Scary as $hit is what I call it.

And in the 21st century.

It's hilariously scary 😨

Over and over and over and over and over, and it never sinks in. They just keep spouting the same BS about spinning at 1000 mph. It's pretty much hopeless.

Are we all adaults? I know there are flerfs.

I see what you did there!

@@Danielaco23 Oops! I was hoping that I would get away with it. Oh well. I can't win 'em all ;) .

Ha ha, my kind of joke!

Funny

and flat earth theory is really spreading around the globe.

No wonder I'm so bored all the time.

Yet its speed at the equator is about 1400 ft/second. And about 28 ft/second are holding us to the ground... Either scientific dark magic is occurring to make up for what Gravity is not doing. Or them Flat Earther's have realized there is a math problem. ...or its all a simulation, and science is just the physics coding that the if then else conditions determined it does or does not apply to you.

Dave is not a real Professor and the merry go round isn't traveling at 1038mph is it.

​@jjevans1693 if you're trying to apply the speed of the earth to a merry-go-round without factoring in proportion please rethink your life choices. I mean he LITERALLY explained it in the video

@@andrevaz1289 No that's what your doing. If the merry- go- round was the size of the earth how fast would it be spinning. 1038mph. to make one revolution per day.

Love your channel

Why were you a flat earther, and what made anything convince you since in 99.99% of the cases flat earthers can stare something in the face and claim it's not there.

Like pardovot I'd be very interested to hear about your journey from FE'er back to normality. Can you please share?

@@ShizukuSeiji He has a video on his youtube channel :)

Much appreciated :)

Favourite part regarding being squished into the ground is, you can always feel it, when you feel the ground under your feet, that feeling of the ground pushing back up against you being you're being pulled into it. Also why people who spend extended time in space need to readjust to living with a sense of weight again, and why someone who is born and raised in space would have a different physiology to us and find it very difficult to exist on the planet, turns out, shockingly, our body's structural dynamics evolved in an environment where there's gravity always acting on us.

I don't ever get gravity deniers who say it isn't real, then use an exact phenomema as gravity to explain why they're pulled to a flat Earth and how going off the edge would make them fall, or try to say those on the sides of the globe would fall off. So you're saying gravity is real and acknowledging up and down frames of reference based on it, amd therefore gravity cannot be real nor can we base up and down references on a gravity source... as clear a contradiction as any did see.

@@asneakychicken322 The older I get the more my back and knees definitely tell me that I'm getting squished.

- ""If Earth moves so fast, then why don´t we feel it?" Humans feel ACCELERATION not Uniform VELOCITY. Try learning the difference before calling every engineer and physicist TO HAVE EVER LIVED a bunch of morons.

@@asneakychicken322 *👋😝❌ Sooo knowledgeable 😝😝😝‼️ So when was this irritable **_SPACE_** baby born that you’re Sooo Knowledgeable of🤪❓ and this an statements like this by Scientists is Why , everything they say is now questionable ✅*

what, I'm...commenting under a different comment?

That never gets old.

A pedant would say 360° in 23 hours 56 minutes 4.091 seconds 😉

@@somedude4087 yes you are

@@Leopard_211 no I was confused with that cuz I was commenting under one comment but the comment was going under whole another one

Lol that is a great flerf proof

I have to correct you. Water vapour only has a minor effect on atmospheric refraction. The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation. Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance. The math with similar triangles is straightforward. However, his explanation fails when you take the camera to any reasonable elevation, say 5m or 10m above sea level, because as we get higher, the waves need to be higher and higher to block the buildings. There's no question that it's the curve of the earth, unless someone has an objection.

@@wiggles7976 "The biggest factor is the lapse rate, or temperature vs. elevation." That's the reason I mentioned time of day. "Also, he is correct that if your eye is exactly at sea level, half in and half out of the water, a 12in wave can block a significant height in the distance" But that was not what he wrote. If a person wants to specify they are laying on a beach with their head half in the water they need to do that. What he wrote was without any qualification and implied standing at the water's edge. Or near it. If you were laying on your side, head in the water you would not see any of Chicago's skyline at all, irrespective of refraction conditions. He then went on to say that sometimes you CAN see Chicago's waterfront which I know is not the case. The guy is the King of the Morons to suggest what he did.

