg1 indeed, and Bob the Science Guy did a whole video bout a road trip, two 500 gram weights and one scale to prove this 😉 And included measurements from others as well, fitting the predictions.
@@MagnusMoerkoereJohannesen I have it from a flat earth source that "units don't matter, it could be unicorn farts" so you are likely right. Especially when other flat earthers think the sun and moon are also immaterial.
Two points… 1. To understand the ‘huge speed’ of the rotation of the earth, look at an analogue clock or watch and imaging the hours hand going at half speed. THAT is how fast the world is rotating … or the merry-go-round rotating half a revolution in 12 hours. Now would the be flung off 2. And in terms of why doesn’t gravity pull us down, and it is, this is why we have bones to allow us to now become a messy blob on the surface of whatever we might be above
Assuming the earth is flat, I’m really curious about the secret people who get the secret education and actually design and engineer everything that works on flat earth while everyone else is fooled into thinking it’s round.
Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.
I dont remember why but 5 years ago when I was a sophomore in high school I was obsessed with flat earth for some reason. I argued with flat earthers on twitter for fun and I had no idea why I liked doing it. For my Earth Science final project, I learned that on presentation day I completely misinterpreted the assignment and decided last minute to scrap everything that I had prepared and instead stood up at the front drawing pictures and explaining how the earth could not be flat for at least 5 minutes. I got 95. years later and Im coming back to this for some reason.
We really need people like you to calmly give logical responses to the infamous "flerfs". I'm starting to get tired as the majority of them are as smart as an underdeveloped fork.
The most difficult concept in this video is basic high school physics. MOST of the concepts in this video are identical to motion/dynamics that humans experience on a daily basis. How do people not innately understand this stuff when they live it their entire life? Mind boggling. Anyway, great vid Dave - keep teaching them!
It’s one thing to innately understand the basics as they apply to you and your life. It’s another entirely to modify values for unfamiliar scenarios and explain it well.
You are assuming that FE'ers have been on planes, trains or in cars. That would involve them having jobs and disposable income and leaving their mom's basement so maybe most haven't.
Because we are witnessing the pinnacle of human stupidity, or IMHO, most of those flat earth KOL's are milking the so called flat earth community for profits, since if they could believe the earth is flat, they must be easy targets to scam.
Flerfing idiots remain flerfing idiots because they choose to remain ignorant and stupid. They're _happy_ in their ignorance, so no amount of reason, logic, facts, data, observations, experiments, etc. will ever convince them they're wrong.
According to flath earth logic: The pressure at the bottom of the pool should be the same as at the top. Water density at the bottom is the same as the top.
Try asking this from a flerf….. I tried and I could never get an answer, but I got a typical flerf response of talking about some other nonsense sh$t that has also already been explained/debunked….
Because Flat Earth stuff is complete bullshit, they always just toss out key concepts and then pretend that makes their "theories" valid. It's always an absurd over simplification of a complex system, then pretending that nothing was lost in that simplification.
A minor correction: there is no absolute frame of reference. All velocities are relative to something else. The stated velocity for the Sun is relative to the galactic centre. The galactic centre is moving relative to the local group…
Thanks, I know 'absolute' space isn't correct but I was just trying to keep the concept simplified as much as possible to make it easier for people to wrap their head around
@@rexsceleratorum1632 There is some point in the Universe which is not in motion relative to every single galaxy. We'll never find it because it would take us billions of years to get there. So, essentially, you're right.
@@petergaskin1811 That made absolutely no sense. If there is a frame of reference that is at rest in some objective manner while every other frame of reference is in motion, we don't need to go anywhere to find it. We can put any object into that same frame of reference by giving it the required velocity in the required direction. Except this is all just fantasy. There is no fixed frame of reference anywhere, and that is one of the foundations of relativity.
With such a wonderful basic explanation that even kids could understand... it just amazes me that flerfs will still find ways to twist it to suit their narrative!! Keep up the content!!
So flat Earthers claim the Earth is stationary. Moving at more than 1,000 miles per hour is ridiculous! ..but they are nor smart enough to realize that on their flat Earth, the sun moves in a circle at some height once every 24 hours at a speed of, wait for it...about 1,000 miles an hour! We should experience a sonic boom once per day!
But.. but... but, er, er, density! Yeah, the density of the air stops the sonic boom from reaching all the way down from the top of the sky. Or, no wait, the sun's not really a even a physical object so it doesn't displace any air in the first place! Yeah, that'll do. -Possible flerth counter-argument
@@AbuMaia01 Einstein eqvilence principle look it up , he claims there’s no way of telling which vector were moving through I.e up or down, but movement creates density layers i.e denser objects go in the opposite direction of the movement/ acceleration , like pushing away in a car your forced back in the seat away from the movement/ acceleration . Now ballearth claim object accelerate downward towards earth how is that proven! Well it can’t but there is a channel that put’s up a convincing argument that’s it’s the other way around IF your interested look it up the channel is beyond the imaginary curve.
Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.
When flat earth creationist types tell me things can't be moving at insane speeds, I just tell 'em to have a little faith. After all, their god can do anything, right?
@@HOLDENPOPE They usually will tell you that the Bible says that earth is flat, but as far as i remember there is no such quote that says that the earth is flat (for the christian flerfs)
@@chuck1172 There isn't. It was also a Catholic scientist that proposed the idea that the Universe can be reversed to showcase that it came from a singularity some trillion years ago. Why Christian/Catholic Theology is used as a shield by Flat Earth believers is beyond me. The OG Theology, A.K.A Catholics, don't espouse that the Earth is flat. It isn't really mentioned as far as I know.
I'm a 30 year born again Christian who can't stand "Christians" who think the Earth is flat. They have the notion the Bible teaches flat earth but it doesn't. I'm a round earther all the way!
remember they say that the windows are fish-eye effect to make flat straight objects look curved. 0:44 runway is perfectly straight. 1:08 Earth is curved. And for those who say, a disk would look like that too. No, if the earth were flat, you'd be able to see the whole Earth, and not a part of it.
It's sad that so many people can get confused by big numbers without asking about their context. All the information is there, but the big number effect just seems to stun people into disbelieving. Excellent explanations in this video ! This makes it really simple to understand !
Also, if the change in speed is gradual enough, we won't feel that either. Like if the earth speeds up a few mph over the course of 6 months, we would never know the difference.
Yeah, someone recently argued that with me, that "why we don't feel the supposed change in earth's speed", so I calculated the change and it was like 0.0xx km/h² change, which is something, that not even most precise accelerometers would catch.
@@mabed6692 Yup, we can't directly feel the rotation of the Earth, but they think they should be able to feel the changes in velocity in our orbit around the sun and galaxy to which are far larger in scale?
When you're on a stationary train and the one beside you starts to move you can think its yours moving. Even just visual cues are enough to fool your sense of whether you’re moving or not.
Dave, sorry for louring you in to this rabbit hole. I was merely joking when I said "flat earth next?" Or whatever it was. But you are doing a fantastic work. You are bringing up points that I have not heard before.
@@Nehner You run away from the thread where we discussed the angular vs. linear speed. Did you learn anything from this video? If you didn’t, there is nothing anyone can do for you.
you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...? What is the speed of the J-17? How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation? Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane? An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole... So which things will aeroplane adjust? Curvature? Speed difference of air due to altitude? Speed difference due to latitude change? Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth. Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope.. Blsht... imagination.. Earth is flat
Flerfs don't do reference frames of any kind. Trying to explain to them is like trying to do a 1000 piece jigsaw with 499 missing pieces and no picture
As I’ve just started to try to expand the number of push ups and sit ups I can do I can emphatically attest that gravity is very good at squishing you into the floor. 8:46 Thanks for the video.
My favorite comeback to the "You believe in the spinning ball" framing is to say "Well you believe we live in the dome-shaped room." Which sounds even more ridiculous and is probably about as memeworthy. That's not a scientific comeback of course (which would be easy) but it kind of helps to turn a silly meme back on them sometimes since the kinds of people locked in this paradigm are probably kept here more by some kind of social pressure or social bias rather than an honest appreciation of the facts.
@@RichWoods23 It took 4 hours for each frame from Toy Story 1 to be rendered. Each CPU that rendered the movie had about 27.5 million flops, and all the cpus combined was about 8086 million flops, which is the strength of a Pentium CPU. Why is this relevant? Well, the strongest computers NASA could use for processing were giant, bulky mainframes which could do 16.6 million instructions per second, which is likely around the same amount of flops those computers had. tl;dr with the hardware NASA had, they simply could not do CGI like that
The only time we would be flung off the earth is if it suddenly stopped!!! Our inertia, being disturbed, would result in us being sent in the same direction we were travelling previously. Much like standing room only on a bus. Whilst the bus is travelling forwards we are able to stand still - if the bus suddenly screeched to a stop we (as I'm sure many people have experienced this) would be thrown forwards. It's also the reason we have seat belts in a car
That is not right. Inertia is always making you try to go in the same direction, that is what the centrifugal force is (appears to be). If the earth stopped turning that force would go away.
@@briansomething5987 You must have misunderstood what I meant. Inertia is the state of "doing nothing" until an external force is applied. In my examples, 1) the earth suddenly stopped so the inertia of being still (relative to the earth) was dramatically changed any you would be flung off the ground - same in example 2) on the bus. You are in a still position whilst travelling at speed with the bus and only when the brakes are suddenly applied would you be flung forwards because your inertia is disturbed. I will amend my original comment to reflect this
It's the reverse argument to why we don't just bundle all of our unpleasant nuclear waste into a satellite, & simply fire it into the Sun. After all, it's just 'over there', and the heliocentric model says that the Sun has massive gravity, and pulls everything towards it. That would be true if the satellite were stationary in the solar system frame of reference, but it isn't, it has the same linear velocity as Earth in its orbit around the Sun [ that 67 000 mph number ]. If it remains at that speed, it will become just another object orbiting the Sun, so that speed has to be lost through retro rockets, or similar. The amount of fuel involved becomes absolutely prohibitive.
@@NJM1948 No, that is still not right. The 'inertia' you are talking about is tangential to the earth. It is constant, and the force can be calculated (as in the video). If the earth suddenly stopped moving you are not going to GAIN inertia. You would not be flung off the ground. You would just get a slight bit heavier. The difference between a sudden top and a gradual slowing just determines how quickly you will get heavier. A sudden stop means you would get heavier quickly.
@@briansomething5987 you need to google the terms you're using... you're wrong. You have momentum at your current angular velocity. If the earth stopped, you don't stop with it - just as if you're in a car and the car hits a brick wall, you don't just stop because the car stopped, you're thrown into the car because YOU ARE STILL MOVING. jesus you're thick. The statement was "The only time we would be flung off the earth", he didn't say gravity stops existing, and your understanding of inertia is hilarious. Inertia is the tendency of an object in motion to REMAIN IN MOTION. Inertia is not gravity, you would not gain inertia, but lose inertia as you decelerate After the earth stopped -> side note, losing inertia causes a loss of mass (get lighter)...
