Minor point: gravity has almost nothing to do with the little floating globules of liquid we see astronauts playing with. That’s pretty much all surface tension too.
One of my favorite bits of psychology trivia is tests done with children who are asked "why are rocks pointy?" There's a certain age that assumes everything has a purpose, and one of the common answers to that question is "So that animals can scratch their itches on them". Kids learn from context, and the question itself implies some kind of purpose, so kids invent a purpose. A very childish one, which makes sense to a very young brain that is still developing. I'm comparing those infants to flerfs, here, this should be obvious to everyone. They think the Earth is flat because their undeveloped brains make up whatever makes sense to them.
One of the common flerf things is how we all “instinctively knew Earth is flat when we were young” and that it took years of so called programming in school to convince us otherwise. I can remember at around four, I hadn’t started school yet. I made the connection that, from looking at the sun and moon…Earth is a huge sphere. I was riding with my Dad one day and asked if a bullet didn’t hit anything, would it travel all the way around the world and come up behind us. I wasn’t much with ballistics at the time but I knew we were on a globe. When I did see my first desk globe in school my thought wasn’t “what tf is THAT!” It was “where am i on here?” I knew exactly what it represented. They act like we had to bow down to the globe and be indoctrinated every day. I can definitely understand a child thinking Earth is flat, especially if one grows up where everything looks flat. I was in the hills, nothing was flat so that wasn’t an issue.
@@Splattervision-qh1sdThe irony there is that flerfs would hate the exact kind of hippie-dippy new age twit who thinks "Children are born with all the knowledge in the universe and lose it quickly because of...somethingsomething humans are inherently evil". And yet flerfs and, frankly, all conspiracy theorists, imply the same thing. While accusing each other of being wrong. But of course, the exact opposite is true, and anyone who's spent even five minutes with children knows how ignorant they are. Not stupid, mind; kids can be clever as hell, but just _generally lacking in knowledge._ So they're wrong twice, as I like to say. "Even a kid knows" just makes flerfs sound, well, infantile for obvious reasons, and as it happens kids _don't_ know the Earth is flat, because literally _all you need to do to know the Earth isn't flat is go outside at night and try to point at the Sun._ Flerfs are wrong, but then again if you look at it another way, they're still wrong, and ignorance makes for some strange bedfellows while they're at it.
0:40 I like Matt Dillahunty's formulation of that, it's very concise: Words don't have meaning, they have usage. I had an awful argument with someone online just the other day because we were both using the same word to mean different things, and due to having this argument while 3 other conversations were going on in the chat channel at the same time around it, meant that it took meabout 30 minutes to realise that was the issue. It became obvious the guy was speaking a second language and the moment I said "Hang on, I think we're using this word differently, this is what I mean" and wrote down my definition, the argument was over. Dumbest 30 minutes I've ever spent when it all could have been avoided by simply making sure we were using the word the same, it turned out he was just misusing the word and didn't realise it. If you are curious as to the word, it was "emergent" and the argument was about the mind. He thought I was arguing that the mind was seperate from the brain because he was confusing me saying the mind is an "emergent property" of the brain as meaning that they are seperate, not that one is a product of the other.
Ouch, that's a very painful "debate". I hope the guy will understand your argument. But at least that wasn't as bad as keep insisting a research paper is just an "article" and not a thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed to heck paper. PS: If you thought the person is an anti-vax, anti-medicine, or anti-science, true.
That is exactly what I try to promote since half a year or so, that people easily get terribly mad at each other because they use the same words and have another idea what it means and what they associate with it. Take "communism" - one associates Cold War, Lenin, Stalin, dictatorship, mass killings with it. The other (a "leftie") might understand under communism the Idea that those that generate the value (the workers) should participate on the profit of the value they create, and participate on the decisions about the value and the work they do. I found the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels in the trashcan, it is totally harmless, and latest when thinking that that was written at the height of the british industrial revolution, where workers were just trash hardly able to survive, sometimes not able to have more than an 8-hour shift in a bed with 2 other people, it makes total sense as utopian goal, and every right conservative christian would subscribe to the concept - but NEVER the word). Forrest Valkai describes himself as nihilist, I was first somewhat confused. But what he means is that without God there is also no from the outside dictated meaning of life you MUST follow, and so are free to choose on your own what meaning you want to give your life - something totally positive, that makes you happy and engaged
Therefore what I would like that people more often would deliberately use a multi-step approach in a discussion. 1. Clarify the definitions, so that you do not talk past each other. Tell each other what you mean, and agree that you understand what he other means. That already brings you to the point of listening to the other, and to compromise on a meaning. 2. Find out what one can agree upon. The first step was anyhow done with the definitions (even when you two still use the word differently, the oher still knows what is meant). And I bet that the "combattants" will find out that they easily can agree upon 80% of the issues. Of the points that they both think are important and that they would like to have realized. 3. And then, only then, you can start bashing each other's heads in about what is left - if it is still worth it. I daresay that would people communicate that way, they would find that working together in that what they both want anyhow both would achieve MORE than they would ever hope to reach when they would have the only say but are bitterly opposed. But people are drilled to believe that one MUST win, because the winner has the RIGHT to take it all, and the loser is irrelevant and loses all rights. Capitalism/authoritarianism in the extreme. That he universe is IMperfect, that NOTHING is identical, that all is different, and everything changes with time (even our minds) - to accept that would be SOOOOO important. Because then you are able to accept that whatever you get as solution is a COMPROMISE, and be happy with it even when you know from the start that this or that could be better. People were trained to believe that perfection exists in reality, and is reachable.
I just took the position you already have and elaborated it further. Also from my experience from catamaran sailing, I found that once I made myself aware of what is going on, what I do exactly and where the problem is, I surprisingly easily come to change my behaviour. With sailing, amazingly when I understand it intellectually, my body suddenly does it automatically. In sailing it is e-.g how you sit that can decide whether you can react or not (and capsize). Since I decided to keep the mainsheet out of the cleat at all times, I hardly ever capsize - even though I drive it harder and faster than ever. Our thinking abilities are what made us so successful animals - so LET'S USE THEM! In Godspeak, God made us in his image, God gave us logic, and our mind, so christians should agree - but way too often you see that they are conditioned to NOT think, to just regurgitate 1:1 what they were told - not more than automats, not even computers or robots. .
This is why before you make your case, you always define the terms you want to use in order to avoid confusion. Don't worry, i've learned this through the hard way too.
When I first started watching your channel years ago the Desertphile "GRAVITY!" shout was really jarring. Now I look forward to and can often anticipate his arrival. I've become a fan of the meme via Stockholm Syndrome.
I wouldn't even call it a misunderstanding. Because that just implies that they don't understand, not that they are deliberately ignorant and don't want to understand.
"Water finds its level" is a simplified, less general version of "fluids always conform to the forces acting upon them". The force that levels water is GRAVITY, which flattens water from above and spreads it out on surfaces until either surface tension or an obstacle stops it.