@@ShizukuSeiji If he's specifically talking about that Chicago photo by Joshua Nowicki taken at the top of the sand bank (which they almost always are), then yes, a 12in wave is irrelevant. I don't think you have a complete understanding of the refraction though. There do exist refraction conditions that would let you see all of Chicago's skyline laying on your side with your head in the water. Andrew Thomas Young tells us that these conditions do actually happen on rare occasion. A temperature inversion that causes a very steep air density gradient will cause light to bend with a radius equal to or less than Earth's radius. When it comes to doing these long distance observations across the ocean, you really need as many observations from the same location as possible to get the average result, and that's what I've collected and archived on my channel.

The real reason you can't see the waterfront is that light has negative weight, so it tends to bend away from the flat surface of the earth. The density of the air changes with the weather and the time of day, so the rate at which light drifts upwards also changes slightly-in some conditions it floats a little more than others. No, I'm not serious, and I'm not a flat earther, but the intention is to illustrate that you can always add enough epicycles to “fix” an explanation. The thing that's missing with these people is not knowledge, but an appreciation of Occam's razor. Physicists are, to a lesser extent, the same: both relativity and quantum mechanics _tell_ them that space is not ℝ³-shaped (or even that topology), but they persist in using an ℝ³ intuition and adding corrections, rather than trusting the maths and working on the real question of how a quantum foam connected by information patterns _appears_ to be ℝ³-shaped at large scales-in short, not how locality is violated, but how it arises.

How fast did you come up with? Wild guess says something absurdly small, like 1 inch per hour, slow enough that those making the opposing argument feel really dumb :P Edit: OK he basically gave this answer near the end of the video; that's what I get for commenting before watching 😂

If you could grow a pair of brain cells then you literally could understand that a car with bigger wheels will drive faster with same engine rotations. And 1040 mph at equator is pretty fast. 😅 Look a simple experiment. Even a one cell brain will understand it. You take a tripod with a camera and make wheel from a pipe. Stick some things on that wheel, or make some marks to be able to observe the speed. Spin it. Then take a longer pipe and make a bigger wheel and spin it again with same rotations per minute. How is the speed on the edge? Faster? How big is the floating in space and dark energy ridiculous water ball? A wheel with such radius will have quite Faster speed. And people calculated it by using the measurements given by "science ". And it's 1040 mph. 😅😅 snowing calmly today in Wisconsin.

@@giin97 check the earth rotation speed. 1040 mph at equator. Oh this dude is some kind of trustworthy authority cause you see his comment on yt! 😅

@@stolearovigor281 thats not how you measure rotational speed.

@@rainbowwizard1821 that is simple math and logics. If it's to complicated for you then it's not my fault. And your answer is not even an argument. Which doesn't surprise me at all.

*centripetal

@@Anonymous-df8it *Centrifugal

@@BrianWelch-vc7xy That's not a thing

Flatniks will never believe that you travelled faster than a bullet😂

@@cartesiancircle Yep. The religion of incredulity. Yet they’ll happily believe in an infinite being, outside of space & time, that created the universe & cares who you have sexual relations with. Who will reward, or torture you eternally, based on his pleasure, even though the universe has trillions of galaxies & hundreds of trillions of planets, suns & black holes. They’ll believe all that, but going two times faster than a bullet (which we actually have FILM of) is beyond their capacity to imagine. You can’t make this shit up🤣

you never feel motion, you feel the effects of motion. Stopping, accelerating, vibrations from the engine/road and so on.

And You still heard the passenger next to You.

@@84com83 that is because of the pressurized cabin. you wouldn't hear anything on the wing, because your head would rip off.

The 'one force at a time' is sadly true. I was trying to explain gravity to a flerf and his wonderful retort was to ask me why gravity doesn't affect a helium ballon.

@@juanausensi499 It’s usually a helium balloon or a butterfly since they all parrot the same memes.