As an engineering student, it annoys me beyond belief, that some people use mph or kph to describe how fast something spins. NOONE - and I mean that literally - uses linear velocity to describe how fast things spin in a professional context. If you ask a machinist, how fast his mill spindle spins, you'd get a value in rpm. If you ask any car mechanic about how fast the engine is spinning, you'd get - again - a value in rpm. If you ask a scientist about spin rates, you'd probably get a value in radians or degrees per second.
This is exactly why flat earth needs to be taught at school - to thoroughly debunk it and make science more relevant. Of course, more than anything, flat earth shows a failure in our educational system. Well done explanation: concise and to the point.
No the people who believe in the flat earth have failed themselves cause they didn't pay attention in class, to realize earth being flat is not someting that is possible and they arent a scientist cause they are too lazy to actually do real science and believe what their constant tests to prove the earth is flat is wrong, again and again.
Your both wrong. Flat earthers were taught all the same lies as you both were. Flat earthers are independent thinkers that actually do their own experiments. Ball lovers are lazy minded and perfer to be told what to think.
@JJ Evans no flat earthers lost brain cells and that's why they believe earth is flat with NO VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING PAST THIS ICE WALL and infinite plane past it, or the firmament that makes us inside a snow globe. either show video evidence of the infinite plane past the ice wall or show physical proof of YOU touching the firmament with your two hands, anything else is not proof.
@@Ragingknight12 At least you admit with the video evidence that there is an ice wall. Flat earthers don't have all the answers because their not lying and trying to create a model that magically explains everything.
@JJ Evans yeah there's an ice wall but it doesn't do what you flat earthers believe. I have heard weird ass theories from flat earthers and they NEVER agree with each other. Some say the earth is a flat infinite plane that goes on forever, others say we are in a snow globe, which is it are we an Infinite plane or a snow globe we cannot be both, in my mind earth isn't flat its just a rubber ball in some child's oom that hasn't been touched in months
Obviously flerfs won't listen, but hopefully this can catch people on the fence. Info like this can take the power away from the lies of flat earth charlatans. Nice work!
The r line of argument I like to use against the flerfs here is angular velocity. When measuring how fast something is spinning we don't typically give that a speed in ft/sec or mile/hour. We measure rotational velocity in deg/time. In the case of Earth we rotate at 15 degrees per hour and 360 degrees per day. When flerfs say things like "spin a merry-go-round at 1000mph" they're misunderstanding this concept. If they wanted to use a merry-go-round as an analogy for the Earth they should spin it at 15 degrees per hour. What they'd notice is that the merry-go-round is barely moving because it's so small. Great video, and great graphics!
" If they wanted to use a merry-go-round as an analogy for the Earth they should spin it at 15 degrees per hour." - This is also incorrect. What you need to do is keep the centrifugal force the same, and that depends on the radius as well as the velocity (whether you angular velocity or instantaneous linear velocity).
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 sure, if you wanted to keep the forces the same. Dave already explained the underlying forces brilliantly. My point is more about how flerfs will often scream "1000 mph" in an attempt to say we should be feeling it if we're moving that fast. My point is that you can easily show exactly how slow the Earth is actually turning by demonstrating the angular velocity on a merry-go-round. Not to replicate the force, but strictly to show that 15 degrees per hour is slow, and the only reason you end up with a tangential velocity of 1000 mph is because the Earth is large. It still is rotating very slowly though, and there's no reason to expect us to feel a 15 degree per hour rotation. That's all.
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Yes, you are right. Assuming a 2 m radius and standing at the edge would require about 0.15 rpm (or about 7 minutes for one revolution) to experience to same centrifugal force as at the equator. I.e hardly noticable.
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 I disagree. The rotation would have a noticeable effect on centrifugal force before a change in radius would much like what twallgren is pointing out. If a flerf is upset because 1000 mph seems like something they should feel, then a reasonable argument would be to focus on the angular velocity, and demonstrate how small that rotation is. You could then talk about how the change in radius will only have a very minor effect on the centrifugal force, but in my experience flerfs go catatonic when you actually start looking at numbers/equations. But if you still think both things are equal and silly then you're entitled to your opinion.
1.Try flying a drone on encircling vehicle.... 2. What enclosed air outside earth? 3. How wind of different directions is not affecting, Speed of air nearer to earth (slower speed) compare to the air of higher altitude? 4. Why you are so stupid, globe heads?
Came across your videos in my YT sidebar... been following SciManDan, FTFE, Professor Dave Explains, and others. I really appreciate your... simplistic method of describing flerf logic. well done. :)
Air pressure is a good example, actually. Generally speaking, we live under 1 bar of pressure - which is actually quite a lot. We don't notice this because our bodies are have evolved to function under this pressure, but you do start to notice when that pressure begins to go away. Similarly, air resistance is something we don't notice in real life. We move around seemingly unimpeded, despite moving through a somewhat dense fluid. If you don't believe me, try to slam the door to a sealed room (with all the windows and doors closed). You'll notice a significant rush of air cushioning the door. In fact, I have a sealed hallway in my house. When I open the door to it from one room, it causes another door to rattle and sometimes be pulled open if it's not closed properly. Air may be stretchy, but there's enough of it with enough density to keep doors from slamming and pull doors shut. Yet we normally don't notice that we're fighting this sort of drag because - like you said - we know nothing else.
In regards to experiencing different environments, Denver is around 3 times higher in elevation then where I live. On my first visit there, I had near constant nose bleeds due to the difference in air pressure.
This is the best discussion on this topic I have found on RUclips, and someone finally explained it how I have always thought, it’s not about speed it’s about distance traveled compared to size
People are measurably squished by gravity: When you wake up, you're one or two centimetres taller than in the evening after the entire day of walking around. Gravity compresses the spine when you're upright.
Earlier space station man had a twin who stayed on the surface and when he got back down they were put through extensive medical examination to get a good reading of the effects of prolonged zero G exposure. The clearest difference was really evident at a glace, the man came down almost a whole foot taller than his twin.
@@Leongon Id need a citation on that foot taller... I mean your telling me if i went to space id go from 5 foot tall to 6 foot (ie id have gained a 5th of my height). Not disputing your premise, but i am your numbers :P
@@NZBigfoot I couldn't find the exact clip where I got that from lol. But I found some articles about the differences between the twins after on spent a year in the ISS, it seems they became genetically different enough so a gene test can't identify them as twins anymore, and the one who was in space became two inches taller... So I got the foot taller part wrong apparently, but still the height you gain without G forces squishing you down is crazy.
It really is a shame that the education system needs a RUclipsr to teach people 8th grade science, while the education system vigorously celebrates stupidity. You're doing the work of angels, sir.
I've many times been on a stationary train when the view of another stationary train on the adjacent track moves sideways. It's often difficult to determine which train has started moving.
As a train driver I can attest this is true. We’ll sit in a yard at a red light waiting for our departure time, with another train beside us waiting as well. You can be reading a book or something and out of the corner of your eye, the other train will start to slowly move off having got a green light. This certainly gives you a start and you’ll check your screens to make sure YOU aren’t the one who has started moving. It’s funny sometimes. 😂
To reiterate what he showed: Centrifugal acceleration for an 80kg person on earth: .03 m/s^2 Centripetal acceleration (gravity) for everyone on earth: 9.8 m/s^2 The centrifugal acceleration is just over 0.3% of the centripetal. And that's at the equator, where the force is maximized. At 40 degrees latitude (roughly where NYC is), the tangential speed is down to 795mph. That leads to a centrifugal acceleration of 0.009206 m/s^2, or just .09%. Yet flerfs claim we should be able to feel it.
Indeed. That's why if you calibrate scales on equator they will show different values for same weights, when then brought to e.g. Canada or down to Australia.
@@mabed6692 Yup. Greatersapien showed this in one of his videos, and the great thing is that everyone has the ability to do this. Of course flerfs ignore all of that, but that's just par for the course.
@@critthought2866 Not only him! Check Bob the Science Guy - video called "Rotation Test for Flat Earth". Great video. He also had some data from other people, all nicely plotted into graph with predicted results etc. Also he gave interesting challenge (at the end of the video) for flerfs, that claim that the change is only due to different temperatures.
So simple ideas that anyone with a High School elementary physics class can understand. Thanks for such a great video. If you check the profiles in, say, FB, of people who think we should be flying into space because of Earth’s rotation, you will find they have just a HS education, but aparentar they never took physics or weren’t paying enough attention in their physics class. Videos like this are a great education.
Easy subscription. I’m happy to see a channel that deals with flat earth questions in a way that just explains the truth with diagrams and formulas instead of belittling people who essentially got sucked into a cult. If I had any flat earther friends, I’d recommend your channel to them in a way I wouldn’t recommend a number of other channels.
These new videos have certainly been an entertaining change to the channel. You're pretty good at explaining scientific concepts, so I enjoy seeing the variation in subjects.
you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...? What is the speed of the J-17? How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation? Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane? An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole... So which things will aeroplane adjust? Curvature? Speed difference of air due to altitude? Speed difference due to latitude change? Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth. Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope.. Blsht... imagination.. Earth is flat
@@shayamaldolai if you understood angular velocity, you'd know the answer to your bs question Plus, when you're flying a plane, you're constantly making small adjustments anyway, so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc, over the vast distance of your flight you wouldn't be able to tell that you were constantly nosing down
@@CoffeeAddictEvan "so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc" The flight path isn't an arc. Its level at all times except during take off/ascent and descent/landing.
Something that always gets confused is when you pull a vacuum on an object the vacuum source IS NOT what crushes the object, the weight of the atmosphere does.
The difference that elevation can make to some people is astonishing. When we were kids we loved going up the mountains. Going up 3500m the thin air is clearly noticeable. Be it just from breathing, the tires of the car being a bit harder, closed bottled bulging up (and whatever you do - do NOT open them inside the car) - it is noticeable. We kids didn't care but out mom really had trouble with that, getting several day-long headache. The other way around is used in sports. Training at higher elevations to get the body used to the lower oxygen-intake (the lungs need pressure to be able to take in oxygen from the atmosphere) which the body counters by an increase of red blood cells. Going back down for a competition will then have the athletes being able to take in more oxygen more efficiently.
9:00 I think we do. Laying down feels very different than standing up. It's one reason we lay down, to not have the constant force on our joints. Or floating in water, one reason it's an enjoyable experience.
Most flerfs and space deniers are not capable of constructive thought. A couple of weeks ago in the comments on an Artemis 1 video on RUclips someone questioned why they filmed the Earth in full colour but only filmed the Moon in black and white. 🤦🤦♂🤦♀
I brought a baseball on a flight to Florida with my family. During the cruise phase I threw that baseball to my brother. I then felt I could brag about my ability to throw a baseball "hundreds of miles an hour".