Surveyor here... in surveying LEVEL has a very specific definition... Equidistant points from the centre of the earth, conforming to the curve of the earth's surface.
2:00 Your differentiation between word definitions and reality is right on point. Oakley is perhaps the worst offender. But I'm curious to see what you do with Pratt.
Yeah, Oakley loves to use HIS definition of 'angle' so he can say there's no such thing as 'curve adjacent' and the like. Likewise his own personal 'definition' of the second law of thermodynamics and many other. Just as this video points out simple and more technical definitions of 'level', there are likewise better definitions for a lot of terms that flerfs toss about.
Mute Button Oakley compensates for his scientific incompetence by using fallacies and extremely aggressive bullying. He is very religious because rational thinking is beyond his competence. He's the guy that was too small to steal someone's milk money at school, so he would threaten and cajole the stupidest kids until he got his tuppence. He's a rather petty little man-child. 😢 😂😂😂
I did talk to a flat earth trainer pilot once (I really hope he was only certified for small aircraft). I was at a convention minding my own business while eating by myself and he came up to me to strike up a conversation just to meet other con-goers. That's okay, but I would have rather been left alone. I don't remember how, but we got onto the subject of the shape of the earth, and he was shocked that I was a round-earther. He even called out to his wife or whatever while pointing at me as if I was a one in a million idiot with the stupid belief lol. We were talking about water finding its own level, and I said that if you have a level long enough (I then drew a diagram with a level sitting on the earth that is as wide as the earth) the bubbles would be pegged on the sides. He couldn't believe that I believed something so obviously wrong lol. That was a very interesting lunch.
Soundly's picture of power line pylons disappearing across Lake Pontchartrain deals with the first two very nicely! If flerfs were to go there themselves that would deal with all three . . .
@@ceejay0137 I agree, sadly most of them are religious fundamentalists, dishonest and conspiracy nuts. Anyone who has had experience of dealing with creationists knows how difficult it is to get through that kind of conditioning let alone when someone believes "everything is a lie" too. When they are confronted with evidence they do the "flat earth reset" and instead of seeking genuine answers simply dive deeper into the flat earth meme bank.
@@ceejay0137 some of them have actually done experiments and found exactly what "globers" told them they would find and they still manage to find a way to do the mental gymnastics needed to stay flerfs. They literally won't accept reality.
2:41 what's ironic to me is when I hear a Flerf say, "facts don't care about your feelings". It makes me wonder what's going through their mind when they say that. 🤨🤔
Fantastic, these are the words I needed to find when my friend asked me 'if the Earth is a globe, shouldn't planes flying in a straight line eventually end up in space?'
I hope you will play KSP once to see how the rockets orientation stops flying vertical without input the higher it flies. Its conservation of angular momentum, right? Right?
Truth is always approximate. More information often creates the need for more precise, refined, and sophisticated vocabulary to improve the description of reality. If you begin with the assumption that truth is based on divine revelation that is an immutable reflection of reality, sooner or later, you'll evolve into a flat earther..
This is for flat-earthers that say that water find it own level, a container need to be sealed and that space is fake: 1 - get a aquarium or a big bucket and fill it with water. 2 - put a high glass (right way up) on the bottom of bucket. 3 - Then while the glass is under water flip it upside down, now there is no air inside of is. 4 - Now lift up the glass bottom first so 1/4 of it is above the water. Now answer this questions: * is the water level. * what is in the empty space in the top of the glass. * Where did it came from. * Is the glass a container even one side is open. How would flat-earthers explain this so it is compatible with other statements they often make about our reality we can observe and measure?
If gravity was the only force acting on the water molecules in that ball of water in microgravity, then it would immediately boil off because the force of gravity between those molecules is tiny and the water molecules undergo Brownian motion. The actual reason is right there as a subtitle: surface tension, aka electrostatic attraction (which is particularly strong in water because of its electric dipole moment).
Now I know that some, namely Wits*it, claim electrostatics is the reason why matter attracts other matter. For one, as MCToon has pointed out several times, that is just a self-debunk because if matter attracts matter, then large amounts of matter will collapse into an approximate sphere, no matter what's the cause or how you want to call it. But also it's contrary to the predicted behavior of electric dipoles at scale in accordance with Coulomb's law. In a nutshell, while the force of attraction between individual (opposite) electric charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, the force of attraction between two electric dipoles (that each as a whole are electrically neutral) is approximately inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance. I.e. there's no contradiction between dipole attraction being much stronger than gravity over short distances and gravity winning over long distances because the former drops up much more quickly than the latter.
That's a pretty good comparison actually, and the reasons are very similar. A ship will always be in a balance between buoyancy and weight, just like a plane will be in a balance between lift and weight for whatever speed and altitude it is trimmed for.
If we leave religion out of this, what we're left with is simply that water shows no sign of being sentient. It can't "find" things. This can be tested by putting water in a maze of different levels to test for a preference. Same thing for the assertion that light has a preferred direction. When you start thinking in an organized way, one thing about "water always finds its own level" that becomes obvious is a question: what level is water's "own level"? For the statement to make any sense at all, that "own level" needs to be specified. What is it? Well, flerfs don't say. Some may refer vaguely to "sea level" which seems to be about something entirely different. But if that's all the claim is, then that's how it should be tested! One can go down into a mine, or in a submarine, and pour out some water from a container (because containers 🙄) and see if water does indeed find the local sea level above. I have it on good authority from former submariners like FTFE that this is not the case. So the assertion is wrong. Indeed, with a submarine, there's all that water _below_ sea level to prove otherwise. The one place where your argument really falls down is where it uses religion as a crutch. When you wrote "Theists do this as well..." you may have been in your own comfort zone of religion, and that's a problem because nothing about "water seeks its own level" or flat earth in general is inherently theist. And because it's a strawman argument and guilt by association fallacy, all you're doing is diving into the pit of fallacious reasoning. Nothing can be gained there. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. But not unlike drinking and driving, one shouldn't attempt to be logical while under the influence of religion.
BTW regarding flight - mechanical gyroscope on the plane contains special device correcting gyroscope for changing vertical direction - if earth would be flat no such device would be needed.
If Earth were flat, all you would need to navigate it in an airplane would be your eyeballs and perhaps some binoculars, as you would be able to see exactly where you were going at all times. Literally, you would take off from Paris, get to cruising altitude and just look out the window "Oh look, there's Britain, point the aircraft that way"
I think the "Water always finds its level" comes from a physics lab setup demonstrating "communicating vessels", a mayby 1 ft long apparatus with different interconnected glass tubes of various shapes and sizes. This can also be the case of watertowers that has to be higher, or as high as the buildings they are supplying with water. BUT this principle is working due to GRAVITY and pressure. It's fun that flerfs always say they have spoken to ONE pilot claiming he is dipping the planes nose down to adjust for curvature .... (which means the Earth is a sphere, by the way), when all the rest tells the opposite: horisontally the airplane has thrust from engines but encounters drag (air resistans) and vertically it is affected by gravity which is countered by lift (caused by how the air passes over and under the wings).