@@juanausensi499 "his wonderful retort was to ask me why gravity doesn't affect a helium ballon." plot twist: it does :)

@@juanausensi499 the question is so stupid, it's really sad. it's even more sad when flerfers tell us to not just belive in science but think about it but just parrot such nonsense like the butterfly argument...

@@juanausensi499Use this retort: The balloon is lighter than air due to the quantity of helium. In any vacuum, even a home vacuum. And air pushes the balloon, but at a point it stops going up and is pulled by gravity. Though they’ll give you a headache by telling you you just said “buoyancy” and “density” like that bible-ist Daniel that i debated with.

I live in England. Half of the time it's cloudy, the rest of the time it just rains.

@@RichWoods23 is that why the song "Mr. Blue Sky" exists?

Beautiful description sir

for obvious reason

Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.

@@BarioIDL Yet still beyond the comprehension level of flattards.

@@BarioIDLflat earthers still won’t understand it😂

@@SSHhhhhhhh939 he can only open the door, it's their choice to walk through it

Roughly. But we have evidence that our night sky changed during the last 2000 years. Another fact the flerfs love to gloss over.

We can see and measure the velocity of Earth with the reference of far galaxies actually

Assumptions.

@@jeremybasil241 Exactly what assumptions are you talking about?

@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Geeze ! The assumption that earth rotates , and those lights in the sky are in fact millions of billions , of trillions of light years away.

They just think that they go into this small room and then the upstairs comes down.

@@AbuMaia01 Einstein eqvilence principle look it up , he claims there’s no way of telling which vector were moving through I.e up or down, but movement creates density layers i.e denser objects go in the opposite direction of the movement/ acceleration , like pushing away in a car your forced back in the seat away from the movement/ acceleration . Now ballearth claim object accelerate downward towards earth how is that proven! Well it can’t but there is a channel that put’s up a convincing argument that’s it’s the other way around IF your interested look it up the channel is beyond the imaginary curve.

@@jeremybasil241 So sad that this person had a heart attack at their computer while writing this comment

Hei MF* - Don't get fooled by the deceiving experiment. Do the experiment with Passenger STANDING ON TOP OF the plan, rather inside. It will be Equivalent to You standing on Top of Earth. Passenger will be throw-off @ 1000mph.

At Canary Wharf, there are some Japanese-made lifts that accelerate so smoothly that it's difficult to sense that you are even moving.

We really need people like you to calmly give logical responses to the infamous "flerfs". I'm starting to get tired as the majority of them are as smart as an underdeveloped fork.

Who cares if they believe this?

@@corywiedenbeck2702 Me, as I am one of the engineers setting up satellite networks to enable wireless communication in the first place. It's stupid.

Thanks, I know 'absolute' space isn't correct but I was just trying to keep the concept simplified as much as possible to make it easier for people to wrap their head around

@@DaveMcKeegan You are making pretty much the same (and very major) error as them though, by establishing an absolute frame of reference.

@@rexsceleratorum1632 There is some point in the Universe which is not in motion relative to every single galaxy. We'll never find it because it would take us billions of years to get there. So, essentially, you're right.

@@petergaskin1811 That made absolutely no sense. If there is a frame of reference that is at rest in some objective manner while every other frame of reference is in motion, we don't need to go anywhere to find it. We can put any object into that same frame of reference by giving it the required velocity in the required direction. Except this is all just fantasy. There is no fixed frame of reference anywhere, and that is one of the foundations of relativity.

You’re missing one or two😀

@@ILikeEpicurus Yeah that was the bit at the end haha.

Desertphile is the OG.

uhhhhhh Gravity is CGI! Yeah! Government faked it!

Try asking this from a flerf….. I tried and I could never get an answer, but I got a typical flerf response of talking about some other nonsense sh$t that has also already been explained/debunked….

Lol 😆 there is no top or bottom (gravity) but stupid people will always be

Because Flat Earth stuff is complete bullshit, they always just toss out key concepts and then pretend that makes their "theories" valid. It's always an absurd over simplification of a complex system, then pretending that nothing was lost in that simplification.

omg, which flerf thinks that? Oh i know the ones that experience the bends whenever they go diving.

