Buoyancy is what gets flerfs to the top left of the Dunning Kruger scale

As well as what allows them to resist external forces pushing them toward understanding

😄

@@serpentinious7745it’s a farce created by trolls to waste time and expose gullible people.

I always wondered why we would call someone dense😅

Those couple of little barbs sprinkled throughout are hilarious.

He sounda like a high school teacher who has absolutely had enough with having to teach in the troubled school.

An alternative version by flerfers is, space pizza is constantly moving up, so things don't drop, the earth is moving towards them.

I begin to suspect enemy action. Just like how certain fascists like to incite a culture war in order to keep themselves safe from being torn down from their underserved and thoroughly abused positions of power and dragged through the streets in bloody pieces, I think the reason we have flerfs (among others) is because someone made a decision to propagandize to susceptible idiots in order to weaken perceived rivals. We've seen the effectiveness of propaganda through social media the past several years. We've seen how it quiets down when certain countries are blocked from interacting with social media. I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a connection between the rise of subtle propaganda and the rise of aggressively ignorant morons.

People just keep getting dumber. To me it seems we (as a human race) peaked at around ‘80-90s.

@@alkestos Not really. As they say, every village has a village idiot, and there are a lot of villages out there. It's just that before the information age, they were isolated in their own little communities, while now they cal all get together online and share their idiocy. Then add in the fact that our ape-brains were designed to operate on the tribal-scale and measure everything by that yardstick, and seeing a hundred thousand people on the internet believe in and advocate for flat earth makes you feel it's a huge, society-shaking number, when in reality, it's 0.00125% of the total human population.

shhhh, it's a Soro's and NASA plot to deny GAWD!!

We USED to all know that men can't become women, and that there are only two sexes, for thousands of years, too... Never doubt people's capacity to deny simple, demonstrable, evidence-based reality (eg the globe, or evidence-based sex), in favour of braindead dribble with an alluring "conspiracy/oppression" narrative, like flat earth, or 100% evidence-free "gender" nonsense... (Except even moonbat flatties aren't unhinged enough to irreversably chemically mutilate healthy, unconsenting children, because THEIR evidence-free nonsense says you need to use drugs, to make people to conform to those all-important gender stereotypes.... Imagine being MORE deranged, and contemptuous of simple, evidence-based truth, than a goddam flat earther....)

Awesome 😉👍 I hope you do well, we can always do with more geologist in the world. If not just for the puns.) So, Let’s whet your apatite.) So many geologists are out standing in the field, Thrusting in orogenous zones. For as always, We come for the cleavage and stay for the joints.) But hey I'm no geologist myself, what do I know. Igneous is bliss. Still, Not to quarry-you'll do great on your science exam! 😎👌

@@guytheincognito4186 🤣🤣

I wonder what a hypothetical gravity less universe would look like

There's no such thing as a centrifugal force

@@GigaBoost Technically you are correct. It’s a pseudo-force. Like the Coriolis effect. But the effect of it is real enough. As you well know. Like Newtonian gravity, which is a good approximation of how gravity works, but isn’t the whole story.

a|b science took it apart in great detail over a year ago.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNZig7mlld-9gZc.html @NathanOakley1980 made a response Much algorithmic love to all ❤

yep surface tension i think

Yes indeed I love blowing flurf brains with this fact.

This. Scaled to the size of a beach ball, the deepest parts of the Marianas trench wouldn't fill the grooves in your fingerprints. You'd be hard pressed to say it was wet at all. Water is about o.o2 of the volume of earth, clean drinking water .04% of that. Most of the atmosphere is actually toxic, and to explore anywhere more than a mile up or down from a possible 4,200 miles, we need to find a means, using science technology and engineering, to do it. This planet is not engineered for humans, nevermind the universe.

The simplest ways I've heard the buoyancy/density "answer" getting debunked was simply asking why less dense objects float "up" and more dense objects fall "down". Without a reference system created by gravity's downward pull, "up" and "down" make no sense on their own.

But the higher up you go, the less dense our atmosphere, so there's a density gradient. Based on their explanation you would expect everything to go UP, not DOWN, because the atmosphere UP is every so slightly less dense than DOWN.

Uhm... Brain? Flat earther? ... Think about that for a while. 😉

@@Martymer81 A flat earther corrected your videos channel name is Nathan Oakley 1980, however if you believe he is incorrect I would suggest hoping on Flat Earth Debate and express your views, he has a live show Monday thru Friday 9am Eastern, 2pm UK, 8am Central, AWST 10pm

​@@earthisflatthe earth isn't flat lil bro.