Imagine still obeying the laws of gravity. I’m out here flying around the stratosphere by flapping my arms really hard. Saves thousands on travel costs.
It must have been Greek NASA. The THEY must have done some ancient MK-Ultra mind-control as they created the ancient firmament! When flerfers talk, there's no point in using intellect or proof or evidence, they have trained their minds to not need such pedestrian things as 'reason' or 'logic'. So just mock them. Mock them as they should be mocked.
Well, *some* Greeks knew this. The rest of them, including the vast majority of the Helenized world, did not. And in many cases, it took the better part of 2,000 years for the world at large to get caught-up.
Famous flerf, Bob "a 15 degree pet hour drift" Knoedel was a pilot. Professional pilot Wofie6020 confirmed that part of Bob's claim. Apparently Bob's license didn't require him to understand great circle courses.
Rivers can't flow north? Oh, dear, what direction does the St. John's River in Florida flow? Let's see...it starts near where I live in Melbourne and flows to Jacksonville. Last I checked, that's NORTH.
Speaking of the Nile, Fall of Civilizations has a new podcast/episode out on Egypt! They’re an amazing channel. Better quality than TV documentaries. I highly recommend them. Yeah, they think shit flows down. They don’t know where down is. They just have a nebulous concept of a “down force”. Not gravity, though. That’s satanism. God’s own down force. 🙄
I am aware of at least 1 FE pilot. Having seen him on RUclips, he appears to be a single-engine private pilot who has never flown outside his regional area. Apparently he either skipped or (more likely) is just ignoring all his long-distance navigation lessons.
Most of em know it is BS. They do it for fun and to make friends. about 20% truly believe. Good ole Pareto Principle. I find politely asking the right questions is the best way to highlight their absurdity. Larry King em.
Considering the FE model only has 2 possible directions...north, and away from north it would be a miracle if they could travel from the USA to the UK and survive the trip. Yet us "globetards" seems to be able to do it multiple times a day for decades with no issues.... go figure?
I think ferrofluids are also a good example of a fluid with outside forces affecting its shape. A strong enough magnetic field will make it visibly curve, and if you change the orientation of the magnet, you'll also see spikes appear along the fluid's surface in accordance with the magnetic field. The way FLERFs understand water and other fluids, this really shouldn't be possible. And it demonstrates that a force (such as gravity) can make the surface of a fluid curve. Of course, FLERFs are so stupid that they like to pretend that gravity doesn't exist because being able to jump or lift any object with a magnet somehow "disproves" it, even though if you applied that same fucking logic to magnetism, you'd never be able to remove any ferromagnetic object/substance that's touching a working magnet.
All you need it a bucket of water to disprove water finding level. Spin bucket any way you want. Over your head is my favorite. Water will change shape.
First, in "water always finds its own level," the word "level" means the same as the word "level" in the term "parking level" within a garage. Obviously, parking levels aren't entirely flat, otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive from one level to the next. "Sea level" is an elevation. It's a specific location in the vertical dimension. This is the "level" that water supposedly finds. I say, "supposedly," because sea level is an average. Water might _seek_ its own level, but, at least where large bodies of water are concerned, water never finds that level. So, "water always finds its level" is both factually wrong and a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation.
If you've ever seen a plane at a distance, it will always appear to be ascending when coming towards you and descending when going away from you. That's because the Earth is round and it's going around the curve.
@7:48, Even if it were true that pilots had to "pitch down", it would be a tiny fraction of a degree to perfectly follow the curvature of the earth, in fact far too small an amount to easily detect. Where they really go off the rails is when they assume the plane would have to fly perfectly level for 30 or 60 miles then suddenly dive thousands and thousands of feet - which obviously doesn't happen. But they say it must happen .. otherwise the earth must be flat. It is the quintessential flerf behavior - to claim something must happen if the earth is truly a sphere - something they already know doesn't happen.
New Zealand here. I had no idea that rivers flowing south was a thing for these nutters. I do agree that Australia shouldn't be a thing though! That was a joke, kinda...😅
Antiscience could have an excellent career in the agriculture as long as they are willing to diversify their skillset just a little beyond cherry picking.
Doesn't even have to be that big a body of water to show curvature. Hydrodynamic testing uses towing tanks, which are typically less than half a kilometer long - and since precision matters, these tanks and the test rigs that drag the scale model hulls through water take into account the curvature of the Earth, otherwise, the test hulls would be too low in the center of the tank and too high at the ends.
Actually, there could be a lot of light aircraft flat earth pilots as at that scale and those distances, you can get away with flat navigation. There would be no flerf long haul pilots as that's when you start having to use the complex math of a globe.
@@EGeorgev Well, he isn't gone completely, he still answer some posts in the comments sections. Maybe he waits for some Cletus to resurface with something notable new, he already covered lots of ground with his videos 🙂
RE: Maps putting north at the top Maps were historically made so the east was at the top(or at least the direction the sun rose if slightly off). It's an easy orientation to find, varies very little in the grand scheme of things, and puts the sun as the focus of the map. The word orientation literally comes from "to face east" in Latin. Maps facing north is a thing that only really showed up as a consistent thing with Marcator in the 1500s. Now we had a rough idea of the continents you had to make a real choice as to where to put the boundary of what's east or west to keep east at the top, so he instead chose the planets poles as the top and bottom of the map(projected to infinity because no one wanted to go to either anyway). That still left the choice as to which pole to put at the top, and he simply chose the closest pole to most explorers who'd be likely to use a map in Latin mostly drawing on the maps provided by Spanish and Portuguese sailors. While theoretically we could have picked any direction for up, I think north or south are the most reasonable(because of the poles being least likely to visit so it gives least distortion to areas people actively live in), east at the top sounds like a ridiculous idea given the obvious issues of this clearly introducing the issue of which continents go at the top and bottom.
Good presentation. One nitpick though: Water in a low-gravity environment will form a spherical bubble because of surface tension, not because of gravity.
Yes, it's a matter of 'scale'. When the most dominant forces are surface tension, it takes over. Just as with very small droplets within our normal gravitational field, surface tension is more dominant (because it varies with surface area, not mass/ volume).
I may have misunderstood 'the nile' argument when I made a model showing that a plane roughly tangent to the points on the nile can be downhill over a sufficiently large distance. The actual argument I was trying to refute may have been too stupid to actually investigate
Oh man, you're still kicking around, are you? I haven't watched your videos in ages, but I still use that clip of you (you know, "and the source cited is the author's ass") on occasion.
This famous "nose down" effect - a passenger jet flies with about 900 km/h, or 250 m/s, so it would take ca. 44 hours to circle around the globe The "nose down" would be a VEEEEEERY slow forward looping. Once around = 360 degrees in 44 hours is a rotation rate of 0.0023 degrees per second. Or a down correction of 1 cm/second (while flying 250 meters far). In comparison, when a plane takes off the rotation is VERY roughly 20 degrees in 5 seconds - probably way more. That is 20/5 = 4 deg/sec, or 1700 times faster. So where is the problem? Even when that would be necessary, it is so slow that no one would notice it. Especially when you have thousands of other maneuvers or corrections during a normal flight, like because of wind, or thermals (vertical air currents).