There was a video by the Corridor Crew on the guns of a warship. In particular, the distance they can fire a gun is shown from the perspective of the projectile. Thought it is traveling incredibly fast, it still takes around a minute and a half to reach it's final destination(target) at 24 miles away.
@@awatt I’m not sure that building a gun that was so massive it took weeks to move and needed a railway track to get supplies to it, effectively creating a nice big arrow saying “big gun needs bombing > this way” was one of the best ideas of that war.
@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding "V-3 - Mimoyecques The hatred against the indomitable British enemy reached a pinnacle with the deployment of the V-3, reportedly Hitler’s favorite, a supercannon capable of shelling London from a distance of around 100 miles. The installation in Mimoyecques, close to Cap-Gris-Nez, about 8 miles southwest of Calais, was single-targeted against the ‘symbol town’ of London, for the cannon could not be oriented - it was built inside a hill and pointed upwards in a fixed attitude. The design was based on the older idea of multiple-charged shells, i.e. shells which were accelerated gradually to a very high target speed while running along an exceptionally long (430 ft) barrel. The site in Mimoyecques, codenamed ‘Bauvorhaben 711’, by design accommodated 25 such barrels, allowing the battery to shoot at the very high rate of 10 shells per minute, all day and night."
Your videos are often ones I regularly come back to because the way you present them is incredibly digestible even to someone who doesn't do much of their own research into these topics. The information you share is in depth but still easy to understand, which I can appreciate. Keep up the good work ^^
You are like the complete opposite of Creaky Blinder, he insults the flerfs and gives out the first explanation that crosses his mind which is often wrong. You instead don't demean them, and your explanations are really well researched and presented in the easiest possibly way to understand. We needed more debunkers like you who are polite and put on the work to get things right.
i think the explanations are more for ppl that seek for information whichever flat earth is something to consider to be more than just a phantasy or not. flerfers won't acknowledge the explanations... so i really can understand what creaky is doing, i started calling flerfers also by what they are, idiots, bible belivers (christian fundamentalists if you wanna be very critical) or just con-man who earn money by making YT vids or other stuff. it's just in vain to try to explain how wrong their believes are...
@@certhass That part about making fun of them and poking their content only for entertainment is totally fine, that's a matter of preferences. Creaky is funny. My only complain about him is that he, and often, just puts out whatever idea pops in his head first for an explanation of whatever the flerfs are questioning, and he gets it wrong very often. So the comparison between him who demeans them and gets information wrong all the time is a massive contrast with this guy who avoids demeaning them and makes sure he's putting out there the correct explanations for the phenomena the flerfs are questioning. I wanted more channels like this.
Scimandan also does a good job and even normal IQ people can learn more about the world we live in. Flerfs should pay attention and read more. if only they could put aside their anger and embarrassment for one day, it would help them understand.
flat earthers: why aren't we thrown out of the spinning globe? me: how aren't we throne out of a plane, which is spinning (according to your theory) at a speed of a thousand KMPH around the north pole?
@@kernicterus1233 I think the point being made is that an aeroplane flying, at a speed in of near 1000kph and on a constant course either due east or due west would be constantly turning, therefore the same force that would throw us off the globe should try and throw us out of the plane.
@@thearmouredpenguin7148 Flerfers categorically state that the earth is a flat and stationary plane, that is how they would answer. I got the point thank you, however, they would not get it as their pancake earth ain't movin' at all.
One of my relatives lived in Denver and was travelling to Fla for some business reasons. She had made a stop in the New Orleans airport for a 6 hr layover so we got together for dinner. Her main complaint was that the air was dense and hard to breathe, she said it was like trying to breathe in a sauna... we did have 95% humidity that day and had a hi pressure front over us, so yes, it was one of those days when we put on our "gills"...
Been following you for your photography videos for a long time. I love how you have taken it upon yourself to teach science to the flat earth “community” lol. Definitely informative, entertaining, and dismissive all at the same time 😂 Really enjoyed the hasselblad/ moon video too👍
Dave's response video to Gary Fong made me go and watch the entire hour long Hasseblad in Space Webinar. I can barely take a picture with my phone, but for some reason I was totally engaged in that video about how cameras were altered to function on the moon with space suits.
Have to agree. I have learnt so much from this debate, and very quickly realised the flerfers are all insane. Many thanks to this Dave, the other Dave and Dan, amongst others, for tearing these idiots a new a-hole!👍
Another thing to add is if you lay on your back for an extended period of time (like sleeping) you spine will stretch back out (making you effectively slightly taller) but as you walk around and do things during the day your spine compresses again, a good way to show that you are being squished into the ground
Before even watching: It takes the earth TWENTY-FOUR HOURS to make one rotation! Take a tennis ball and stick some fuzz on it, then spin it around *one time* over the course of TWENTY-FOUR HOURS and tell me if it is “thrown off.”
I imagine all of your previous videos (amazing btw) debunked many of their talking points, so they reverted to “you can’t stick to a spinning ball, do you really believe we’re rotating, orbiting the sun, traveling through the Milky Way, and flying through space, yet, DONT feel it?!” Insufferable
For me, as a German, with education in "school - english", it is soooo easy to understand, what You're talking about in details. And all the German Flerfs don't even understand all this stuff, explained in GERMAN 😄 Have a nice weekend 👍🏻
You know that term "From your lips to God's ears?" I kind of think that applies here. That was an extremely well thought out and amazingly articulated explanation of 5th grade science, and I enjoyed watching it very much! But it will all go in one ear and dribble right out the other end with flerfs! For them, you could have probably stopped at hello. Every word after hello will be too complicated for them! It's kind of like trying to explain tensors to my dog. You might be able to explain it in a way that even a dog could understand, but in the end, you will just get an extremely blank stare! And maybe a cute woof because you are talking to them. But please keep posting these! I love them! And maybe, just maybe, you might prevent a couple of almost-flerfs from falling off the edge of the disk! 😄
Slight nitpick, you mention that the earth is moving at 490k mph through "absolute space" even though there is no such thing. If I am not mistaken, that number is our velocity around the center of the galaxy. Great video! Edit: Nvm I found a different comment where you already explained why you phrased it like that :)
Your channel has been popping up in my recommendeds recently and I have to say it's been an absolute blast watching you. Kudos to you for having the willpower to constantly disprove everything they say.
I seen a flat earth debate were they were saying a long jumper(Athlete) should jump in the opposite direction to what the Earth is spinning to jump further. I couldn't believe what i was hearing🤣
I remember reading an article from some time ago about trains that reported that some people wouldn’t ride them when they first came into use because they thought their bodies would be torn apart because of how fast the trains could go. 😀
Much like dogs listening to human speech, Flat Earthers are watching this video with their heads tilted to one side, hearing the occasional word they understand but failing to grasp any meaning. Apart from Oakley, who is muting the video throughout and talking over it in the world’s most annoying condescending tone.
Finally someone explains it for fourth graders. 😂 keep it up, I really like the way you‘re presenting it. No swearing, charming humor/sarcasm, nice and easy to understand!❤
Just newly that your videos have started popping up as recommended, and I can see why. You're a professional photographer, and started studying some of the moon landing photos, quite clearly using your expertise in photography to explain in layman's terms what things are and such. A fantastically well made video. Then it catches traction with both the audience that watch flat-earth debunkers, and then the flat-earthers themselves try to "squish you" before you become "relevant" but failing miserably at that =) So, since it hasn't been long in the "flat earth" side of things, how is it making videos about it? Hehe. And I have to say, your explanations and visualizations are some of the most down to earth (pun intended) and easiest to comprehend from anywhere in the debunking community. I appreciate how you don't give in to ridiculing flat-earthers so directly, and instead present perfectly understandable concepts that MAYBE even a flat-earther could comprehend. And the cool thing is, that you just use the basic stuff we've all learned (except maybe the flat-earthers...) in grade school, and visualize it so well. (TEENY comment on this video; when you showed the earth/moon/artemis "fly by" you as an astronaut, you could have changed the reference frame to the earth, and watch you just "sail by", when absolutely nothing has changed) Keep it up, Dave! I'm looking forward to your next video. Cheers!
It is possible to measure the centripetal force from the rotation of the earth as a component of gravity. If you go to Wolframram Alpha and ask for "gravitational acceleration " it will tell you the down, east, and north component of gravity and the total acceleration of gravity at that location based on the EGM2008, 12th order model. The north component is entirely from centripetal force not being aligned with vertical. For my location, it tells me that the north component of gravity is 1*10^-5 m/s^2 and total gravity is 9.79324 m/s^2. I've worked it out before and I don't feel like doing it again, but it is enough information to determine that I was at about 30 degrees N.
That sort of claim is not new though. Way back in the 19th century, people thought that passengers traveling in a train at over 20 mph would suffocate, because they'd be moving too fast to be able to pull air into their lungs.
My favorite experiment when people bring this up is to get in a car on the highway, hold a penny in front of your face, and let it go. Flatearthers will get a 60mph penny to the face, but my lap will get a little bit richer.
@@ExistenceUniversity if you claim the axis, the the globe stays in a fixed angles position, that define north and south, top and bottom and so on. I’d like to see a livestream of Australia at the bottom of the ball, with people and buildings upside down
I'm bingewatching your videos just because they're extremely fun. I already know all of this so I can give an explanation before the video even begins, or before you answer a question given in a video, but it's still amusing to see that some people refuse to accept it.
Like, what do they even mean "why are we not being squashed down by gravity" lol. Go ahead, just stop standing, let yourself go. You'll quickly and painfully realise that you are constantly being squashed down aka you're being pulled to the ground you stand upon. We as organisms are just physiologically adapted to having enough strength to add additional force to get ourselves up from the ground. Again, we can't levitate on our own, while some animals are capable of producing so much lift force that they do stay in the air. Again, that's because of the density of the air in the atmosphere which has basically pooled on the Earth's surface because of Earth's gravitational pull. ...everything just fits so neatly together, how is it possible that these people are so thick.
"If Earth moves so fast, then why don´t we feel it?"-"Did you ever drive a car. Or a bike?"
"If gravity is so strong, then why aren´t we getting squashed in to the ground?"-"Did you ever trip over and fall? Or drop an egg?"
Edit: I´m not sure if I misunderstand the comments, or if I am the one being misunderstood. I just wanted to make fun of flatearthers, just like the video. English isn´t my native tongue, so sorry if I wrote something stupid xD
Favourite part regarding being squished into the ground is, you can always feel it, when you feel the ground under your feet, that feeling of the ground pushing back up against you being you're being pulled into it. Also why people who spend extended time in space need to readjust to living with a sense of weight again, and why someone who is born and raised in space would have a different physiology to us and find it very difficult to exist on the planet, turns out, shockingly, our body's structural dynamics evolved in an environment where there's gravity always acting on us.
I don't ever get gravity deniers who say it isn't real, then use an exact phenomema as gravity to explain why they're pulled to a flat Earth and how going off the edge would make them fall, or try to say those on the sides of the globe would fall off.
