The worst thing about watching debunks of Nathan Oakley is that they contain images or recordings of Nathan Oakley. He is a hateful individual with no worth or wisdom.
Yeah, I've heard this 'pressure higher because O2 is 'created' near the surface' argument before. A followup question for this is, "Then why isn't the air near the surface ALL oxygen? What is creating the nitrogen constantly? Surely by now, all the nitrogen would have been displaced by this 'constantly created oxygen?" They spout off some silly idea without ever thinking it through, hoping their audience won't either.
This is remarkable. He's come full circle. This whole narrative of plants producing gas at the surface and having it slowly filter up or it's less dense only works if the gas is being lost at the edge of the atmosphere. I mean it still doesn't work, gas doesn't move that slowly, his model has gas behaving as if it's as thick as molasses so it slowly flows away from the surface. But on a more fundamental level, he's now adopted a model where gas is being sucked out into space in order to explain the low pressure at high altitudes. I mean, otherwise if plants were producing gas and increasing the atmospheric pressure, our atmospheric pressure would be constantly increasing. He hasn't thought of true enough to realize what he's done, I'm sure, but he has produced a model in which gas is produced at the surface and lost at the edges of the atmosphere which ruins his entire argument of why we are supposed to require a dome.
Indeed. Spaceballs comes to mind; he needs a giant vacuum cleaner on the dome sucking out all the excess air. But where does that air go? It can't go out of the dome since there is nothing beyond the dome.
For plants to produce Oxygen, they have to absorb carbon dioxide. So, at the bigenning you have CO2, at the end you have O2, how can he find more pressure with such logic, when the carbon is absorbed by plants ?
Atmospheric pressure at 1,000 feet below sea level in mines is about 15.2 psi, as opposed to around 14.7 at sea level. Not too many plants growing 1,000 feet underground.
Questions for Nathan: If the gas comes back down, how does the other gas lower down not get in the way? How is the pressure not increasing over time as extra gas is always being added to a sealed system, like pumping up a bicycle tyre?
So Nathan is so tied to his script about the Second Law of Thermodynamics that he doesn’t realize his non-explanation violates the Law of Conservation of Mass. Nice job Uncle Fester.
A flerf dictionary would be about 20 pages long. One, they only understand about 5% of all used words and two, of that 5% all the words would only have one definition. Level - Flat. Vacuum - Machine that sucks. Perspective - Why the sun disappears. Horizon - Fake line globers are indoctrinated to believe. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That sucking sound you hear isn't the "space vacuum" sucking off Earth's atmosphere. Don't ask me what it is. We're talking about Oakley here and that's dangerous.
The whole basis of their imagined 'debunk', via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is that entropy increases over time. To put it another way, the amount of 'order' within the system decreases, and 'disorder' increases. That's the basis of the " pressure next to a vacuum" argument, and that everything will equilibrate. But in their 'model' of containment, with a pressure gradient, they have a box, or better still a hollow hemisphere, where 90 % of the gas molecules are clustered on one side. And even the young earth creationists say that this situation has existed for over 6000 years. We would say millions & billions of years. Gravity is the 'force' that applies a bias to the model. But they deny gravity, so they're up Schitt Creek hunting for a paddle.
I often wonder what their thoughts on ice cubes would be. Clearly a violation of the 2nd law as you are decreasing the entropy of liquid water when you make them. The answer is obvious to anyone that passed 9th grade chemistry in high school, but I'd love someone to ask him. I'm banned from his channel and can't even comment so I can't ask myself.
They always leave out the part that it is the entropy of the isolated system that always increases. The entropy of other systems can increase or decrease depending on whether they are doing work or whether work is being done them. Also no system is perfect in reality.
@@BobtheScienceGuy It's that old bugbear 'frames of reference' & 'systems'. You can decrease the entropy within one system, so long as that is contained within a larger system, where the overall entropy is increasing. A body can be within more than one system or frame of reference simultaneously, a tricky concept when you can't walk and chew gum ....
@@BobtheScienceGuy Of course they have never bothered to read the laws of Thermodynamics. Their version of the second law clearly violated the first law. Of course they don't care about that all they care about is they have a mantra to dismiss the globe with.