The trick resp. error was that flat earthers were taking the corrections after an hour or so, "after an hour, the pilot would have to nose down 4000 meter". I do not know whether that was deliberate or stupidity. In one of their hangouts it was hilarious. "4000 meter in one hour - insane". Then one made the error to calculate the value for half an hour - just 1000 meter correction. He halved again - 250 meter. In 7.5 minutes - 62.5 meters. Then he noticed that he just kills his argument and stopped it.
A plane doesn't even need to be 'nose down' in order to decrease its altitude, let alone maintain the arc of level flight. That particular angle depends mostly on the design of the plane, but also speed, air density and the cross section of the wings. Once the correct attitude for following the arc of level flight has been set, balancing lift and forward motion with the curvature of earth, no adjustments are needed ─ just like a miles wide constant turn in a car on the Bonneville salt flats is just a slight angle to the front wheels that never needs to be changed.
I’ve this nonsense before. Words do have definitions. Your problem isn’t with the actual word “level”, but with how that word is being used incorrectly, in a phrase.
If you hang a flat shelf on a slight angle....... it is not level. Therefore as far as definition.. flat does NOT equal level. As stated, semantics/definitions do not alter reality. Things are what they are regardless of opinion and beliefs. If a flerf could explain circumnavigation without resorting to "magic", conspiracy theories or implying we don't know how to tell direction or measure distances, then we can talk.
It seems being we can traverse to far destinations and back within a predictable time frame, over and over again, that we have at least figured out how to measure. The flerfs imply that we don't. Like distance is in on the conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth in which 99.99999% of people do not even care about. What is the point other then looking like a complete idiot whose only value is to be mocked and ridiculed??
I know at least 2 flerf pilots. One claimed to be a multi-engine pilot but wolfie found out that he didn't have a multi-engine rating. Gotta lie to flerf. Yes, I'm talking about the guy with the 15 degree per hour drift. Thanks, Bob! The other is an instructor that went up against FTFE for a debate.
The problem with debating Flerfs is that they'll never accept the definition of the word "definition," and you'll never even get to the actual argument!!! 🤣
Reality doesn't care about our definitions, except in universes with manipulatable magic, which stripped of the mumbo-jumbo is simply teeeling reality what it should be in words it can't ignore.
3:30 Prime example of what you are talking about is Newton's laws. In primary school, they teach you Newton's laws in words and simple examples. That's why most people can at least say some of those laws out loud. i.e An object in motion will stay in motion until a force acts upon it. Then when you get to senior/secondary school (junior high and high school for you yanks) you learn that law has a name, the law of inertia. You also learn that the definition you were taught is actually not quite the whole thing and so you learn the more precise definition: If a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force. you also learn the equations that go with the laws of motion and how to use them in some basic cases. Finally, when you get to college, you find out you've still been taught a simplification and that the simple mathematics you've been using for 5 years just won't cut it anymore. And I'm sure if I had studied physics at Phd level, it would have turned out I was still using a simplification, lol.
I’ve seen people using definitions to try to hold up a wrong idea. Like Bible “scholars” using Strong’s to claim a definition and therefore upholding a new theology based on that. For instance “Morrow” which can mean tomorrow or morning. Context would be needed to understand meaning, but to some pushing their agenda supersedes common sense. Is sense really that common anymore?
their are cheap test you can do. that proves that earth can´t be flat. if the earth is flat. how come I can´t make the sun re apeare half an hour after sundown. even with a telescope made for watching stars.
The cheapest test is literally _go outside at night and try pointing at the Sun._ That costs exactly zero. It's still too expensive for flerfs, because it would cost them their ability to feel _special._
Wow. I haven't seen Desertphile shouting "GRAVITY!" in years.
He just released a flurf de-bunk today.
@@dogwalker666thank you heading there now
@@AshleyTwelve enjoy.
I can't find the vid (either on ftfe or toon channel) right now, but desertphile regaled everyone with a re-do of his 'gravity' spiel.
Classic as the mighty Led Zep ! ... Especially to those involved in the "anti-flat erf/debunking" community.
Water won't find its level. I've hidden it really well.
"It's in the pot, isn't it."
*CLANG*
Its in a well, right?
Minor point: gravity has almost nothing to do with the little floating globules of liquid we see astronauts playing with. That’s pretty much all surface tension too.
One of my favorite bits of psychology trivia is tests done with children who are asked "why are rocks pointy?"
There's a certain age that assumes everything has a purpose, and one of the common answers to that question is "So that animals can scratch their itches on them". Kids learn from context, and the question itself implies some kind of purpose, so kids invent a purpose. A very childish one, which makes sense to a very young brain that is still developing.
I'm comparing those infants to flerfs, here, this should be obvious to everyone. They think the Earth is flat because their undeveloped brains make up whatever makes sense to them.
One of the common flerf things is how we all “instinctively knew Earth is flat when we were young” and that it took years of so called programming in school to convince us otherwise.
I can remember at around four, I hadn’t started school yet. I made the connection that, from looking at the sun and moon…Earth is a huge sphere. I was riding with my Dad one day and asked if a bullet didn’t hit anything, would it travel all the way around the world and come up behind us. I wasn’t much with ballistics at the time but I knew we were on a globe.
When I did see my first desk globe in school my thought wasn’t “what tf is THAT!”
It was “where am i on here?” I knew exactly what it represented.
They act like we had to bow down to the globe and be indoctrinated every day.
I can definitely understand a child thinking Earth is flat, especially if one grows up where everything looks flat. I was in the hills, nothing was flat so that wasn’t an issue.
@@Splattervision-qh1sdThe irony there is that flerfs would hate the exact kind of hippie-dippy new age twit who thinks "Children are born with all the knowledge in the universe and lose it quickly because of...somethingsomething humans are inherently evil". And yet flerfs and, frankly, all conspiracy theorists, imply the same thing. While accusing each other of being wrong.
But of course, the exact opposite is true, and anyone who's spent even five minutes with children knows how ignorant they are. Not stupid, mind; kids can be clever as hell, but just _generally lacking in knowledge._
So they're wrong twice, as I like to say. "Even a kid knows" just makes flerfs sound, well, infantile for obvious reasons, and as it happens kids _don't_ know the Earth is flat, because literally _all you need to do to know the Earth isn't flat is go outside at night and try to point at the Sun._ Flerfs are wrong, but then again if you look at it another way, they're still wrong, and ignorance makes for some strange bedfellows while they're at it.
What I find extra ironic, even the bubble in a spirit *level* isn't flat 😀
I have to wonder if that spirit level is used in spirit science!!??!?
"Don't forget to rate, subscribe and hit the bell" Martymer, I don't think we've had ratings in over a decade 😂
RUclips still asks us to rate videos occasionally though.
I gave it 5 stars, which totally doesnt age any of us talking about it 😅
0:40 I like Matt Dillahunty's formulation of that, it's very concise: Words don't have meaning, they have usage.