I'd say neither case is a problem tbf. If you accept Special Relativity then you're allowed to accelerate like that (as you said). And if you don't then it means that Einstein's postulates are wrong so either physical laws are not universal or speed of light is not an universal speed limit.

I think it's only the Flat Earth Society (FES) that entertains 'Universal Acceleration' as an explanation. All the other flerfs think that the FES is 'controlled opposition' (whatever that is). 🙄

I have asked and explained the same question to many flattards, but they are so dense that didn't even get my point 😂😂

"What defines the downward direction?" is a good question, but "I don't know" is a valid answer. Flat Earthers believe that God created the Earth as a flat disc under a dome surrounded by nothing; that God might just have picked some arbitrary direction to call "down", towards which all things are drawn, is not the craziest thing under that belief.

The question I always ask flerfs about the density/RDD nonsense is why does anything move at all in a Zero G parabolic flight? No changes in density of anything, no pressure changes in the plane, yet things of differing densities start to first move up and then down and in between float around. All you get is crickets 🤣

If the earth was flat, we would know it and teach it in schools. Why not? 🤷‍♂

@@arctic_haze True, but... it isn't flat

@@2ahdcat Who says it is?

@@arctic_haze I... don't get Your question. I just stated a fact. Earth isn't falt.

@@2ahdcat I never claimed it is, hence my question. By the way, I am reviewing just now a paper about meteorology of the Maritime Continent (roughly Indonesia) which is very interesting region because it is an equatorial region with practically no Coriolis force and because of that instead of cyclonic and antyclyclonic systems, it has the linear Madden-Julian oscillation system passing through it with all the Kevin and Rossby waves associated to it. Fascinating stuff.

I strongly recommend you to read Clifford D Simak’s book Way Station, then you know all about this topic.😊

Ha! Tell that to my knees and my beer belly! :)

If Martymer is immortal, where's greenscreen Cleetus?

See-Gee-EYE!!! ;-)

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nNZig7mlld-9gZc.html @NathanOakley1980 made a response Much algorithmic love to all❤

Well, the thing is: it is an actual egg. This is obviously the truth. So what he says must be true!

Can't argue against that, I'm now a flerf

Force as in "an acceleration of mass in a direction". Not force like in "something flerfers will be willing to comprehend".

Not to mention, if it's a matter of density, that still doesn't explain down. Why not fall to the left or right when dropped like he dropped his pen?

@@denverarnold6210 It should fall up, since air is less dense the further up you go.

It highlights the issue that they don't even understand at a base level what the term Gravity means. It's by definition what makes things fall down, regardless of the actual physics of it. Saying things don't fall down because of gravity is inherently nonsensical. It's the usual misunderstanding/lack of understanding of the difference between a theory of something and that thing itself. The existence of gravity is unquestionable. The nature of gravity is actually still fairly unclear.

@@Llortnerof Gravity is the result of mater and energy curving the time-space. This is the direct conclusion of the General Relativity theory of Einstein which has so far been confirmed in every experiment over the 108 years since it was published.

NO MO RON... the object itself is more dense than air below or above,so it will fall down

@@ivanpajovic9228 No, read it again. According to flat Earth science, an object falls down because it is more dense than the air below it so therefore it falls down, but since the air above the object is even less dense than the object, it should fall up instead. Of course, this completely falls apart when you throw in the fact that the object would still fall down and only down in a vacuum. Or the fact that density is not a force and cannot cause acceleration, or the fact that density doesn't mean much without gravity and buoyancy literally doesn't exist without gravity. I also want you to especially notice that I did not call you a moron... even though I really wanted to.

@@JodiTrommler You didn’t want to call him a moron. But by telling him that, you did. Subtle.

@@brianfileman 😎

So how does a helium balloon work? Does it defy the laws of gravity?

Create a straight track of jelly that has increasing density, and hold it upsidedown so the densest stuff is on top. According to the FLERF model, marbles should fall upwards through this.

One flat Earther claimed the density gradient of the atmosphere provides the direction. I never got an answer that as air is rarer upwards, the greater density difference should be greater upwards.

And last I heard, density is a scalar with no preferred direction.

Not the WHOLE path. The cessation of acceleration/thrust during the plane's ascent = free fall. One would think that anyone who's ridden a roller coaster should be able to understand that. Even a flerfer!