So you're saying gravity is real and acknowledging up and down frames of reference based on it, amd therefore gravity cannot be real nor can we base up and down references on a gravity source... as clear a contradiction as any did see.
@@asneakychicken322 The older I get the more my back and knees definitely tell me that I'm getting squished.
- ""If Earth moves so fast, then why don´t we feel it?"
Humans feel ACCELERATION not Uniform VELOCITY.
Try learning the difference before calling every engineer and physicist TO HAVE EVER LIVED a bunch of morons.
@@asneakychicken322 *👋😝❌ Sooo knowledgeable 😝😝😝‼️ So when was this irritable **_SPACE_** baby born that you’re Sooo Knowledgeable of🤪❓ and this an statements like this by Scientists is Why , everything they say is now questionable ✅*
I still find it absolutely shocking that this needs to be explained to grown adults. 😂
Scary as $hit is what I call it.
And in the 21st century.
It's hilariously scary 😨
Over and over and over and over and over, and it never sinks in. They just keep spouting the same BS about spinning at 1000 mph. It's pretty much hopeless.
Are we all adaults?
I know there are flerfs.
Ex Flat Earther here. Well done man. You've got the youtube algorithm Gods shining down on you. There must be a need for another channel to blow up. And it looks like its you 👍
Love your channel
Why were you a flat earther, and what made anything convince you since in 99.99% of the cases flat earthers can stare something in the face and claim it's not there.
Like pardovot I'd be very interested to hear about your journey from FE'er back to normality. Can you please share?
@@ShizukuSeiji He has a video on his youtube channel :)
Much appreciated :)
To quote Professor Dave, "A merry-go-round that only makes one revolution every 24 hours would not be a very exciting ride"
No wonder I'm so bored all the time.
Yet its speed at the equator is about 1400 ft/second. And about 28 ft/second are holding us to the ground... Either scientific dark magic is occurring to make up for what Gravity is not doing. Or them Flat Earther's have realized there is a math problem.
...or its all a simulation, and science is just the physics coding that the if then else conditions determined it does or does not apply to you.
Dave is not a real Professor and the merry go round isn't traveling at 1038mph is it.
@jjevans1693 if you're trying to apply the speed of the earth to a merry-go-round without factoring in proportion please rethink your life choices.
I mean he LITERALLY explained it in the video
@@andrevaz1289 No that's what your doing. If the merry- go- round was the size of the earth how fast would it be spinning. 1038mph. to make one revolution per day.
I actually did these centripetal force calculations for some Flerfs a while back, and transferred the same forces to a 6ft roundabout to demonstrate how fast it would spin to match the force of the earths spin. They then, as all flerfs do, moved the golaposts.
How fast did you come up with? Wild guess says something absurdly small, like 1 inch per hour, slow enough that those making the opposing argument feel really dumb :P
Edit: OK he basically gave this answer near the end of the video; that's what I get for commenting before watching 😂
If you could grow a pair of brain cells then you literally could understand that a car with bigger wheels will drive faster with same engine rotations. And 1040 mph at equator is pretty fast. 😅
Look a simple experiment. Even a one cell brain will understand it. You take a tripod with a camera and make wheel from a pipe. Stick some things on that wheel, or make some marks to be able to observe the speed. Spin it. Then take a longer pipe and make a bigger wheel and spin it again with same rotations per minute. How is the speed on the edge? Faster? How big is the floating in space and dark energy ridiculous water ball? A wheel with such radius will have quite Faster speed. And people calculated it by using the measurements given by "science ". And it's 1040 mph. 😅😅 snowing calmly today in Wisconsin.
@@giin97 check the earth rotation speed. 1040 mph at equator. Oh this dude is some kind of trustworthy authority cause you see his comment on yt! 😅
@@stolearovigor281 thats not how you measure rotational speed.
@@rainbowwizard1821 that is simple math and logics. If it's to complicated for you then it's not my fault. And your answer is not even an argument. Which doesn't surprise me at all.
So I have a few things to add:
1. Flerfs cannot deal with more than one force acting on an object at a time. So, explaining to them that the centrifugal force and gravity act on an object at the same time will probably fry their shared neuron.
2. Flerfs don't generally believe in gravity, so I doubt they would listen to facts anyway.
3. At 2:58 you called Earth a "contained system". This will most likely prompt flerfs to say "AHA! So there's a firmament! You admitted it!", because they wrongly believe that the Earth is a snow globe, apparently. So, I would recommend you avoid such phrasing in the future, just to spare us a headache.
Otherwise, keep up the good work!
The 'one force at a time' is sadly true. I was trying to explain gravity to a flerf and his wonderful retort was to ask me why gravity doesn't affect a helium ballon.
@@juanausensi499
It’s usually a helium balloon or a butterfly since they all parrot the same memes.
@@juanausensi499 "his wonderful retort was to ask me why gravity doesn't affect a helium ballon."
plot twist: it does :)
@@juanausensi499 the question is so stupid, it's really sad. it's even more sad when flerfers tell us to not just belive in science but think about it but just parrot such nonsense like the butterfly argument...
@@juanausensi499Use this retort:
The balloon is lighter than air due to the quantity of helium. In any vacuum, even a home vacuum. And air pushes the balloon, but at a point it stops going up and is pulled by gravity.
Though they’ll give you a headache by telling you you just said “buoyancy” and “density” like that bible-ist Daniel that i debated with.
I need to share a conversation I just had below another of Dave's flat Earth videos.
Some guy was saying that you can see far too much of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan for the Earth's surface to be curved.
I told him that was due to refraction caused by differing amounts of water vapour in the air and we know it differs because more or lesser amounts of the upper parts of the hi-rise skyline were visible on different days or at different times on the same day.
I then asked him, if he can sometimes see the upper parts of the buildings, why can he never see the waterfront? Shouldn't he be able to on a flat Earth?
His reply - and I shit you not - was that the waves block the view. He wrote: "the waves in front of ur vision block the bottoms. a 12 inch wave at 30 miles blocks alot of horizon behind it."
So he thinks that a wave that is about as high as a domestic cat, when its 30 miles away is big enough to hide half a sky scraper.
There is no hope for these people.
Lol that is a great flerf proof
I have to correct you. Water vapour only has a minor effect on atmospheric refraction. The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation. Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance. The math with similar triangles is straightforward. However, his explanation fails when you take the camera to any reasonable elevation, say 5m or 10m above sea level, because as we get higher, the waves need to be higher and higher to block the buildings. There's no question that it's the curve of the earth, unless someone has an objection.
@@wiggles7976 "The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation."
That's the reason I mentioned time of day.
"Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance"
But that was not what he wrote. If a person wants to specify they are laying on a beach with their head half in the water they need to do that. What he wrote was without any qualification and implied standing at the water's edge. Or near it.
If you were laying on your side, head in the water you would not see any of Chicago's skyline at all, irrespective of refraction conditions.
He then went on to say that sometimes you CAN see Chicago's waterfront which I know is not the case.
The guy is the King of the Morons to suggest what he did.
@@ShizukuSeiji If he's specifically talking about that Chicago photo by Joshua Nowicki taken at the top of the sand bank (which they almost always are), then yes, a 12in wave is irrelevant.
I don't think you have a complete understanding of the refraction though. There do exist refraction conditions that would let you see all of Chicago's skyline laying on your side with your head in the water. Andrew Thomas Young tells us that these conditions do actually happen on rare occasion. A temperature inversion that causes a very steep air density gradient will cause light to bend with a radius equal to or less than Earth's radius. When it comes to doing these long distance observations across the ocean, you really need as many observations from the same location as possible to get the average result, and that's what I've collected and archived on my channel.
The real reason you can't see the waterfront is that light has negative weight, so it tends to bend away from the flat surface of the earth. The density of the air changes with the weather and the time of day, so the rate at which light drifts upwards also changes slightly-in some conditions it floats a little more than others.
No, I'm not serious, and I'm not a flat earther, but the intention is to illustrate that you can always add enough epicycles to “fix” an explanation. The thing that's missing with these people is not knowledge, but an appreciation of Occam's razor. Physicists are, to a lesser extent, the same: both relativity and quantum mechanics _tell_ them that space is not ℝ³-shaped (or even that topology), but they persist in using an ℝ³ intuition and adding corrections, rather than trusting the maths and working on the real question of how a quantum foam connected by information patterns _appears_ to be ℝ³-shaped at large scales-in short, not how locality is violated, but how it arises.
The earth's rotation really *makes my day* :) .
I see what you did there!
@@Danielaco23
Oops!
I was hoping that I would get away with it.
Oh well. I can't win 'em all ;) .
Ha ha, my kind of joke!
Funny
and flat earth theory is really spreading around the globe.
Imagine having to explain inertia to self proclaimed "scientists"
„Why aren‘t we thrown off a spinning globe?“
You know how you weigh less at the equator than on the poles? Yeah. That is centrifugal force at work. Earth‘s gravity is just stupendously huge.
Great video, keep up the good work.
*centripetal
@@Anonymous-df8it *Centrifugal
@@BrianWelch-vc7xy That's not a thing
It's also because you're closer to the center of the earth at the poles. Though that is indirectly a result of centrifugal force. But the thing to remember is that centrifugal force isn't just from the velocity you're spinning. It's mass times velocity squared divided by the radius. Sure the velocity squared is really fast, but Earth's radius is really big.
360 degrees in 24 hours? I think you mean...
A 15 degree per hour drift.
Thanks Bob!
what, I'm...commenting under a different comment?
That never gets old.
A pedant would say 360° in 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds 😉
@@somedude4087 yes you are
@@Leopard_211 no I was confused with that cuz I was commenting under one comment but the comment was going under whole another one
This evening, 2023-01-22, I observed a most spectacular sunset. It was partly cloudy; the Sun had just set; the waxing crescent moon was just 1.4 days old, and four planets were visible in the early evening sky. The western sky was aglow in oranges transitioning to shades of purple.
As I noticed each part of this beautiful sunset, the first thing that caught my eye was the magenta color of the underside of the clouds. The Sun had slipped below the horizon, yet its rays still illuminated the cloud bottoms.
Next, the moon was one of the thinnest crescents I had ever seen. It had the faintest glow inside the crescent. When I look at it with my 8x binoculars, I saw the Earthshine barely visible against the still bright afterglow of the sunset. Some wisps of clouds passed in front of the moon. As I watched them glide by, I noticed that the terminator was not as smooth an arc as the limb of the moon. Some lunar mountains were casting irregulars shadows in the lunar sunrise.
The planets were flitting in and out of view as the clouds moved overhead. Just above the crescent moon was the very bright planet Venus in conjunction with a much dimmer Saturn, though this furthest naked eye planet was still brighter than any of the visible stars in that part of the sky. Overhead and slightly west was Jupiter. Seen through my binoculars, I could also see three of the Galilean moons, which had moved a bit since my view of them the previous night. Finally, Mars was seen pretty much unobstructed by clouds in the constellation Taurus. It was a big red orb and much brighter when compared to either Aldebaran or Betelgeuse, which are its match in color.