Before Nathan discusses how things work in the universe, he should study how things work in the universe. That means at least one year of basic Classical Mechanics (Physics). It's obvious he never did that, so why would anyone be foolish enough to listen to his bad guesses? 🙂
So riddle me this. If plants, or some magic of the flat earth, continually creates new atmosphere molecules, and these slowly drift up creating a pressure gradient within the enclosed dome, wouldn't this result in a continuously increasing overall gas pressure?
I was also thinking, if there's all this new gas being created at ground level, then the sum total of all gases must be increasing over time and the pressure must be building. Also, if this stuff is going up (why is it going up?) and it's even reaching Everest, then it must be building up, up there, in increasing quantities, which seems to me would eventually give rise to a reverse pressure gradient, more higher up than lower down. He mentions something about it going back down again but doesn't explain how it does. The whole thing is rather confusing. It's made near the ground? It goes up? Why? It goes down? Why? Is the pressure slowly building? Is the dome going to explode eventually?
Don't those who climb Everest sometimes use supplemental oxygen, or at the very least spend time acclimating to higher altitudes so their bodies develop more red blood cells to gather more of the smaller amount of oxygen at higher elevations? That alone would demonstrate the reduced oxygen level and lower pressure at those altitudes; if you done take them into account, you either pass out or die.
Another problem with Uncle Fester's logic is that if there were a dome and gravity would be the result of a pressure gradient - where does the gradient come from? After all, if all the gas were contained inside a dome, the pressure - provided that gravity is just a phenomenon and not a force as per flerf logic - should be equal everywhere.
“It’s got to come back down again”? Hey Nathan…WHAT makes it come back down again? It’s almost like something is acting on it to make it come back down again. Hmmmm…if only there was a name for this? 🤔
I can't listen to Oakley without thinking that he doesn't believe a word of his nonsense and it's all an act in his daily three ring circus. In the words of Billy Flynn: 'Razzle Dazzle 'em'.
When the number of mol is the same for oxygen and carbon dioxide, the question is if the molar volume is exactly the same. This tells us, if the volumes produced are a little larger or smaller. Turns out, that the molar volume of oxygen is a little larger with 22.39 L/mol versus the one of carbon dioxide with 22.26 L/mol.
They don't call it an Ideal Gas Law for nothing :-) . I think I've seen the equations for Non-Ideal Gas Laws but, IIRC and I might not, they were quickly replaced by "Use these tables of correction factors if it ever matters too much.".
I think I see the problem here, and it is with Bob, rather than Nathan. We have all seen the comparison between flat earthers and pigeons playing chess. What Bob appears to be doing is trying to explain to the pigeon how the knight moves, when he should be saying 'get the f**k away from the chess board Nathan and let the grown ups play'. (Obviously, it is not really a problem with you Bob, your patient explanations won't help Nathan - he still has no understanding of anything - but they continue to be of value to anyone with more than one brain cell). Rather than continuing to misunderstand air pressure, Nathan should be trying to find out where all the Antarctic guns went.
The Everest comment was so stupid. If there was a dome above us then oxygen wouldn't get thinner up there but do the opposite. All the gasses piling up up there would be a very serious problem. Uncle Fester just says we can go to the top of Everest while ignoring that one obvious "It's hard the breathe up here" fact.
"I'm not making any claims about it" "I don't have a model" "I don't know what the moon is" ...but my entire cult's dogma is 100% true and I'm 200% sure of that!
TADA!!! I figured it out.... Caves, caves are pressure relief valves, as the pressure increases, the extra pressure is vented off through caves way down deep in the earth and as the air vents off towards the dome the caves will help balance the pressure loss if the plants dont produce enuf air... this is also the reason why there is too much CO2 in the air too, caves are made in limestone which contain loads of CO2... add acid rain to limestone and wala CO2 gas... and when the caves collapse trapping CO2 gas inside, it eventually makes its way to the fissures around volcanoes This is the reason why there is spikes in CO2 when volcanoes erupt, all that CO2 under hi pressure comes out pushing the lava out with it just like the science projects of volcanoes which use baking soda and vinegar for lava flow.... and earthquakes are because the CO2 gas is moving underground, lifting and shifting the ground and making it move as it works its way to the volcanoes.... earthquakes in California and gas release in Yellowstone, and all the caves in between, see the connection yet? LOL I could have been an awesome flerfer, but lying doesnt sit well with me... ;)
They always pick out one example they think they can twist to support their dumbshittery. How do bodies of water not need a container to stay put, but the air does?