I had an awful argument with someone online just the other day because we were both using the same word to mean different things, and due to having this argument while 3 other conversations were going on in the chat channel at the same time around it, meant that it took meabout 30 minutes to realise that was the issue. It became obvious the guy was speaking a second language and the moment I said "Hang on, I think we're using this word differently, this is what I mean" and wrote down my definition, the argument was over. Dumbest 30 minutes I've ever spent when it all could have been avoided by simply making sure we were using the word the same, it turned out he was just misusing the word and didn't realise it.
If you are curious as to the word, it was "emergent" and the argument was about the mind. He thought I was arguing that the mind was seperate from the brain because he was confusing me saying the mind is an "emergent property" of the brain as meaning that they are seperate, not that one is a product of the other.
Ouch, that's a very painful "debate". I hope the guy will understand your argument. But at least that wasn't as bad as keep insisting a research paper is just an "article" and not a thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed to heck paper.
PS: If you thought the person is an anti-vax, anti-medicine, or anti-science, true.
That is exactly what I try to promote since half a year or so, that people easily get terribly mad at each other because they use the same words and have another idea what it means and what they associate with it.
Take "communism" - one associates Cold War, Lenin, Stalin, dictatorship, mass killings with it. The other (a "leftie") might understand under communism the Idea that those that generate the value (the workers) should participate on the profit of the value they create, and participate on the decisions about the value and the work they do.
I found the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels in the trashcan, it is totally harmless, and latest when thinking that that was written at the height of the british industrial revolution, where workers were just trash hardly able to survive, sometimes not able to have more than an 8-hour shift in a bed with 2 other people, it makes total sense as utopian goal, and every right conservative christian would subscribe to the concept - but NEVER the word).
Forrest Valkai describes himself as nihilist, I was first somewhat confused. But what he means is that without God there is also no from the outside dictated meaning of life you MUST follow, and so are free to choose on your own what meaning you want to give your life - something totally positive, that makes you happy and engaged
Therefore what I would like that people more often would deliberately use a multi-step approach in a discussion.
1. Clarify the definitions, so that you do not talk past each other. Tell each other what you mean, and agree that you understand what he other means.
That already brings you to the point of listening to the other, and to compromise on a meaning.
2. Find out what one can agree upon. The first step was anyhow done with the definitions (even when you two still use the word differently, the oher still knows what is meant).
And I bet that the "combattants" will find out that they easily can agree upon 80% of the issues. Of the points that they both think are important and that they would like to have realized.
3. And then, only then, you can start bashing each other's heads in about what is left - if it is still worth it.
I daresay that would people communicate that way, they would find that working together in that what they both want anyhow both would achieve MORE than they would ever hope to reach when they would have the only say but are bitterly opposed.
But people are drilled to believe that one MUST win, because the winner has the RIGHT to take it all, and the loser is irrelevant and loses all rights.
Capitalism/authoritarianism in the extreme.
That he universe is IMperfect, that NOTHING is identical, that all is different, and everything changes with time (even our minds) - to accept that would be SOOOOO important.
Because then you are able to accept that whatever you get as solution is a COMPROMISE, and be happy with it even when you know from the start that this or that could be better.
People were trained to believe that perfection exists in reality, and is reachable.
I just took the position you already have and elaborated it further.
Also from my experience from catamaran sailing, I found that once I made myself aware of what is going on, what I do exactly and where the problem is, I surprisingly easily come to change my behaviour. With sailing, amazingly when I understand it intellectually, my body suddenly does it automatically.
In sailing it is e-.g how you sit that can decide whether you can react or not (and capsize). Since I decided to keep the mainsheet out of the cleat at all times, I hardly ever capsize - even though I drive it harder and faster than ever.
Our thinking abilities are what made us so successful animals - so LET'S USE THEM!
In Godspeak, God made us in his image, God gave us logic, and our mind, so christians should agree - but way too often you see that they are conditioned to NOT think, to just regurgitate 1:1 what they were told - not more than automats, not even computers or robots. .
I will allow that only if you admit Americans don't speak English , they only think they do!
This is why before you make your case, you always define the terms you want to use in order to avoid confusion.
Don't worry, i've learned this through the hard way too.
When I first started watching your channel years ago the Desertphile "GRAVITY!" shout was really jarring. Now I look forward to and can often anticipate his arrival. I've become a fan of the meme via Stockholm Syndrome.
The Rhine also flows north. Dear flerfs, just rotate your map (whichever one you use) by 180°. Now it flows down. Done.
I wouldn't even call it a misunderstanding. Because that just implies that they don't understand, not that they are deliberately ignorant and don't want to understand.
Well that is true. But there are variety of flavors of flat earthers.
"Water finds its level" is a simplified, less general version of "fluids always conform to the forces acting upon them". The force that levels water is GRAVITY, which flattens water from above and spreads it out on surfaces until either surface tension or an obstacle stops it.
Humans always find their level too. We're just better at manipulating forces.
Gravity flattens water from below, not above.
Surveyor here... in surveying LEVEL has a very specific definition... Equidistant points from the centre of the earth, conforming to the curve of the earth's surface.
2:00 Your differentiation between word definitions and reality is right on point. Oakley is perhaps the worst offender. But I'm curious to see what you do with Pratt.
Yeah, Oakley loves to use HIS definition of 'angle' so he can say there's no such thing as 'curve adjacent' and the like. Likewise his own personal 'definition' of the second law of thermodynamics and many other. Just as this video points out simple and more technical definitions of 'level', there are likewise better definitions for a lot of terms that flerfs toss about.
Mute Button Oakley compensates for his scientific incompetence by using fallacies and extremely aggressive bullying. He is very religious because rational thinking is beyond his competence. He's the guy that was too small to steal someone's milk money at school, so he would threaten and cajole the stupidest kids until he got his tuppence. He's a rather petty little man-child. 😢 😂😂😂
You mean the pointless guy that have been refuted a few thousands of times.
Offhand I'd say that conflating the adjective, noun and verb meanings of "level" is squarely in Bev's wheelhouse. But it's a rather separate issue.
Flerfpratt has nothing to do with Daniel Pratt, it stands for Flat Earth Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
Oh I dearly missed that GRAVITY clip... It's older than some people watching this today.
I did talk to a flat earth trainer pilot once (I really hope he was only certified for small aircraft). I was at a convention minding my own business while eating by myself and he came up to me to strike up a conversation just to meet other con-goers. That's okay, but I would have rather been left alone. I don't remember how, but we got onto the subject of the shape of the earth, and he was shocked that I was a round-earther. He even called out to his wife or whatever while pointing at me as if I was a one in a million idiot with the stupid belief lol. We were talking about water finding its own level, and I said that if you have a level long enough (I then drew a diagram with a level sitting on the earth that is as wide as the earth) the bubbles would be pegged on the sides. He couldn't believe that I believed something so obviously wrong lol. That was a very interesting lunch.