@@colormedubious4747 "The cessation of acceleration/thrust during the plane's ascent = free fall." That is not completely accurate. It is not the "cessation of thrust" that is important; it is the following of a flight path that accelerates at the desired rate. The pilots don't just turn off the engines and let the aircraft fly through the air like a thrown rock. All that is necessary is for them to follow a flight path that is accelerating downwards at a rate of 9.8m/s2. If the plane is doing this then everything inside the aircraft will be in free fall, even if the engines still have thrust. (The aircraft is not a perfect frictionless object thrown through through the air; It has drag & lift which must be compensated for)

@@johnwellbelove148 I admit that I phrased that sloppily. As a certificated pilot, I really should have done better. As the aircraft approaches apogee, the pilot adjusts the throttle to maintain the required parabolic arc, retarding it smoothly as the plane transitions to descent. If he just chopped it at apogee, skulls would bounce off the overhead and he'd have a mutiny on his hands. I hope that's a little more accurate. Here's a bonus anecdote for you that flerfers would not understand: Everyone knows the four fundamental forces of flight (thrust, drag, lift, and weight/gravity), but do you know which force actually makes aircraft fly? Money. Money makes aircraft fly.

@@colormedubious4747 I think the main point I was trying to make was that I imagined flerfer's maths/physics skills are so poor that they would have trouble accepting the concept that an object can simultaneously have upward velocity *and* downward acceleration.

This community is toxic

It makes them feel special!

The acceleration is the same, but the forces are different because the masses are.

In vacuum there is no frictional force to affect the velocity and acceleration of falling objects

Is your confusion over why the acceleration is the same for two falling bodies of the different mass, or whether or not the acceleration changes with distance? Or is it something else? If the former: the most intuitive way it's been described to me is that although the attraction (to the Earth, just for reference) is greater for a more massive object, the amount of force needed to overcome its inertia is also greater. It gets pulled harder, but it also takes more to pull, so it ends up going the same speed. If the latter: the acceleration is the same on both objects _compared to each other._ They do feel a greater pull and accelerate faster as they get closer to the Earth, but the difference between the pull on the ground and the pull from a few feet up is basically nothing. On the surface, the force of gravity is about 9.8 m/s; in low-Earth orbit (over a thousand miles up), it's 9.0 m/s. So it _does_ get smaller as you travel outwards, but the scale at which we live is so small that you have to go _faaar_ before you really notice the difference.

They will come along and say it's all pressure, displacement, and density of medium anyway

It’s not that they don’t know these answer, they just deny it. Refuse the evidence. The la-la land is more comfortable for their feeble minds.

2nd graders know enough to debunk their crap.

You mentioned when dropping the bottles that they would fall at slightly different speeds, but I'm unclear why? surely they would fall at the same speed since the only 2 forces are gravity and air resistance, Gravity affects the water bottle more but the increased mass equally counteracts that, and the air resistance is identical?

Create a tube of jelly that has gradually increasing density, and hold it so the densest stuff is on top. According to the FLERF model, marbles should fall upwards through this. Right?

@@LordCreo In addition to air resistance, which is negligible in this case, there is also a force of buoyancy from the air. This force is equal on both bottles, since they displace equal volumes of equally dense air. However, they have different weight, so the net force (pointing down) on them is mg-F_b. This, divided by m, gives the net acceleration. Since m is different on the two bottles, F_b has less of an influence on the resulting force on the bottle with the greater m. The more massive bottle will accelerate _slightly_ faster. In a vacuum, where there F_b=0, they will fall at the same rate.

@@Martymer81 Interesting never thought about that. With 330ml plastic bottles the effect is 0.19% difference in acceleration, or 0.23% if you used Whisky instead of water lol (ChatGPT astounds me more every day!)

@@Martymer81 Hey. Jordan is at it again. Now he is showing an actual PhD holder spewing nonsense on his channel. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p7Bgl7hyydG6h2Q.html I bet the guy got his PhD in word salad.

Sadly, there will be no discussion in flerf circles. They will either completely ignore it, or move goalposts somewhere else.

The dog's name is Rusty. His only slightly less entertaining ape sidekick is Dave McKeegan, my favorite newly discovered KZfaqr and a worthy intellectual descendant of our legendary host here.

Yeah, the scary thing is you don't need an alternate universe -- just use a little AI to create a deep fake. It's sad, really.

m/s^2 or "meters per second squared" is acceleration in standard SI units of measurement. Nothing "freedom" about it. Reality isn't subject to politics or theism.

When they make experiments, they either screw up, cheat or dismiss results. Most of flerfs unfortunally don’t actually care about truth, they are either qanon or at same level in conspiracy theory mindset.