Truly, this was a breath taking and awe inspiring view of the early evening sky. If you have partly cloudy or clear skies in you part of the world, I invite you over the next couple of nights to look and see what nature has wrought for our wonder and pleasure. Then ponder and ask yourself how this is even possible on anything but a globular Earth in a heliocentric solar system.
I live in England. Half of the time it's cloudy, the rest of the time it just rains.
@@RichWoods23 is that why the song "Mr. Blue Sky" exists?
Beautiful description sir
One more point about why we can't see the motion of Earth through space: not only are the stars we see very far away, but they are also orbiting the center of the galaxy at roughly the same speed and direction that we are.
Roughly. But we have evidence that our night sky changed during the last 2000 years. Another fact the flerfs love to gloss over.
We can see and measure the velocity of Earth with the reference of far galaxies actually
Assumptions.
@@jeremybasil241 Exactly what assumptions are you talking about?
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Geeze ! The assumption that earth rotates , and those lights in the sky are in fact millions of billions , of trillions of light years away.
You used an example of pouring a drink on an airplane and I have an example similar to that. So I was on a flight out of Dallas and the flight attendant had just pour juice for me. The cup was on my tray table but because of turbulance that had started, I was grasping a hold of my glass. All of sudden plane dropped suddenly and I witnessed a good amount of juice come straight up out of the glass about about 8 to 12 inches above the glass and came straight back down into the glass without spilling and without hitting me going 600mph.
Having flown on Concorde I can confirm that when it was traveling faster than the speed of sound I couldn't feel any movement at all.
Flatniks will never believe that you travelled faster than a bullet😂
@@cartesiancircle Yep. The religion of incredulity. Yet they’ll happily believe in an infinite being, outside of space & time, that created the universe & cares who you have sexual relations with. Who will reward, or torture you eternally, based on his pleasure, even though the universe has trillions of galaxies & hundreds of trillions of planets, suns & black holes.
They’ll believe all that, but going two times faster than a bullet (which we actually have FILM of) is beyond their capacity to imagine.
You can’t make this shit up🤣
you never feel motion, you feel the effects of motion. Stopping, accelerating, vibrations from the engine/road and so on.
And You still heard the passenger next to You.
@@84com83 that is because of the pressurized cabin. you wouldn't hear anything on the wing, because your head would rip off.
Thank you for indicating the force, although I think that you presenting it in Newtons will likely confuse most flat earth proponents. But, if they look at 8:14, it also shows the acceleration as 0.031334m/s^2, which is at least 300 times less than the 9.81m/s^2.
And when you consider that these forces are acting on your body simultaneously, that means the force they expect to feel would just alter the overall feeling of being pulled down, instead of experiencing 9.81m/s^2 it would be about 9.78m/s^2. It isn't something anyone would be able to feel with their senses.
Exactly! And thats why if you got weights and measured them at the poles compared to the equator, there would be a difference in calculated weight! Even though it's the same weight and measuring tool/scales.
Considering flerfers are confused by spheres, one of the simplest objects in the universe, presenting force in Newtons (instead of dynes or pound-force) is most likely immaterial 😁
@@shuggiemcg1 indeed, and Bob the Science Guy did a whole video bout a road trip, two 500 gram weights and one scale to prove this 😉
And included measurements from others as well, fitting the predictions.
@@MagnusMoerkoereJohannesen I have it from a flat earth source that "units don't matter, it could be unicorn farts" so you are likely right. Especially when other flat earthers think the sun and moon are also immaterial.
The metric system is usually a far fetched unicorn for the flat earthers, such as the southern hemisphere
"Thank you for joining me"
Dog: Hey, I'm here too, Dave. And they like me a lot!
Two points…
1. To understand the ‘huge speed’ of the rotation of the earth, look at an analogue clock or watch and imaging the hours hand going at half speed. THAT is how fast the world is rotating … or the merry-go-round rotating half a revolution in 12 hours. Now would the be flung off
2. And in terms of why doesn’t gravity pull us down, and it is, this is why we have bones to allow us to now become a messy blob on the surface of whatever we might be above
Assuming the earth is flat, I’m really curious about the secret people who get the secret education and actually design and engineer everything that works on flat earth while everyone else is fooled into thinking it’s round.
I like how this guy actually explains things simply and clearly
for obvious reason
Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.
@@BarioIDL Yet still beyond the comprehension level of flattards.
@@BarioIDLflat earthers still won’t understand it😂
@@SSHhhhhhhh939 he can only open the door, it's their choice to walk through it
I dont remember why but 5 years ago when I was a sophomore in high school I was obsessed with flat earth for some reason. I argued with flat earthers on twitter for fun and I had no idea why I liked doing it. For my Earth Science final project, I learned that on presentation day I completely misinterpreted the assignment and decided last minute to scrap everything that I had prepared and instead stood up at the front drawing pictures and explaining how the earth could not be flat for at least 5 minutes. I got 95.
years later and Im coming back to this for some reason.
We really need people like you to calmly give logical responses to the infamous "flerfs".
I'm starting to get tired as the majority of them are as smart as an underdeveloped fork.
Who cares if they believe this?
@@corywiedenbeck2702 Me, as I am one of the engineers setting up satellite networks to enable wireless communication in the first place.
It's stupid.
The most difficult concept in this video is basic high school physics. MOST of the concepts in this video are identical to motion/dynamics that humans experience on a daily basis. How do people not innately understand this stuff when they live it their entire life? Mind boggling. Anyway, great vid Dave - keep teaching them!
It’s one thing to innately understand the basics as they apply to you and your life. It’s another entirely to modify values for unfamiliar scenarios and explain it well.
You are assuming that FE'ers have been on planes, trains or in cars. That would involve them having jobs and disposable income and leaving their mom's basement so maybe most haven't.
Because we are witnessing the pinnacle of human stupidity, or IMHO, most of those flat earth KOL's are milking the so called flat earth community for profits, since if they could believe the earth is flat, they must be easy targets to scam.
Flerfing idiots remain flerfing idiots because they choose to remain ignorant and stupid. They're _happy_ in their ignorance, so no amount of reason, logic, facts, data, observations, experiments, etc. will ever convince them they're wrong.
they're pretending dude. it's a joke
According to flath earth logic: The pressure at the bottom of the pool should be the same as at the top. Water density at the bottom is the same as the top.
Try asking this from a flerf….. I tried and I could never get an answer, but I got a typical flerf response of talking about some other nonsense sh$t that has also already been explained/debunked….
Lol 😆 there is no top or bottom (gravity) but stupid people will always be
Because Flat Earth stuff is complete bullshit, they always just toss out key concepts and then pretend that makes their "theories" valid.
It's always an absurd over simplification of a complex system, then pretending that nothing was lost in that simplification.
omg, which flerf thinks that? Oh i know the ones that experience the bends whenever they go diving.
@@doncsicso81 No flerf does ever answer anything. They just jump from topic to topic like someone with serious attention problems.
A minor correction: there is no absolute frame of reference. All velocities are relative to something else. The stated velocity for the Sun is relative to the galactic centre. The galactic centre is moving relative to the local group…
Thanks, I know 'absolute' space isn't correct but I was just trying to keep the concept simplified as much as possible to make it easier for people to wrap their head around
@@DaveMcKeegan You are making pretty much the same (and very major) error as them though, by establishing an absolute frame of reference.
@@rexsceleratorum1632 There is some point in the Universe which is not in motion relative to every single galaxy. We'll never find it because it would take us billions of years to get there. So, essentially, you're right.
@@petergaskin1811 That made absolutely no sense. If there is a frame of reference that is at rest in some objective manner while every other frame of reference is in motion, we don't need to go anywhere to find it. We can put any object into that same frame of reference by giving it the required velocity in the required direction.
Except this is all just fantasy. There is no fixed frame of reference anywhere, and that is one of the foundations of relativity.
Flat earth logic: The train can't move faster than a human walking speed otherwise we would be smashed to the back of the train :-)
Gods I wish that were true. I'd buy every FE crackpot a ticket and be happy to hose the train out afterwards.
That's how I hurt my self on the train today cause I forgot that it was going to move fast then I can walk. Next time I'll take a plane!
' High Speed Trains and aircrafts don't exist. They are a conspiracy '. - flerfers
With such a wonderful basic explanation that even kids could understand... it just amazes me that flerfs will still find ways to twist it to suit their narrative!!
Keep up the content!!
We are built different
It’s baffling isn’t it?
Some went as far to claim that planes are hoax and we were seeing TV screens instead of plane windows apparently
@@ak_nora no one said that
@@bathin813 Search for a video named "Airplanes Are FAKE (Barnabas Nagy)"
So flat Earthers claim the Earth is stationary. Moving at more than 1,000 miles per hour is ridiculous!
..but they are nor smart enough to realize that on their flat Earth, the sun moves in a circle at some height once every 24 hours at a speed of, wait for it...about 1,000 miles an hour!
We should experience a sonic boom once per day!
But.. but... but, er, er, density! Yeah, the density of the air stops the sonic boom from reaching all the way down from the top of the sky.
Or, no wait, the sun's not really a even a physical object so it doesn't displace any air in the first place! Yeah, that'll do.
-Possible flerth counter-argument
@@Hawk_of_Battle Yes, we heard those genius rebuttals before!
I wonder if these people stop believing they are on an elevator after the initial acceleration stops.
They just think that they go into this small room and then the upstairs comes down.
@@AbuMaia01 Einstein eqvilence principle look it up , he claims there’s no way of telling which vector were moving through I.e up or down, but movement creates density layers i.e denser objects go in the opposite direction of the movement/ acceleration , like pushing away in a car your forced back in the seat away from the movement/ acceleration . Now ballearth claim object accelerate downward towards earth how is that proven! Well it can’t but there is a channel that put’s up a convincing argument that’s it’s the other way around IF your interested look it up the channel is beyond the imaginary curve.
@@jeremybasil241 So sad that this person had a heart attack at their computer while writing this comment
Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.
At Canary Wharf, there are some Japanese-made lifts that accelerate so smoothly that it's difficult to sense that you are even moving.
When flat earth creationist types tell me things can't be moving at insane speeds, I just tell 'em to have a little faith. After all, their god can do anything, right?
Love it.. I will have to remember that one.
I, as a Christian, use that exact argument against them
why can't the Earth be round...? what is so bad about it being round...?
@@HOLDENPOPE They usually will tell you that the Bible says that earth is flat, but as far as i remember there is no such quote that says that the earth is flat (for the christian flerfs)
@@chuck1172 There isn't. It was also a Catholic scientist that proposed the idea that the Universe can be reversed to showcase that it came from a singularity some trillion years ago. Why Christian/Catholic Theology is used as a shield by Flat Earth believers is beyond me. The OG Theology, A.K.A Catholics, don't espouse that the Earth is flat. It isn't really mentioned as far as I know.