That's what the ice wall is for in their minds. There is an edge to the world with a wall as well and on that wall sits the airtight dome of the firmament. The problem is that both the wall and the dome are thought experiments with no logical possibility of existing and not a single piece of proof ever produced for them.
Anyone else have this problem where playback of the video suddenly changes to another audio track (in my case French, always the top one), with no possibility to change it back to English? It worked if I reloaded the page though, but it's the second time its happened to me in just a few days.
@@sendintheclowns7305 exactly. Think of all the relationships either withered and died or explicitly ended over his obsession? He can't function outside of this. Everyone he knows is a voice in discord. It sad.
Not really the topic, but some flerf plagued me in a comment section asking about the curve, so I gave him the radius. No, he still insisted he wanted evidence so I hinted this guy about images from satellites and how to easily measure it oneself. No, again “Nu-uh!” and another logical fallacy. These people are nothing but personal incredulities …. They will never accept any explanation or evidence. NEVER!
Look Bob has measured the curve over a lake and they just dismiss it. The curve clearly happens and we can measure it and the drop to the horizon that they insist does not exist. They don't really want the answers to their questions as when they are given just that they just cry fake. They constantly make demands, such as Mark Seargent asking for a panorama during a space mission while ignoring the ones that already exist(Such as the multiple pans from every moon mission to land on the moon).
he insinuating that the air pressure is the same at any given altitude, but its not. Surely, if there was a container, it would be the same at any altitude, or did i miss that bit?
Take a closed vertical tube, fill it with smoke. Wait for the smoke to calm down. Measure pressure at various points. Disturb the smoke. Wait until it settles. Measure. Repeat. How the hell can there be a pressure gradient when there is no gas movement? And why do you get the same measurements at specific heights?
@@keith726able I did not write different heigths, read again! And also, why did I add smoke? To show that the pressure gradient does not come from oxygen travelling from the plant to the mountain (which might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard)
@@frantri3246 You said a closed vertical tube filled with smoke. Taking measurements at different locations must be at different heights in a vertical tube. What are you talking about? Do you recognize that air pressure decreases with altitude?
@@keith726able I wrote that you will get same values at SPECIFIC heights, not different. And those measurements are repeatable over the course of a reasonable short period. You need different heights because only one point of measurement won't reveal the gradient. And each specific height will reveal a different value, but we need to make several runs of measurements to show that we get the same gradient over and over again. So "SPECIFIC heights will have the same values in each run." Is it clear now, or do you still think I am a stupid flat earther that should be laughed at?
Bob, you're missing a huge opportunity. You don't have to pay for aviation fuel any more. Just carry a Mary Poppins umbrella in the cockpit, stick it out the window, and catch all that gas bursting up from low potential on the ground to high potential at cruising altitude. No need to burn fuel to climb. No, wait, nothing flows from low potential to high without energy conversion. I meant high pressure on the ground to low pressure at altitude. Yeah, that's what I meant. 🤡
According to Nathan's claim that air is produced on the ground and goes up, I may ask "Why doesn't the pressure within the dome rise to higher and higher rates?"
If Nathan has chosen this look willingly, this should tell you all you need to know about his decision-making and critical thinking skills. If he has some medical condition causing him to lose his hair, please disregard what would be a pretty mean comment.
Until RUclips starts to take misinformation seriously, these kind of channels will continue to meander along. He has enough idiot followers to maintain his channel unfortunately
Start at start. Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth’s surface is literally physically the floor of Einstein’s cabin. If you don’t know what gravity is don’t call yourself a physicist, astronomer or cosmologist or indeed even a well informed human.
@ The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything. Get informed: read first then comment.