Flat water, no visible curvature and CGI are the three pillars of faith for the FE cult.
Soundly's picture of power line pylons disappearing across Lake Pontchartrain deals with the first two very nicely! If flerfs were to go there themselves that would deal with all three . . .
@@ceejay0137Oh but some of them happened to go there, and of course they saw only what they wanted to see.
@@ceejay0137 I agree, sadly most of them are religious fundamentalists, dishonest and conspiracy nuts. Anyone who has had experience of dealing with creationists knows how difficult it is to get through that kind of conditioning let alone when someone believes "everything is a lie" too. When they are confronted with evidence they do the "flat earth reset" and instead of seeking genuine answers simply dive deeper into the flat earth meme bank.
@@ceejay0137 some of them have actually done experiments and found exactly what "globers" told them they would find and they still manage to find a way to do the mental gymnastics needed to stay flerfs. They literally won't accept reality.
I wouldn't use these pillars to build a house. Because it wouldn't last long.
2:41 what's ironic to me is when I hear a Flerf say, "facts don't care about your feelings". It makes me wonder what's going through their mind when they say that. 🤨🤔
I don't always watch videos as soon as I see them, but when it's Marty doing a FLERFPRATT, I just gotta watch.
Level, as in sea level, means the height of the water, it has nothing to do with any perceived flatness.
Fantastic, these are the words I needed to find when my friend asked me 'if the Earth is a globe, shouldn't planes flying in a straight line eventually end up in space?'
_ELON MUSK HATES HIM - MAN FINDS EASY WAY TO GET TO SPACE WITHOUT ROCKETS_
the water spheres in 0 g are also due to surface tension. see how that wobbles thats never getting held together by gravity.
I hope you will play KSP once to see how the rockets orientation stops flying vertical without input the higher it flies. Its conservation of angular momentum, right? Right?
FLERFs are like "if the universe worked like I thought it does the earth wouldn't be round" the just assume the assumption can't be wrong.
Truth is always approximate. More information often creates the need for more precise, refined, and sophisticated vocabulary to improve the description of reality. If you begin with the assumption that truth is based on divine revelation that is an immutable reflection of reality, sooner or later, you'll evolve into a flat earther..
This is for flat-earthers that say that water find it own level, a container need to be sealed and that space is fake:
1 - get a aquarium or a big bucket and fill it with water.
2 - put a high glass (right way up) on the bottom of bucket.
3 - Then while the glass is under water flip it upside down, now there is no air inside of is.
4 - Now lift up the glass bottom first so 1/4 of it is above the water.
Now answer this questions:
* is the water level.
* what is in the empty space in the top of the glass.
* Where did it came from.
* Is the glass a container even one side is open.
How would flat-earthers explain this so it is compatible with other statements they often make about our reality we can observe and measure?
If gravity was the only force acting on the water molecules in that ball of water in microgravity, then it would immediately boil off because the force of gravity between those molecules is tiny and the water molecules undergo Brownian motion.
The actual reason is right there as a subtitle: surface tension, aka electrostatic attraction (which is particularly strong in water because of its electric dipole moment).
Now I know that some, namely Wits*it, claim electrostatics is the reason why matter attracts other matter.
For one, as MCToon has pointed out several times, that is just a self-debunk because if matter attracts matter, then large amounts of matter will collapse into an approximate sphere, no matter what's the cause or how you want to call it.
But also it's contrary to the predicted behavior of electric dipoles at scale in accordance with Coulomb's law. In a nutshell, while the force of attraction between individual (opposite) electric charges is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, the force of attraction between two electric dipoles (that each as a whole are electrically neutral) is approximately inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance.
I.e. there's no contradiction between dipole attraction being much stronger than gravity over short distances and gravity winning over long distances because the former drops up much more quickly than the latter.
Love the content as always Marty, but we gotta work on this acronym! 🤣
Flatearth Assertions & Theories Accurately Scrutined & Shat-on, or... FATASS
Youre cholesterol always finds its level haha. What about stress level, and so on?
Ships don’t ‘dip’ their bow in the same way as an airplane doesn’t dip its nose
That's a pretty good comparison actually, and the reasons are very similar. A ship will always be in a balance between buoyancy and weight, just like a plane will be in a balance between lift and weight for whatever speed and altitude it is trimmed for.
level is an equipotential surface in the gravity field
"And it happened at sea! See? C for Catwoman!" -- flerf logic.
Nothing like a good flerfPRATT
If we leave religion out of this, what we're left with is simply that water shows no sign of being sentient. It can't "find" things. This can be tested by putting water in a maze of different levels to test for a preference. Same thing for the assertion that light has a preferred direction.
When you start thinking in an organized way, one thing about "water always finds its own level" that becomes obvious is a question: what level is water's "own level"? For the statement to make any sense at all, that "own level" needs to be specified. What is it? Well, flerfs don't say.
Some may refer vaguely to "sea level" which seems to be about something entirely different. But if that's all the claim is, then that's how it should be tested! One can go down into a mine, or in a submarine, and pour out some water from a container (because containers 🙄) and see if water does indeed find the local sea level above. I have it on good authority from former submariners like FTFE that this is not the case. So the assertion is wrong. Indeed, with a submarine, there's all that water _below_ sea level to prove otherwise.
The one place where your argument really falls down is where it uses religion as a crutch. When you wrote "Theists do this as well..." you may have been in your own comfort zone of religion, and that's a problem because nothing about "water seeks its own level" or flat earth in general is inherently theist. And because it's a strawman argument and guilt by association fallacy, all you're doing is diving into the pit of fallacious reasoning. Nothing can be gained there. You have every right to believe what you want to believe. But not unlike drinking and driving, one shouldn't attempt to be logical while under the influence of religion.
Haven't watched a Marty video in years, glad that you are still making content.
Idiocy always finds it's flatturd!
BTW regarding flight - mechanical gyroscope on the plane contains special device correcting gyroscope for changing vertical direction - if earth would be flat no such device would be needed.
If Earth were flat, all you would need to navigate it in an airplane would be your eyeballs and perhaps some binoculars, as you would be able to see exactly where you were going at all times. Literally, you would take off from Paris, get to cruising altitude and just look out the window "Oh look, there's Britain, point the aircraft that way"
Water always finds the Water Temple in OoT.
I started missing that "GRAVITY!" clip. Glad to see it once again.
I think the "Water always finds its level" comes from a physics lab setup demonstrating "communicating vessels", a mayby 1 ft long apparatus with different interconnected glass tubes of various shapes and sizes.
This can also be the case of watertowers that has to be higher, or as high as the buildings they are supplying with water. BUT this principle is working due to GRAVITY and pressure.
It's fun that flerfs always say they have spoken to ONE pilot claiming he is dipping the planes nose down to adjust for curvature .... (which means the Earth is a sphere, by the way), when all the rest tells the opposite: horisontally the airplane has thrust from engines but encounters drag (air resistans) and vertically it is affected by gravity which is countered by lift (caused by how the air passes over and under the wings).