I'm a 30 year born again Christian who can't stand "Christians" who think the Earth is flat. They have the notion the Bible teaches flat earth but it doesn't. I'm a round earther all the way!
remember they say that the windows are fish-eye effect to make flat straight objects look curved.
0:44 runway is perfectly straight.
1:08 Earth is curved.
And for those who say, a disk would look like that too. No, if the earth were flat, you'd be able to see the whole Earth, and not a part of it.
It's sad that so many people can get confused by big numbers without asking about their context. All the information is there, but the big number effect just seems to stun people into disbelieving.
Excellent explanations in this video ! This makes it really simple to understand !
Also, if the change in speed is gradual enough, we won't feel that either. Like if the earth speeds up a few mph over the course of 6 months, we would never know the difference.
Yeah, someone recently argued that with me, that "why we don't feel the supposed change in earth's speed", so I calculated the change and it was like 0.0xx km/h² change, which is something, that not even most precise accelerometers would catch.
@@mabed6692 Yup, we can't directly feel the rotation of the Earth, but they think they should be able to feel the changes in velocity in our orbit around the sun and galaxy to which are far larger in scale?
When you're on a stationary train and the one beside you starts to move you can think its yours moving. Even just visual cues are enough to fool your sense of whether you’re moving or not.
@@dorkangel1076 Yes, but I was referring to the earth. So that is not an issue
@@righty-o3585 I know, I'm just giving an example of how unreliable our sense of moving / not moving is.
Dave, sorry for louring you in to this rabbit hole.
I was merely joking when I said "flat earth next?" Or whatever it was.
But you are doing a fantastic work.
You are bringing up points that I have not heard before.
This is one of the best videos ever! Each point was so clearly explained that even science deniers have chance to understand.
If they want to understand...
Oh hey when you are here I know this is a fake channel.
@@Nehner You run away from the thread where we discussed the angular vs. linear speed. Did you learn anything from this video? If you didn’t, there is nothing anyone can do for you.
you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...?
What is the speed of the J-17?
How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation?
Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane?
An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole...
So which things will aeroplane adjust?
Curvature?
Speed difference of air due to altitude?
Speed difference due to latitude change?
Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth.
Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope..
Blsht... imagination..
Earth is flat
@@shayamaldolai It would help if you wrote that in English. If I was you, I would sue the English teacher
Flerfs don't do reference frames of any kind. Trying to explain to them is like trying to do a 1000 piece jigsaw with 499 missing pieces and no picture
As I’ve just started to try to expand the number of push ups and sit ups I can do I can emphatically attest that gravity is very good at squishing you into the floor. 8:46
Thanks for the video.
My favorite comeback to the "You believe in the spinning ball" framing is to say "Well you believe we live in the dome-shaped room." Which sounds even more ridiculous and is probably about as memeworthy. That's not a scientific comeback of course (which would be easy) but it kind of helps to turn a silly meme back on them sometimes since the kinds of people locked in this paradigm are probably kept here more by some kind of social pressure or social bias rather than an honest appreciation of the facts.
The "water doesn't curve" argument gets me. Have they not seen water floating in little orbs in zero g? I wonder how they'd explain that.
@@iximusic CGI.
Apparently even NASA and Roscosmos footage from the 1960s was produced by CGI...
@@RichWoods23 It took 4 hours for each frame from Toy Story 1 to be rendered. Each CPU that rendered the movie had about 27.5 million flops, and all the cpus combined was about 8086 million flops, which is the strength of a Pentium CPU. Why is this relevant? Well, the strongest computers NASA could use for processing were giant, bulky mainframes which could do 16.6 million instructions per second, which is likely around the same amount of flops those computers had.
tl;dr with the hardware NASA had, they simply could not do CGI like that
The only time we would be flung off the earth is if it suddenly stopped!!! Our inertia, being disturbed, would result in us being sent in the same direction we were travelling previously. Much like standing room only on a bus. Whilst the bus is travelling forwards we are able to stand still - if the bus suddenly screeched to a stop we (as I'm sure many people have experienced this) would be thrown forwards. It's also the reason we have seat belts in a car
That is not right. Inertia is always making you try to go in the same direction, that is what the centrifugal force is (appears to be). If the earth stopped turning that force would go away.
@@briansomething5987 You must have misunderstood what I meant. Inertia is the state of "doing nothing" until an external force is applied. In my examples, 1) the earth suddenly stopped so the inertia of being still (relative to the earth) was dramatically changed any you would be flung off the ground - same in example 2) on the bus. You are in a still position whilst travelling at speed with the bus and only when the brakes are suddenly applied would you be flung forwards because your inertia is disturbed. I will amend my original comment to reflect this
It's the reverse argument to why we don't just bundle all of our unpleasant nuclear waste into a satellite, & simply fire it into the Sun. After all, it's just 'over there', and the heliocentric model says that the Sun has massive gravity, and pulls everything towards it. That would be true if the satellite were stationary in the solar system frame of reference, but it isn't, it has the same linear velocity as Earth in its orbit around the Sun [ that 67 000 mph number ]. If it remains at that speed, it will become just another object orbiting the Sun, so that speed has to be lost through retro rockets, or similar. The amount of fuel involved becomes absolutely prohibitive.
@@NJM1948 No, that is still not right. The 'inertia' you are talking about is tangential to the earth. It is constant, and the force can be calculated (as in the video). If the earth suddenly stopped moving you are not going to GAIN inertia. You would not be flung off the ground. You would just get a slight bit heavier. The difference between a sudden top and a gradual slowing just determines how quickly you will get heavier. A sudden stop means you would get heavier quickly.
@@briansomething5987 you need to google the terms you're using... you're wrong. You have momentum at your current angular velocity. If the earth stopped, you don't stop with it - just as if you're in a car and the car hits a brick wall, you don't just stop because the car stopped, you're thrown into the car because YOU ARE STILL MOVING. jesus you're thick.
The statement was "The only time we would be flung off the earth", he didn't say gravity stops existing, and your understanding of inertia is hilarious. Inertia is the tendency of an object in motion to REMAIN IN MOTION. Inertia is not gravity, you would not gain inertia, but lose inertia as you decelerate After the earth stopped -> side note, losing inertia causes a loss of mass (get lighter)...
Simple, and straightforward - which is why Flerfs will ignore it or attack it.
As an engineering student,
it annoys me beyond belief, that some people use mph or kph to describe how fast something spins.
NOONE - and I mean that literally - uses linear velocity to describe how fast things spin in a professional context.
If you ask a machinist, how fast his mill spindle spins, you'd get a value in rpm.
If you ask any car mechanic about how fast the engine is spinning, you'd get - again - a value in rpm.
If you ask a scientist about spin rates, you'd probably get a value in radians or degrees per second.
This is exactly why flat earth needs to be taught at school - to thoroughly debunk it and make science more relevant. Of course, more than anything, flat earth shows a failure in our educational system. Well done explanation: concise and to the point.
No the people who believe in the flat earth have failed themselves cause they didn't pay attention in class, to realize earth being flat is not someting that is possible and they arent a scientist cause they are too lazy to actually do real science and believe what their constant tests to prove the earth is flat is wrong, again and again.
Your both wrong. Flat earthers were taught all the same lies as you both were. Flat earthers are independent thinkers that actually do their own experiments. Ball lovers are lazy minded and perfer to be told what to think.
@JJ Evans no flat earthers lost brain cells and that's why they believe earth is flat with NO VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING PAST THIS ICE WALL and infinite plane past it, or the firmament that makes us inside a snow globe. either show video evidence of the infinite plane past the ice wall or show physical proof of YOU touching the firmament with your two hands, anything else is not proof.
@@Ragingknight12 At least you admit with the video evidence that there is an ice wall. Flat earthers don't have all the answers because their not lying and trying to create a model that magically explains everything.
@JJ Evans yeah there's an ice wall but it doesn't do what you flat earthers believe. I have heard weird ass theories from flat earthers and they NEVER agree with each other. Some say the earth is a flat infinite plane that goes on forever, others say we are in a snow globe, which is it are we an Infinite plane or a snow globe we cannot be both, in my mind earth isn't flat its just a rubber ball in some child's oom that hasn't been touched in months
So excited for your videos every time they show up in my feed!
I am impressed at how patient you are with this.
Obviously flerfs won't listen, but hopefully this can catch people on the fence. Info like this can take the power away from the lies of flat earth charlatans. Nice work!
The r line of argument I like to use against the flerfs here is angular velocity. When measuring how fast something is spinning we don't typically give that a speed in ft/sec or mile/hour. We measure rotational velocity in deg/time. In the case of Earth we rotate at 15 degrees per hour and 360 degrees per day. When flerfs say things like "spin a merry-go-round at 1000mph" they're misunderstanding this concept. If they wanted to use a merry-go-round as an analogy for the Earth they should spin it at 15 degrees per hour. What they'd notice is that the merry-go-round is barely moving because it's so small.
Great video, and great graphics!
" If they wanted to use a merry-go-round as an analogy for the Earth they should spin it at 15 degrees per hour." - This is also incorrect. What you need to do is keep the centrifugal force the same, and that depends on the radius as well as the velocity (whether you angular velocity or instantaneous linear velocity).
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 sure, if you wanted to keep the forces the same. Dave already explained the underlying forces brilliantly. My point is more about how flerfs will often scream "1000 mph" in an attempt to say we should be feeling it if we're moving that fast. My point is that you can easily show exactly how slow the Earth is actually turning by demonstrating the angular velocity on a merry-go-round. Not to replicate the force, but strictly to show that 15 degrees per hour is slow, and the only reason you end up with a tangential velocity of 1000 mph is because the Earth is large. It still is rotating very slowly though, and there's no reason to expect us to feel a 15 degree per hour rotation. That's all.
@@coleford4258 And my point is that shouting "but it's only 1 rotation per day" is just as bad as shouting "1000 mph". Both are meaningless arguments.
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Yes, you are right.
Assuming a 2 m radius and standing at the edge would require about 0.15 rpm (or about 7 minutes for one revolution) to experience to same centrifugal force as at the equator. I.e hardly noticable.
@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 I disagree. The rotation would have a noticeable effect on centrifugal force before a change in radius would much like what twallgren is pointing out. If a flerf is upset because 1000 mph seems like something they should feel, then a reasonable argument would be to focus on the angular velocity, and demonstrate how small that rotation is. You could then talk about how the change in radius will only have a very minor effect on the centrifugal force, but in my experience flerfs go catatonic when you actually start looking at numbers/equations.
But if you still think both things are equal and silly then you're entitled to your opinion.
It's sad that this has to be explained to grown adults.
no, it's absolutely frightening!
Are we all adults?
I know flerfs...
What is even sadder is that most of them will still not accept it.
1.Try flying a drone on encircling vehicle....
2. What enclosed air outside earth?
3. How wind of different directions is not affecting, Speed of air nearer to earth (slower speed) compare to the air of higher altitude?