@@keith726able Photosynthesis turns 6CO₂ + 6H₂O into C₆H₁₂O₆ (glucose) + 6O₂. Since the glucose is stored, six CO₂ molecules go in and six O₂ molecules come out. The net effect is therefore the loss of the carbon atom. While oxygen is produced, it is not "generated", only liberated from the carbon dioxide input.
Actually David is not really making an error or saying plants don’t make O2. He is correct that they remove atmospheric Carbon (they convert it to carbohydrates)
@@BobtheScienceGuy Thank you for the correction on mass. I admit to not knowing much about gas law. Edit: I made my own reply to Keith, but it seems to have been memory-holed. It is indeed the net effect of removing the carbon atom from CO₂ that I was trying to point out.
The worst thing about watching debunks of Nathan Oakley is that they contain images or recordings of Nathan Oakley. He is a hateful individual with no worth or wisdom.
QE as well.
Can’t stand him either. Smug idiot
hes a grifter...did you see the video of McToon from Anthartica live calling him..He made shit of him
@@paulfitzpatrickpaulo WHERE ARE THE GUNS NATHAN? Hilarious!
Were's the guns Nathan?
Noakley - Gas pressure equalizes in a container.
Noakley - There is a pressure gradient in this particular container. Only this one though.
Nathan: gas is produced at ground level and expands upwards
Also Nathan: I don’t make any claims
Also, how can it be causing the downward specific vector if it's expanding upwards?
There's gotta be a "pelvic thrust" from the "Time Warp" song from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" joke in there somewhere! There's just gotta be! 🌎
Yeah, I've heard this 'pressure higher because O2 is 'created' near the surface' argument before. A followup question for this is, "Then why isn't the air near the surface ALL oxygen? What is creating the nitrogen constantly? Surely by now, all the nitrogen would have been displaced by this 'constantly created oxygen?" They spout off some silly idea without ever thinking it through, hoping their audience won't either.
I like the claim that pressure is higher near the surface because there is more stuff near the surface to press on
His followers swallow it and that's all that matters to him.
That’s a mental image I didn’t need. 🤢
"swallow it all" eew.
Giggedy
Are we talking about his threatened teabagging here? 😋
That’s the motto of all the scammers.
ah good old Nathan always so willing to show us how clueless he is about everything.
Allow me to translate what Oakley said: *Flibbernibble wibber dribble mimble mumble jumble bumble flerp derp glerp.*
Thank you. That was a great help.
@fepeerreview3150 you are most welcome.
that's exactly what he was saying thanks for that
That made more sense than Oakley. The wibber really does dribble.
This is remarkable. He's come full circle. This whole narrative of plants producing gas at the surface and having it slowly filter up or it's less dense only works if the gas is being lost at the edge of the atmosphere. I mean it still doesn't work, gas doesn't move that slowly, his model has gas behaving as if it's as thick as molasses so it slowly flows away from the surface.
But on a more fundamental level, he's now adopted a model where gas is being sucked out into space in order to explain the low pressure at high altitudes.
I mean, otherwise if plants were producing gas and increasing the atmospheric pressure, our atmospheric pressure would be constantly increasing. He hasn't thought of true enough to realize what he's done, I'm sure, but he has produced a model in which gas is produced at the surface and lost at the edges of the atmosphere which ruins his entire argument of why we are supposed to require a dome.
Indeed. Spaceballs comes to mind; he needs a giant vacuum cleaner on the dome sucking out all the excess air. But where does that air go? It can't go out of the dome since there is nothing beyond the dome.
For plants to produce Oxygen, they have to absorb carbon dioxide. So, at the bigenning you have CO2, at the end you have O2, how can he find more pressure with such logic, when the carbon is absorbed by plants ?
I wish someone would make a meme of a vacuum sucking oxygen out of Oakley's "chrome dome". This is the first I've seen him shaved bald.
Uncle Fester's evil twin.
Wait......
I can't imagine how they manage to get every single thing wrong.
With great care and malice of forethought.
Fester just sits in his home studio, huffing his own guff, so it’s no wonder he doesn’t understand basic science.
There is another source of gas, of course. You can witness its emission by visiting Oakley's channel at any time.
Bob. Bob. Really? You suggested oakley look up an...equation? His freakin' head would explode.