Bro it's 2024, everyone knows that Wiitsit adequately debunked gravity years ago. 🤪
Imagine still obeying the laws of gravity. I’m out here flying around the stratosphere by flapping my arms really hard. Saves thousands on travel costs.
Is still amazing that we're having this conversation since the Greeks have known Earth is spherical-shaped since at least 300 BCE.
It must have been Greek NASA. The THEY must have done some ancient MK-Ultra mind-control as they created the ancient firmament!
When flerfers talk, there's no point in using intellect or proof or evidence, they have trained their minds to not need such pedestrian things as 'reason' or 'logic'. So just mock them. Mock them as they should be mocked.
Well, *some* Greeks knew this. The rest of them, including the vast majority of the Helenized world, did not. And in many cases, it took the better part of 2,000 years for the world at large to get caught-up.
Dihydrogen monoxide always finds the liquid-themed stage.
Famous flerf, Bob "a 15 degree pet hour drift" Knoedel was a pilot. Professional pilot Wofie6020 confirmed that part of Bob's claim. Apparently Bob's license didn't require him to understand great circle courses.
Rivers can't flow north? Oh, dear, what direction does the St. John's River in Florida flow? Let's see...it starts near where I live in Melbourne and flows to Jacksonville. Last I checked, that's NORTH.
0:21 After listening to WLC, IP and Platinga, I'm pretty sure this is how all religious people think. Definitions = Universe altering magic spells.
Speaking of the Nile, Fall of Civilizations has a new podcast/episode out on Egypt! They’re an amazing channel. Better quality than TV documentaries. I highly recommend them.
Yeah, they think shit flows down. They don’t know where down is. They just have a nebulous concept of a “down force”. Not gravity, though. That’s satanism. God’s own down force. 🙄
Actually water does always find its level on an equi-potential surface. It's just that equi-potential surfaces can be curved.
Level os simply perpendicular to plumb. Plumb always pionts to the cenyer of earths mass. Pretty easy, really.
I am aware of at least 1 FE pilot.
Having seen him on RUclips, he appears to be a single-engine private pilot who has never flown outside his regional area. Apparently he either skipped or (more likely) is just ignoring all his long-distance navigation lessons.
Most of em know it is BS. They do it for fun and to make friends. about 20% truly believe. Good ole Pareto Principle.
I find politely asking the right questions is the best way to highlight their absurdity. Larry King em.
Considering the FE model only has 2 possible directions...north, and away from north it would be a miracle if they could travel from the USA to the UK and survive the trip. Yet us "globetards" seems to be able to do it multiple times a day for decades with no issues.... go figure?
I think ferrofluids are also a good example of a fluid with outside forces affecting its shape. A strong enough magnetic field will make it visibly curve, and if you change the orientation of the magnet, you'll also see spikes appear along the fluid's surface in accordance with the magnetic field. The way FLERFs understand water and other fluids, this really shouldn't be possible. And it demonstrates that a force (such as gravity) can make the surface of a fluid curve.
Of course, FLERFs are so stupid that they like to pretend that gravity doesn't exist because being able to jump or lift any object with a magnet somehow "disproves" it, even though if you applied that same fucking logic to magnetism, you'd never be able to remove any ferromagnetic object/substance that's touching a working magnet.
All you need it a bucket of water to disprove water finding level. Spin bucket any way you want. Over your head is my favorite. Water will change shape.
First, in "water always finds its own level," the word "level" means the same as the word "level" in the term "parking level" within a garage. Obviously, parking levels aren't entirely flat, otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive from one level to the next.
"Sea level" is an elevation. It's a specific location in the vertical dimension. This is the "level" that water supposedly finds.
I say, "supposedly," because sea level is an average. Water might _seek_ its own level, but, at least where large bodies of water are concerned, water never finds that level.
So, "water always finds its level" is both factually wrong and a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation.
Stupid always finds it's level. That is one thing the flerfs have demonstrated.
If definitions described reality the flerfs lose anytime they use the word "atmosphere".
If you've ever seen a plane at a distance, it will always appear to be ascending when coming towards you and descending when going away from you. That's because the Earth is round and it's going around the curve.
@7:48, Even if it were true that pilots had to "pitch down", it would be a tiny fraction of a degree to perfectly follow the curvature of the earth, in fact far too small an amount to easily detect. Where they really go off the rails is when they assume the plane would have to fly perfectly level for 30 or 60 miles then suddenly dive thousands and thousands of feet - which obviously doesn't happen. But they say it must happen .. otherwise the earth must be flat. It is the quintessential flerf behavior - to claim something must happen if the earth is truly a sphere - something they already know doesn't happen.
New Zealand here. I had no idea that rivers flowing south was a thing for these nutters. I do agree that Australia shouldn't be a thing though! That was a joke, kinda...😅
existence depends on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misapplication of information they misunderstood and misinterpreted.
One distinct trait of flerfs is that they require a detailed explanation for things that most of us know intuitively.
A plane would have to adjust it's flight path down if it exceed Mach 33.
The bubble vial of a level is actually determining plumb,
Antiscience could have an excellent career in the agriculture as long as they are willing to diversify their skillset just a little beyond cherry picking.
Doesn't even have to be that big a body of water to show curvature.
Hydrodynamic testing uses towing tanks, which are typically less than half a kilometer long - and since precision matters, these tanks and the test rigs that drag the scale model hulls through water take into account the curvature of the Earth, otherwise, the test hulls would be too low in the center of the tank and too high at the ends.
Actually, there could be a lot of light aircraft flat earth pilots as at that scale and those distances, you can get away with flat navigation. There would be no flerf long haul pilots as that's when you start having to use the complex math of a globe.
I think Flerfs believe the Earth is supposed to curve towards them.
"BUT MUH HOLEE BUUK!" - @CoolHardLogic
"And yet these oxygen thieves claim it's not gravity. Things fall down because REASONS! (heeeyyyyy)" also CHL 😉
what happened to him? complete radio silence for years now.
@@EGeorgev Well, he isn't gone completely, he still answer some posts in the comments sections. Maybe he waits for some Cletus to resurface with something notable new, he already covered lots of ground with his videos 🙂
RE: Maps putting north at the top
Maps were historically made so the east was at the top(or at least the direction the sun rose if slightly off). It's an easy orientation to find, varies very little in the grand scheme of things, and puts the sun as the focus of the map. The word orientation literally comes from "to face east" in Latin.
Maps facing north is a thing that only really showed up as a consistent thing with Marcator in the 1500s. Now we had a rough idea of the continents you had to make a real choice as to where to put the boundary of what's east or west to keep east at the top, so he instead chose the planets poles as the top and bottom of the map(projected to infinity because no one wanted to go to either anyway). That still left the choice as to which pole to put at the top, and he simply chose the closest pole to most explorers who'd be likely to use a map in Latin mostly drawing on the maps provided by Spanish and Portuguese sailors.
While theoretically we could have picked any direction for up, I think north or south are the most reasonable(because of the poles being least likely to visit so it gives least distortion to areas people actively live in), east at the top sounds like a ridiculous idea given the obvious issues of this clearly introducing the issue of which continents go at the top and bottom.