4. Why you are so stupid, globe heads?
It's like shouting through the letterbox of an empty house.
Came across your videos in my YT sidebar... been following SciManDan, FTFE, Professor Dave Explains, and others.
I really appreciate your... simplistic method of describing flerf logic. well done. :)
Air pressure is a good example, actually. Generally speaking, we live under 1 bar of pressure - which is actually quite a lot. We don't notice this because our bodies are have evolved to function under this pressure, but you do start to notice when that pressure begins to go away. Similarly, air resistance is something we don't notice in real life. We move around seemingly unimpeded, despite moving through a somewhat dense fluid. If you don't believe me, try to slam the door to a sealed room (with all the windows and doors closed). You'll notice a significant rush of air cushioning the door.
In fact, I have a sealed hallway in my house. When I open the door to it from one room, it causes another door to rattle and sometimes be pulled open if it's not closed properly. Air may be stretchy, but there's enough of it with enough density to keep doors from slamming and pull doors shut. Yet we normally don't notice that we're fighting this sort of drag because - like you said - we know nothing else.
"Gravity. Have you ever heard of f***ing gravity? GRAVITY..., GRAVITY!"
You’re missing one or two😀
@@ILikeEpicurus Yeah that was the bit at the end haha.
Desertphile is the OG.
uhhhhhh Gravity is CGI! Yeah! Government faked it!
In regards to experiencing different environments, Denver is around 3 times higher in elevation then where I live. On my first visit there, I had near constant nose bleeds due to the difference in air pressure.
This is the best discussion on this topic I have found on RUclips, and someone finally explained it how I have always thought, it’s not about speed it’s about distance traveled compared to size
People are measurably squished by gravity: When you wake up, you're one or two centimetres taller than in the evening after the entire day of walking around. Gravity compresses the spine when you're upright.
Earlier space station man had a twin who stayed on the surface and when he got back down they were put through extensive medical examination to get a good reading of the effects of prolonged zero G exposure. The clearest difference was really evident at a glace, the man came down almost a whole foot taller than his twin.
@@Leongon Id need a citation on that foot taller... I mean your telling me if i went to space id go from 5 foot tall to 6 foot (ie id have gained a 5th of my height). Not disputing your premise, but i am your numbers :P
@@NZBigfoot I think it was told by Chris Hatfield on Rogan podcast. I'll see if i can find it.
@@NZBigfoot I couldn't find the exact clip where I got that from lol. But I found some articles about the differences between the twins after on spent a year in the ISS, it seems they became genetically different enough so a gene test can't identify them as twins anymore, and the one who was in space became two inches taller... So I got the foot taller part wrong apparently, but still the height you gain without G forces squishing you down is crazy.
I've tried explaining that earth rotates twice as slowly as the hour hand on a clock. But they didn't seem to know which hand that was.
flat earthers always ask that question, not realising that the earth spins once... a day.
It really is a shame that the education system needs a RUclipsr to teach people 8th grade science, while the education system vigorously celebrates stupidity. You're doing the work of angels, sir.
I've many times been on a stationary train when the view of another stationary train on the adjacent track moves sideways. It's often difficult to determine which train has started moving.
As a train driver I can attest this is true. We’ll sit in a yard at a red light waiting for our departure time, with another train beside us waiting as well. You can be reading a book or something and out of the corner of your eye, the other train will start to slowly move off having got a green light. This certainly gives you a start and you’ll check your screens to make sure YOU aren’t the one who has started moving. It’s funny sometimes. 😂
@@TheWombat2012 I definitely have had that experience even with my own vehicle too lol. Half a heart attack every time.
To reiterate what he showed:
Centrifugal acceleration for an 80kg person on earth: .03 m/s^2
Centripetal acceleration (gravity) for everyone on earth: 9.8 m/s^2
The centrifugal acceleration is just over 0.3% of the centripetal. And that's at the equator, where the force is maximized. At 40 degrees latitude (roughly where NYC is), the tangential speed is down to 795mph. That leads to a centrifugal acceleration of 0.009206 m/s^2, or just .09%.
Yet flerfs claim we should be able to feel it.
Indeed. That's why if you calibrate scales on equator they will show different values for same weights, when then brought to e.g. Canada or down to Australia.
@@mabed6692 Yup. Greatersapien showed this in one of his videos, and the great thing is that everyone has the ability to do this. Of course flerfs ignore all of that, but that's just par for the course.
@@critthought2866 Not only him! Check Bob the Science Guy - video called "Rotation Test for Flat Earth". Great video. He also had some data from other people, all nicely plotted into graph with predicted results etc. Also he gave interesting challenge (at the end of the video) for flerfs, that claim that the change is only due to different temperatures.
@@mabed6692 Yeah, Bob does great stuff.
So simple ideas that anyone with a High School elementary physics class can understand. Thanks for such a great video. If you check the profiles in, say, FB, of people who think we should be flying into space because of Earth’s rotation, you will find they have just a HS education, but aparentar they never took physics or weren’t paying enough attention in their physics class. Videos like this are a great education.
Easy subscription. I’m happy to see a channel that deals with flat earth questions in a way that just explains the truth with diagrams and formulas instead of belittling people who essentially got sucked into a cult. If I had any flat earther friends, I’d recommend your channel to them in a way I wouldn’t recommend a number of other channels.
These new videos have certainly been an entertaining change to the channel. You're pretty good at explaining scientific concepts, so I enjoy seeing the variation in subjects.
Another great video. Simply explained and precise
you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...?
What is the speed of the J-17?
How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation?
Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane?
An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole...
So which things will aeroplane adjust?
Curvature?
Speed difference of air due to altitude?
Speed difference due to latitude change?
Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth.
Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope..
Blsht... imagination..
Earth is flat
@@shayamaldolai thanks for adding to my block list you weirdo
@@shayamaldolai if you understood angular velocity, you'd know the answer to your bs question
Plus, when you're flying a plane, you're constantly making small adjustments anyway, so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc, over the vast distance of your flight you wouldn't be able to tell that you were constantly nosing down
@@CoffeeAddictEvan "so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc"
The flight path isn't an arc. Its level at all times except during take off/ascent and descent/landing.
@@shayamaldolai Get off the internet and get an education, start with a few school science textbooks.
Dave: There been a lot of flat earthers............
Dog: Oh no, not again....leave it Dave, let it go!
Something that always gets confused is when you pull a vacuum on an object the vacuum source IS NOT what crushes the object, the weight of the atmosphere does.
Talking to the geoflatniks is like father Ted trying to explain to Dougal that the cows outside are 'far away ' 😂
The difference that elevation can make to some people is astonishing.
When we were kids we loved going up the mountains. Going up 3500m the thin air is clearly noticeable. Be it just from breathing, the tires of the car being a bit harder, closed bottled bulging up (and whatever you do - do NOT open them inside the car) - it is noticeable. We kids didn't care but out mom really had trouble with that, getting several day-long headache.
The other way around is used in sports. Training at higher elevations to get the body used to the lower oxygen-intake (the lungs need pressure to be able to take in oxygen from the atmosphere) which the body counters by an increase of red blood cells. Going back down for a competition will then have the athletes being able to take in more oxygen more efficiently.
Thank you for a clear and concise explanation (that will sadly go over the heads of the flerfs)
But will it go over their heads in a straight line or a curve? And what will its tangenital velocity be?
(that was a deliberate misspelling)
9:00 I think we do. Laying down feels very different than standing up. It's one reason we lay down, to not have the constant force on our joints. Or floating in water, one reason it's an enjoyable experience.
Most flerfs and space deniers are not capable of constructive thought. A couple of weeks ago in the comments on an Artemis 1 video on RUclips someone questioned why they filmed the Earth in full colour but only filmed the Moon in black and white. 🤦🤦♂🤦♀
I brought a baseball on a flight to Florida with my family. During the cruise phase I threw that baseball to my brother. I then felt I could brag about my ability to throw a baseball "hundreds of miles an hour".
There was a video by the Corridor Crew on the guns of a warship. In particular, the distance they can fire a gun is shown from the perspective of the projectile. Thought it is traveling incredibly fast, it still takes around a minute and a half to reach it's final destination(target) at 24 miles away.
Some artillery is insane, the Paris Gun from 1918, the shell time was 3 minutes and reached over 130,000ft in altitude
@@DaveMcKeegan
The Germans built a gun on the French coast to bombard London. Fortunately it was bombed into oblivion before it could be used.
@@awatt
I’m not sure that building a gun that was so massive it took weeks to move and needed a railway track to get supplies to it, effectively creating a nice big arrow saying “big gun needs bombing > this way” was one of the best ideas of that war.
@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding
"V-3 - Mimoyecques
The hatred against the indomitable British enemy reached a pinnacle with the deployment of the V-3, reportedly Hitler’s favorite, a supercannon capable of shelling London from a distance of around 100 miles. The installation in Mimoyecques, close to Cap-Gris-Nez, about 8 miles southwest of Calais, was single-targeted against the ‘symbol town’ of London, for the cannon could not be oriented - it was built inside a hill and pointed upwards in a fixed attitude. The design was based on the older idea of multiple-charged shells, i.e. shells which were accelerated gradually to a very high target speed while running along an exceptionally long (430 ft) barrel. The site in Mimoyecques, codenamed ‘Bauvorhaben 711’, by design accommodated 25 such barrels, allowing the battery to shoot at the very high rate of 10 shells per minute, all day and night."
@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding
ruclips.net/video/JFJJ4YYWNOg/видео.html
An animation of the site
Your videos are often ones I regularly come back to because the way you present them is incredibly digestible even to someone who doesn't do much of their own research into these topics. The information you share is in depth but still easy to understand, which I can appreciate. Keep up the good work ^^
You are like the complete opposite of Creaky Blinder, he insults the flerfs and gives out the first explanation that crosses his mind which is often wrong. You instead don't demean them, and your explanations are really well researched and presented in the easiest possibly way to understand. We needed more debunkers like you who are polite and put on the work to get things right.
But they are setting themselves up for being ripped apart
i think the explanations are more for ppl that seek for information whichever flat earth is something to consider to be more than just a phantasy or not. flerfers won't acknowledge the explanations... so i really can understand what creaky is doing, i started calling flerfers also by what they are, idiots, bible belivers (christian fundamentalists if you wanna be very critical) or just con-man who earn money by making YT vids or other stuff. it's just in vain to try to explain how wrong their believes are...
@@certhass That part about making fun of them and poking their content only for entertainment is totally fine, that's a matter of preferences. Creaky is funny. My only complain about him is that he, and often, just puts out whatever idea pops in his head first for an explanation of whatever the flerfs are questioning, and he gets it wrong very often. So the comparison between him who demeans them and gets information wrong all the time is a massive contrast with this guy who avoids demeaning them and makes sure he's putting out there the correct explanations for the phenomena the flerfs are questioning. I wanted more channels like this.