Atmospheric pressure at 1,000 feet below sea level in mines is about 15.2 psi, as opposed to around 14.7 at sea level.
Not too many plants growing 1,000 feet underground.
Terrific point
Questions for Nathan: If the gas comes back down, how does the other gas lower down not get in the way? How is the pressure not increasing over time as extra gas is always being added to a sealed system, like pumping up a bicycle tyre?
Dear sweet feathery jesus.
My ears are hearing something really stupid. Are my ears broken? For real? Please, no one can be this stupid...Right?.......right? Oh....
actually, yes, they can
Well, you see, it's because Nathan works so hard at it...
🙄
Oakley thinks there's an upward wind?
"Think" is stretching the processes his mind does just a little bit past the point of credibility.
Thanks Bob. More Nathan Oakley. The Christmas present nobody wants or deserves. Like a badly fitting jumper knitted from asbestos.
someone should ask him why the water pressure at the bottom of the ocean is so high compared to the surface when that has no container either
Iam.a glober, but there is a flaw in you strategy.
@@washoywa "The container is the air", he would say. Most probably
So Nathan is so tied to his script about the Second Law of Thermodynamics that he doesn’t realize his non-explanation violates the Law of Conservation of Mass. Nice job Uncle Fester.
I absolutely love Slappy's "Sky vacuum" at around 1:20!!!
A flerf dictionary would be about 20 pages long. One, they only understand about 5% of all used
words and two, of that 5% all the words would only have one definition. Level - Flat. Vacuum - Machine that sucks. Perspective - Why the sun disappears. Horizon - Fake line globers are indoctrinated to believe. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Nathan has no idea just how dumb he is. We keep telling him, we keep explaining it to him, but he demands to remain ignorant.
There's lots of space existing in his mind.
And inside his cranium.
Cow flatulence will be next.
The only thing Nathan Oakley cares about are the acoustics of his home studio.
And fleecing stupid people
That sucking sound you hear isn't the "space vacuum" sucking off Earth's atmosphere. Don't ask me what it is. We're talking about Oakley here and that's dangerous.
The whole basis of their imagined 'debunk', via the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, is that entropy increases over time. To put it another way, the amount of 'order' within the system decreases, and 'disorder' increases. That's the basis of the " pressure next to a vacuum" argument, and that everything will equilibrate.
But in their 'model' of containment, with a pressure gradient, they have a box, or better still a hollow hemisphere, where 90 % of the gas molecules are clustered on one side. And even the young earth creationists say that this situation has existed for over 6000 years. We would say millions & billions of years.
Gravity is the 'force' that applies a bias to the model. But they deny gravity, so they're up Schitt Creek hunting for a paddle.
I often wonder what their thoughts on ice cubes would be. Clearly a violation of the 2nd law as you are decreasing the entropy of liquid water when you make them. The answer is obvious to anyone that passed 9th grade chemistry in high school, but I'd love someone to ask him. I'm banned from his channel and can't even comment so I can't ask myself.
They always leave out the part that it is the entropy of the isolated system that always increases. The entropy of other systems can increase or decrease depending on whether they are doing work or whether work is being done them. Also no system is perfect in reality.
@@BobtheScienceGuy It's that old bugbear 'frames of reference' & 'systems'. You can decrease the entropy within one system, so long as that is contained within a larger system, where the overall entropy is increasing. A body can be within more than one system or frame of reference simultaneously, a tricky concept when you can't walk and chew gum ....
@@BobtheScienceGuy Of course they have never bothered to read the laws of Thermodynamics. Their version of the second law clearly violated the first law. Of course they don't care about that all they care about is they have a mantra to dismiss the globe with.
Before Nathan discusses how things work in the universe, he should study how things work in the universe. That means at least one year of basic Classical Mechanics (Physics). It's obvious he never did that, so why would anyone be foolish enough to listen to his bad guesses? 🙂
Thanks for your videos Bob. Your set is the nicest looking thing I have ever seen in Vegas.
I do think it's a bit unfair towards uncle Fester. He has some redeeming qualities. Nathan doesn't.