Of course, you can give them every piece of their worldview and there are still tides, so we have large bodies of water curving
Good presentation. One nitpick though: Water in a low-gravity environment will form a spherical bubble because of surface tension, not because of gravity.
Yes, it's a matter of 'scale'. When the most dominant forces are surface tension, it takes over. Just as with very small droplets within our normal gravitational field, surface tension is more dominant (because it varies with surface area, not mass/ volume).
I may have misunderstood 'the nile' argument when I made a model showing that a plane roughly tangent to the points on the nile can be downhill over a sufficiently large distance. The actual argument I was trying to refute may have been too stupid to actually investigate
Now Marty, you _know_ that if I flew my airplane inside a teacup,
Don't try to deny it
All A's are B
Baaaaaa = 1. (you're welcome)
Tides... BOOM flerf argument dead
"water always finds its level"
Go look at the tool we call a "level", it doesn't.
water always finds its equipotential surface
Oh man, you're still kicking around, are you? I haven't watched your videos in ages, but I still use that clip of you (you know, "and the source cited is the author's ass") on occasion.
1 clay ball + 1 clay ball = 1 clay ball
Checkmate atheist 😎
well done :) I too have had simular conversations
"Dense"ity. I will give the flerfs that one.
Jag trodde "plattjordare" var ett utdöende släkte, jag hade tydligen fel.
This famous "nose down" effect - a passenger jet flies with about 900 km/h, or 250 m/s, so it would take ca. 44 hours to circle around the globe The "nose down" would be a VEEEEEERY slow forward looping.
Once around = 360 degrees in 44 hours is a rotation rate of 0.0023 degrees per second. Or a down correction of 1 cm/second (while flying 250 meters far).
In comparison, when a plane takes off the rotation is VERY roughly 20 degrees in 5 seconds - probably way more. That is 20/5 = 4 deg/sec, or 1700 times faster.
So where is the problem? Even when that would be necessary, it is so slow that no one would notice it. Especially when you have thousands of other maneuvers or corrections during a normal flight, like because of wind, or thermals (vertical air currents).
The trick resp. error was that flat earthers were taking the corrections after an hour or so, "after an hour, the pilot would have to nose down 4000 meter". I do not know whether that was deliberate or stupidity.
In one of their hangouts it was hilarious. "4000 meter in one hour - insane". Then one made the error to calculate the value for half an hour - just 1000 meter correction. He halved again - 250 meter. In 7.5 minutes - 62.5 meters.
Then he noticed that he just kills his argument and stopped it.
A plane doesn't even need to be 'nose down' in order to decrease its altitude, let alone maintain the arc of level flight. That particular angle depends mostly on the design of the plane, but also speed, air density and the cross section of the wings.
Once the correct attitude for following the arc of level flight has been set, balancing lift and forward motion with the curvature of earth, no adjustments are needed ─ just like a miles wide constant turn in a car on the Bonneville salt flats is just a slight angle to the front wheels that never needs to be changed.
Flurfs think water is Sentient.
And they are right, it is as sentient as a flerfs. I guess that why they can't see, hear, feel or observe the ton of evidence they are buried under.
@@kennylex Fair point.
I’ve this nonsense before.
Words do have definitions.
Your problem isn’t with the actual word “level”, but with how that word is being used incorrectly, in a phrase.
Merriam-Webster provides ten uses of "level" as a noun, six as a transitive verb, four as an intransitive verb, and seven as an adjective.
If you hang a flat shelf on a slight angle....... it is not level. Therefore as far as definition.. flat does NOT equal level. As stated, semantics/definitions do not alter reality. Things are what they are regardless of opinion and beliefs. If a flerf could explain circumnavigation without resorting to "magic", conspiracy theories or implying we don't know how to tell direction or measure distances, then we can talk.
It seems being we can traverse to far destinations and back within a predictable time frame, over and over again, that we have at least figured out how to measure. The flerfs imply that we don't. Like distance is in on the conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth in which 99.99999% of people do not even care about. What is the point other then looking like a complete idiot whose only value is to be mocked and ridiculed??
I know at least 2 flerf pilots. One claimed to be a multi-engine pilot but wolfie found out that he didn't have a multi-engine rating. Gotta lie to flerf. Yes, I'm talking about the guy with the 15 degree per hour drift. Thanks, Bob!
The other is an instructor that went up against FTFE for a debate.
Do you know them? Or do you know *of* them.
@@overcomingobstaclescreates1695 well, I don't know them personally but I've seen them on RUclips.
level does not always mean flat.
577th like!
( 1/√3 )
Video interaction
Gotta lie to Flerf
The problem with debating Flerfs is that they'll never accept the definition of the word "definition," and you'll never even get to the actual argument!!! 🤣
👌 Great vid. I just uploaded a video of perfectly level curved water making a boat disappear 😊
Flerfs just dont get it 🙈
_"South is only down _*_on a map"_* - Clarification: South is only down on a map that's placed on a wall.
Further clarification:
South is only down on a map on a wall when south is oriented toward the floor
I identify south on the map as 'toward me'. North is away from me. I run into trouble is when the map is on a wall.
Reality doesn't care about our definitions, except in universes with manipulatable magic, which stripped of the mumbo-jumbo is simply teeeling reality what it should be in words it can't ignore.
3:30 Prime example of what you are talking about is Newton's laws.
In primary school, they teach you Newton's laws in words and simple examples. That's why most people can at least say some of those laws out loud.
i.e An object in motion will stay in motion until a force acts upon it.
Then when you get to senior/secondary school (junior high and high school for you yanks) you learn that law has a name, the law of inertia. You also learn that the definition you were taught is actually not quite the whole thing and so you learn the more precise definition: If a body is at rest or moving at a constant speed in a straight line, it will remain at rest or keep moving in a straight line at constant speed unless it is acted upon by a force.
you also learn the equations that go with the laws of motion and how to use them in some basic cases.
Finally, when you get to college, you find out you've still been taught a simplification and that the simple mathematics you've been using for 5 years just won't cut it anymore.
And I'm sure if I had studied physics at Phd level, it would have turned out I was still using a simplification, lol.
I’ve seen people using definitions to try to hold up a wrong idea. Like Bible “scholars” using Strong’s to claim a definition and therefore upholding a new theology based on that. For instance “Morrow” which can mean tomorrow or morning. Context would be needed to understand meaning, but to some pushing their agenda supersedes common sense.
Is sense really that common anymore?
👍🏻👍🏻
Flaters be flaten.
their are cheap test you can do. that proves that earth can´t be flat. if the earth is flat. how come I can´t make the sun re apeare half an hour after sundown. even with a telescope made for watching stars.
The cheapest test is literally _go outside at night and try pointing at the Sun._ That costs exactly zero. It's still too expensive for flerfs, because it would cost them their ability to feel _special._
I mean, there are loads of cheap tests. They just don't want to perform them because they are allergic to science