@@Leongon yeah, that could be true. i could point you to a very good science channel but sadly its only german
Scimandan also does a good job and even normal IQ people can learn more about the world we live in. Flerfs should pay attention and read more. if only they could put aside their anger and embarrassment for one day, it would help them understand.
flat earthers: why aren't we thrown out of the spinning globe?
me: how aren't we throne out of a plane, which is spinning (according to your theory) at a speed of a thousand KMPH around the north pole?
Because they believe the ‘flat plane’ is stationary and the local sun & moon move above us a few thousand miles away.
@@kernicterus1233 I think the point being made is that an aeroplane flying, at a speed in of near 1000kph and on a constant course either due east or due west would be constantly turning, therefore the same force that would throw us off the globe should try and throw us out of the plane.
@@thearmouredpenguin7148 Flerfers categorically state that the earth is a flat and stationary plane, that is how they would answer.
I got the point thank you, however, they would not get it as their pancake earth ain't movin' at all.
One of my relatives lived in Denver and was travelling to Fla for some business reasons. She had made a stop in the New Orleans airport for a 6 hr layover so we got together for dinner. Her main complaint was that the air was dense and hard to breathe, she said it was like trying to breathe in a sauna... we did have 95% humidity that day and had a hi pressure front over us, so yes, it was one of those days when we put on our "gills"...
Been following you for your photography videos for a long time. I love how you have taken it upon yourself to teach science to the flat earth “community” lol. Definitely informative, entertaining, and dismissive all at the same time 😂
Really enjoyed the hasselblad/ moon video too👍
Dave's response video to Gary Fong made me go and watch the entire hour long Hasseblad in Space Webinar. I can barely take a picture with my phone, but for some reason I was totally engaged in that video about how cameras were altered to function on the moon with space suits.
Believing in a spinning globe is one thing but bouncing around on the moon is something else, lol and all that.
@@craighuey881troll
Flat Earth: teaching people about science but for all the wrong reasons its adherents believe. Well done.
Have to agree. I have learnt so much from this debate, and very quickly realised the flerfers are all insane. Many thanks to this Dave, the other Dave and Dan, amongst others, for tearing these idiots a new a-hole!👍
Whenever this is brought up my reply is, spin one time, but you have to take 24 hours to do it!!
0.000694rpm or 15 degrees per hour "Thanks Bob".
I like to say half the speed the hour hand moves on an analog clock. They might, just might be able to visualize that, or have one to actually see.
@@Tsudico that's what I use too. I've challenged geoflatniks to look at the hour hand and let me know the moment it moves. Still waiting ✌️
sometimes i open this guy's videos up just to remind myself there is logic and reason in this world, no matter how many people try to ignore it
Another thing to add is if you lay on your back for an extended period of time (like sleeping) you spine will stretch back out (making you effectively slightly taller) but as you walk around and do things during the day your spine compresses again, a good way to show that you are being squished into the ground
Plus astronauts who go to the space station are slightly taller when they come back to earth.
another experiment you can do is literally lift any object that has mass lmao
You have something on top of your spine called a head which weighs around 12 kilos..just saying.
@@timsytanker That'll be according to Nasa I suppose
@@craighuey881 and Russia and India and China and UK and France and (insert any country who has ever had an astronaut/cosmonaut in space)
Before even watching:
It takes the earth TWENTY-FOUR HOURS to make one rotation!
Take a tennis ball and stick some fuzz on it, then spin it around *one time* over the course of TWENTY-FOUR HOURS and tell me if it is “thrown off.”
I imagine all of your previous videos (amazing btw) debunked many of their talking points, so they reverted to “you can’t stick to a spinning ball, do you really believe we’re rotating, orbiting the sun, traveling through the Milky Way, and flying through space, yet, DONT feel it?!” Insufferable
For me, as a German, with education in "school - english", it is soooo easy to understand, what You're talking about in details.
And all the German Flerfs don't even understand all this stuff, explained in GERMAN 😄
Have a nice weekend 👍🏻
These people know they are wrong, but they dont want to believe it due to distrust in world governments
@@SysKeyJSthe concept of the conspiracy itself is more confusing than the half baked evidence for me
I love how well you put things, so innate and simple to understand using logic and just following it to its conclusion.
It's embarrassing that people need this explained to them.
You know that term "From your lips to God's ears?" I kind of think that applies here. That was an extremely well thought out and amazingly articulated explanation of 5th grade science, and I enjoyed watching it very much! But it will all go in one ear and dribble right out the other end with flerfs! For them, you could have probably stopped at hello. Every word after hello will be too complicated for them! It's kind of like trying to explain tensors to my dog. You might be able to explain it in a way that even a dog could understand, but in the end, you will just get an extremely blank stare! And maybe a cute woof because you are talking to them.
But please keep posting these! I love them! And maybe, just maybe, you might prevent a couple of almost-flerfs from falling off the edge of the disk! 😄
Slight nitpick, you mention that the earth is moving at 490k mph through "absolute space" even though there is no such thing.
If I am not mistaken, that number is our velocity around the center of the galaxy.
Great video!
Edit: Nvm I found a different comment where you already explained why you phrased it like that :)
Your channel has been popping up in my recommendeds recently and I have to say it's been an absolute blast watching you. Kudos to you for having the willpower to constantly disprove everything they say.
I seen a flat earth debate were they were saying a long jumper(Athlete) should jump in the opposite direction to what the Earth is spinning to jump further. I couldn't believe what i was hearing🤣
Lol that is a funny flerf
ruclips.net/video/zeqMsf66-mY/видео.html
Show them ☝️
Hey. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I did it once. Jumped 283' and landed in the parking lot. I think I still hold the state record.
That was the Globe-busters trying (and failing) to debunk "Professor Dave".
I remember reading an article from some time ago about trains that reported that some people wouldn’t ride them when they first came into use because they thought their bodies would be torn apart because of how fast the trains could go. 😀
and all those people mated, producing hordes of ignorant flerfers.....
I’m reading an article right now how 16 and 17 yo dying suddenly from myocarditis. Sad sad situation
@@Globeisahoaxx you mean that one accident from a rollercoaster?
I think I read the same article. Did it claim that women's reproductive systems would fly out of their bodies if they went more than 30mph?
@@John73John Not the one I read. I never heard that one. Wow.
Much like dogs listening to human speech, Flat Earthers are watching this video with their heads tilted to one side, hearing the occasional word they understand but failing to grasp any meaning.
Apart from Oakley, who is muting the video throughout and talking over it in the world’s most annoying condescending tone.
Finally someone explains it for fourth graders. 😂 keep it up, I really like the way you‘re presenting it. No swearing, charming humor/sarcasm, nice and easy to understand!❤
You trully have a ton of patience with FEs. Good job!
Acceleration from centrifugal force is a maximum of something like 0.03m/s^2...far less than g, which is around 9.8m/s^2.
That's the math I came up with as well when I did the calculations a few weeks ago for a Quara post. 9.8 -vs- 0.32 Hmmm, which one is bigger?
Oops! I misplaced a decimal. It's 0.032 or 10x smaller than what I typed there :\
Just newly that your videos have started popping up as recommended, and I can see why. You're a professional photographer, and started studying some of the moon landing photos, quite clearly using your expertise in photography to explain in layman's terms what things are and such. A fantastically well made video. Then it catches traction with both the audience that watch flat-earth debunkers, and then the flat-earthers themselves try to "squish you" before you become "relevant" but failing miserably at that =)
So, since it hasn't been long in the "flat earth" side of things, how is it making videos about it? Hehe.
And I have to say, your explanations and visualizations are some of the most down to earth (pun intended) and easiest to comprehend from anywhere in the debunking community. I appreciate how you don't give in to ridiculing flat-earthers so directly, and instead present perfectly understandable concepts that MAYBE even a flat-earther could comprehend.
And the cool thing is, that you just use the basic stuff we've all learned (except maybe the flat-earthers...) in grade school, and visualize it so well. (TEENY comment on this video; when you showed the earth/moon/artemis "fly by" you as an astronaut, you could have changed the reference frame to the earth, and watch you just "sail by", when absolutely nothing has changed)
Keep it up, Dave! I'm looking forward to your next video. Cheers!
It is possible to measure the centripetal force from the rotation of the earth as a component of gravity. If you go to Wolframram Alpha and ask for "gravitational acceleration " it will tell you the down, east, and north component of gravity and the total acceleration of gravity at that location based on the EGM2008, 12th order model. The north component is entirely from centripetal force not being aligned with vertical. For my location, it tells me that the north component of gravity is 1*10^-5 m/s^2 and total gravity is 9.79324 m/s^2. I've worked it out before and I don't feel like doing it again, but it is enough information to determine that I was at about 30 degrees N.
That sort of claim is not new though. Way back in the 19th century, people thought that passengers traveling in a train at over 20 mph would suffocate, because they'd be moving too fast to be able to pull air into their lungs.
Fortunately, engineers then came up with the idea of putting walls on passenger cars.
@@Lemon_Inspector people go on the highway in convertibles. The walls aren’t the saving grace there.
My favorite experiment when people bring this up is to get in a car on the highway, hold a penny in front of your face, and let it go. Flatearthers will get a 60mph penny to the face, but my lap will get a little bit richer.
My favorite go to for the earth spinning on an axis argument is that it's not a very fast spin if it takes a whole day to make it around once!
1000mph is still 1000mph….. doesn’t matter how long it takes to 1 rotation or how big the earth is
@@Jsj_Stretch tell me you dont know how rotation works without telling me you don’t know how rotation works
@@Jsj_Stretch Oh it matters not! If it takes you 1 day to spin around a merry-go-round, you won't feel it move. QED.
Slower than a clock hand but flatearth morons no this but it destroys there religious belief B.S
@@ExistenceUniversity if you claim the axis, the the globe stays in a fixed angles position, that define north and south, top and bottom and so on.
I’d like to see a livestream of Australia at the bottom of the ball, with people and buildings upside down
I'm bingewatching your videos just because they're extremely fun. I already know all of this so I can give an explanation before the video even begins, or before you answer a question given in a video, but it's still amusing to see that some people refuse to accept it.
Like, what do they even mean "why are we not being squashed down by gravity" lol. Go ahead, just stop standing, let yourself go. You'll quickly and painfully realise that you are constantly being squashed down aka you're being pulled to the ground you stand upon. We as organisms are just physiologically adapted to having enough strength to add additional force to get ourselves up from the ground. Again, we can't levitate on our own, while some animals are capable of producing so much lift force that they do stay in the air. Again, that's because of the density of the air in the atmosphere which has basically pooled on the Earth's surface because of Earth's gravitational pull. ...everything just fits so neatly together, how is it possible that these people are so thick.
If you loose your balance, you *are* squashed into the ground - and it hurts!
If you loose your balance it means that it wasn't tight enough when you started.
@@AirwavesEnglish 😂 I see, I see - I could claim to be a non-native speaker, but even native speaker make this error … I leave it that way … 😁
@@c.augustin Your honesty and sense of humour gets you a thumbs up sir.