😉
A bond villain in a Christmas jumper
So riddle me this. If plants, or some magic of the flat earth, continually creates new atmosphere molecules, and these slowly drift up creating a pressure gradient within the enclosed dome, wouldn't this result in a continuously increasing overall gas pressure?
Why yes it would- see the Ideal Gas Law, what does the 'n' mean?
I was also thinking, if there's all this new gas being created at ground level, then the sum total of all gases must be increasing over time and the pressure must be building. Also, if this stuff is going up (why is it going up?) and it's even reaching Everest, then it must be building up, up there, in increasing quantities, which seems to me would eventually give rise to a reverse pressure gradient, more higher up than lower down. He mentions something about it going back down again but doesn't explain how it does. The whole thing is rather confusing. It's made near the ground? It goes up? Why? It goes down? Why? Is the pressure slowly building? Is the dome going to explode eventually?
I think the idea of it spontaneously falling back down the most interesting statement he made.
@@BobtheScienceGuy Do you suppose all those little molecules get tired and sink? I know I would if I had to float up to Everest.
Don't those who climb Everest sometimes use supplemental oxygen, or at the very least spend time acclimating to higher altitudes so their bodies develop more red blood cells to gather more of the smaller amount of oxygen at higher elevations? That alone would demonstrate the reduced oxygen level and lower pressure at those altitudes; if you done take them into account, you either pass out or die.
Someone should tell Hoaxley that to relieve gas pressure Pepto Bismol will help.
Another problem with Uncle Fester's logic is that if there were a dome and gravity would be the result of a pressure gradient - where does the gradient come from? After all, if all the gas were contained inside a dome, the pressure - provided that gravity is just a phenomenon and not a force as per flerf logic - should be equal everywhere.
“It’s got to come back down again”? Hey Nathan…WHAT makes it come back down again? It’s almost like something is acting on it to make it come back down again. Hmmmm…if only there was a name for this? 🤔
I can't listen to Oakley without thinking that he doesn't believe a word of his nonsense and it's all an act in his daily three ring circus. In the words of Billy Flynn: 'Razzle Dazzle 'em'.
When the number of mol is the same for oxygen and carbon dioxide, the question is if the molar volume is exactly the same. This tells us, if the volumes produced are a little larger or smaller. Turns out, that the molar volume of oxygen is a little larger with 22.39 L/mol versus the one of carbon dioxide with 22.26 L/mol.
Interesting, pretty slight difference though. Is it significant?
@@BobtheScienceGuy It's interesting, that Nathan is wrong again. 🤣
They don't call it an Ideal Gas Law for nothing :-) . I think I've seen the equations for Non-Ideal Gas Laws but, IIRC and I might not, they were quickly replaced by "Use these tables of correction factors if it ever matters too much.".
I think I see the problem here, and it is with Bob, rather than Nathan. We have all seen the comparison between flat earthers and pigeons playing chess. What Bob appears to be doing is trying to explain to the pigeon how the knight moves, when he should be saying 'get the f**k away from the chess board Nathan and let the grown ups play'. (Obviously, it is not really a problem with you Bob, your patient explanations won't help Nathan - he still has no understanding of anything - but they continue to be of value to anyone with more than one brain cell). Rather than continuing to misunderstand air pressure, Nathan should be trying to find out where all the Antarctic guns went.
Absolutely priceless Dr. Bob! Well done! BTW, can Uncle Fester still light a lightbulb with his mouth? Inquiring minds want to know!
The Everest comment was so stupid. If there was a dome above us then oxygen wouldn't get thinner up there but do the opposite. All the gasses piling up up there would be a very serious problem. Uncle Fester just says we can go to the top of Everest while ignoring that one obvious "It's hard the breathe up here" fact.
I didn't recognize Oakley's voice at first because he wasn't screaming in a fit of rage.
"I'm not making any claims about it"
"I don't have a model"
"I don't know what the moon is"
...but my entire cult's dogma is 100% true and I'm 200% sure of that!
TADA!!! I figured it out.... Caves, caves are pressure relief valves, as the pressure increases, the extra pressure is vented off through caves way down deep in the earth and as the air vents off towards the dome the caves will help balance the pressure loss if the plants dont produce enuf air... this is also the reason why there is too much CO2 in the air too, caves are made in limestone which contain loads of CO2... add acid rain to limestone and wala CO2 gas... and when the caves collapse trapping CO2 gas inside, it eventually makes its way to the fissures around volcanoes This is the reason why there is spikes in CO2 when volcanoes erupt, all that CO2 under hi pressure comes out pushing the lava out with it just like the science projects of volcanoes which use baking soda and vinegar for lava flow.... and earthquakes are because the CO2 gas is moving underground, lifting and shifting the ground and making it move as it works its way to the volcanoes.... earthquakes in California and gas release in Yellowstone, and all the caves in between, see the connection yet? LOL I could have been an awesome flerfer, but lying doesnt sit well with me... ;)
They always pick out one example they think they can twist to support their dumbshittery. How do bodies of water not need a container to stay put, but the air does?
That's what the ice wall is for in their minds. There is an edge to the world with a wall as well and on that wall sits the airtight dome of the firmament. The problem is that both the wall and the dome are thought experiments with no logical possibility of existing and not a single piece of proof ever produced for them.
👍👍👍👍👍👍
Anyone else have this problem where playback of the video suddenly changes to another audio track (in my case French, always the top one), with no possibility to change it back to English? It worked if I reloaded the page though, but it's the second time its happened to me in just a few days.
Lol no Nathan has to explain how fast gas pressure expands. After all, his own demonstrations, show gas expanding into vacuum really really fast
Is Oakley just pretending to be this ignorant? If he isn't, it's a good thing that breathing does not require conscious thought.
Agree
His followers don't need to pretend.
He is suffering from severe Sunk Cost fallacy. It's his entire life now. His wife left him. He's destroyed friendships. It's all he does.
@@CryptoRoast_0 It's all he can do, he's rendered himself unemployable.
@@sendintheclowns7305 exactly. Think of all the relationships either withered and died or explicitly ended over his obsession? He can't function outside of this. Everyone he knows is a voice in discord. It sad.
They still think 10 to the NEGATIVE 17 is a BIG number.
just wow
Not really the topic, but some flerf plagued me in a comment section asking about the curve, so I gave him the radius. No, he still insisted he wanted evidence so I hinted this guy about images from satellites and how to easily measure it oneself. No, again “Nu-uh!” and another logical fallacy.
These people are nothing but personal incredulities …. They will never accept any explanation or evidence. NEVER!
Look Bob has measured the curve over a lake and they just dismiss it. The curve clearly happens and we can measure it and the drop to the horizon that they insist does not exist. They don't really want the answers to their questions as when they are given just that they just cry fake.
They constantly make demands, such as Mark Seargent asking for a panorama during a space mission while ignoring the ones that already exist(Such as the multiple pans from every moon mission to land on the moon).
Nathan...so gas DOES go down go boom boom?? "Interesting."
he insinuating that the air pressure is the same at any given altitude, but its not. Surely, if there was a container, it would be the same at any altitude, or did i miss that bit?
And how are siphons explained without a gradient?
Once again I say while it’s hilarious these poor people are to be pitied rather than ridiculed, they need mental help.
I would agree with you if you think of people that genuinely believe in flat earth, but not Oakley. He is just a very nasty human being
You can’t help somebody that refuses to accept that they have a problem.
Take a closed vertical tube, fill it with smoke. Wait for the smoke to calm down. Measure pressure at various points. Disturb the smoke. Wait until it settles. Measure. Repeat. How the hell can there be a pressure gradient when there is no gas movement? And why do you get the same measurements at specific heights?
No you don't get the same pressure measurement at different heights. Each height has its own pressure, caused by the weight of the gas above it.
Oh, I guess you don't believe in gravity. 😂
@@keith726able I did not write different heigths, read again! And also, why did I add smoke? To show that the pressure gradient does not come from oxygen travelling from the plant to the mountain (which might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard)
@@frantri3246 You said a closed vertical tube filled with smoke. Taking measurements at different locations must be at different heights in a vertical tube.
What are you talking about?
Do you recognize that air pressure decreases with altitude?
@@keith726able I wrote that you will get same values at SPECIFIC heights, not different. And those measurements are repeatable over the course of a reasonable short period.
You need different heights because only one point of measurement won't reveal the gradient. And each specific height will reveal a different value, but we need to make several runs of measurements to show that we get the same gradient over and over again. So "SPECIFIC heights will have the same values in each run."
Is it clear now, or do you still think I am a stupid flat earther that should be laughed at?
Bob, you're missing a huge opportunity. You don't have to pay for aviation fuel any more. Just carry a Mary Poppins umbrella in the cockpit, stick it out the window, and catch all that gas bursting up from low potential on the ground to high potential at cruising altitude. No need to burn fuel to climb.
No, wait, nothing flows from low potential to high without energy conversion. I meant high pressure on the ground to low pressure at altitude. Yeah, that's what I meant. 🤡
wait! the air goes up because of the pressure and that is why there is less air and less pressure at mt everest.
did i get that right?
produced?
umm... what?
It's Mr. Un-Sensible lol
Las Vegas?!?!
1ºF here back in MI (Flint).
I'm jealous AF that you got out in time. LOL
About 60 here
@@BobtheScienceGuy Rude.
😛
His stupidity knows no bounds
Jokely appears to have lost a fight with a lawn mower. Would have been a better result if the cut was about 10 inches lower.
According to Nathan's claim that air is produced on the ground and goes up, I may ask "Why doesn't the pressure within the dome rise to higher and higher rates?"
Great question. I’d ask soapy but he blocked me from his channel
He knows what he’s saying is rubbish, but he also know that telling bigger lies gains bigger idiots to manipulate and grift from.
He saw Flatzoid say something stupid and wanted to show him how it's done. It's still a toss-up.
Really because all Flatz does in repeat Nathan's nonsense but dumber because he has even less clue.
What has Nathan Oakley accomplished with his "knowledge"? Any problems solved? No, he makes no claims
It's a grift. Plain and simple.✅🤷♂️
I'm surprised. Nathan usually abuses anyone who questions his vast 'knowledge' and reasoning. He must have thought he was on a winner.
I can't believe it, but I see why Nathan is so mad all of the time. He is painfully stupid.
If Nathan has chosen this look willingly, this should tell you all you need to know about his decision-making and critical thinking skills.
If he has some medical condition causing him to lose his hair, please disregard what would be a pretty mean comment.
Nathan has no answer to your questions because he doesn't have answers, just claims.
He's that sort of ignorant
Until RUclips starts to take misinformation seriously, these kind of channels will continue to meander along. He has enough idiot followers to maintain his channel unfortunately
hahahahaha
Complete, utter ignorance, my old biology teacher would have had apoplexy hearing that jumbled nonsense.
It so flat
Start at start. Gravity is simple Galilean relative motion. The earth’s surface is literally physically the floor of Einstein’s cabin. If you don’t know what gravity is don’t call yourself a physicist, astronomer or cosmologist or indeed even a well informed human.
What?
@ The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything. Get informed: read first then comment.
@@davidrandell2224 Is he from Unseen University?
@@bob_the_bomb4508 Can’t read? Hire a tutor. Do the experiment. Silly sap.
love to hear his theory of the cause of gravity. why don't you enlighten us?
CO₂ is more massive than O₂. Plants don't generate oxygen, they remove carbon. They should therefore be _reducing_ air pressure.
David, please read a chemistry or biology book. Every plant produces oxygen - where do you think it comes from?
Even children know this.
David pressure is not related to mass, it is related to the number of particles
@@keith726able Photosynthesis turns 6CO₂ + 6H₂O into C₆H₁₂O₆ (glucose) + 6O₂. Since the glucose is stored, six CO₂ molecules go in and six O₂ molecules come out.
The net effect is therefore the loss of the carbon atom. While oxygen is produced, it is not "generated", only liberated from the carbon dioxide input.
Actually David is not really making an error or saying plants don’t make O2. He is correct that they remove atmospheric Carbon (they convert it to carbohydrates)
@@BobtheScienceGuy Thank you for the correction on mass. I admit to not knowing much about gas law.
Edit: I made my own reply to Keith, but it seems to have been memory-holed. It is indeed the net effect of removing the carbon atom from CO₂ that I was trying to point out.