@@doncsicso81 No flerf does ever answer anything. They just jump from topic to topic like someone with serious attention problems.

The "water doesn't curve" argument gets me. Have they not seen water floating in little orbs in zero g? I wonder how they'd explain that.

@@iximusic CGI. Apparently even NASA and Roscosmos footage from the 1960s was produced by CGI...

​@@RichWoods23 It took 4 hours for each frame from Toy Story 1 to be rendered. Each CPU that rendered the movie had about 27.5 million flops, and all the cpus combined was about 8086 million flops, which is the strength of a Pentium CPU. Why is this relevant? Well, the strongest computers NASA could use for processing were giant, bulky mainframes which could do 16.6 million instructions per second, which is likely around the same amount of flops those computers had. tl;dr with the hardware NASA had, they simply could not do CGI like that

We are built different

It’s baffling isn’t it?

Some went as far to claim that planes are hoax and we were seeing TV screens instead of plane windows apparently

@@ak_nora no one said that

@@bathin813 Search for a video named "Airplanes Are FAKE (Barnabas Nagy)"

Love it.. I will have to remember that one.

I, as a Christian, use that exact argument against them why can't the Earth be round...? what is so bad about it being round...?

@@HOLDENPOPE They usually will tell you that the Bible says that earth is flat, but as far as i remember there is no such quote that says that the earth is flat (for the christian flerfs)

@@chuck1172 There isn't. It was also a Catholic scientist that proposed the idea that the Universe can be reversed to showcase that it came from a singularity some trillion years ago. Why Christian/Catholic Theology is used as a shield by Flat Earth believers is beyond me. The OG Theology, A.K.A Catholics, don't espouse that the Earth is flat. It isn't really mentioned as far as I know.

I'm a 30 year born again Christian who can't stand "Christians" who think the Earth is flat. They have the notion the Bible teaches flat earth but it doesn't. I'm a round earther all the way!

It’s one thing to innately understand the basics as they apply to you and your life. It’s another entirely to modify values for unfamiliar scenarios and explain it well.

You are assuming that FE'ers have been on planes, trains or in cars. That would involve them having jobs and disposable income and leaving their mom's basement so maybe most haven't.

Because we are witnessing the pinnacle of human stupidity, or IMHO, most of those flat earth KOL's are milking the so called flat earth community for profits, since if they could believe the earth is flat, they must be easy targets to scam.

Flerfing idiots remain flerfing idiots because they choose to remain ignorant and stupid. They're _happy_ in their ignorance, so no amount of reason, logic, facts, data, observations, experiments, etc. will ever convince them they're wrong.

they're pretending dude. it's a joke

Gods I wish that were true. I'd buy every FE crackpot a ticket and be happy to hose the train out afterwards.

That's how I hurt my self on the train today cause I forgot that it was going to move fast then I can walk. Next time I'll take a plane!

' High Speed Trains and aircrafts don't exist. They are a conspiracy '. - flerfers

Exactly! And thats why if you got weights and measured them at the poles compared to the equator, there would be a difference in calculated weight! Even though it's the same weight and measuring tool/scales.

Considering flerfers are confused by spheres, one of the simplest objects in the universe, presenting force in Newtons (instead of dynes or pound-force) is most likely immaterial 😁

@@shuggiemcg1 indeed, and Bob the Science Guy did a whole video bout a road trip, two 500 gram weights and one scale to prove this 😉 And included measurements from others as well, fitting the predictions.

@@MagnusMoerkoereJohannesen I have it from a flat earth source that "units don't matter, it could be unicorn farts" so you are likely right. Especially when other flat earthers think the sun and moon are also immaterial.

The metric system is usually a far fetched unicorn for the flat earthers, such as the southern hemisphere

As a train driver I can attest this is true. We’ll sit in a yard at a red light waiting for our departure time, with another train beside us waiting as well. You can be reading a book or something and out of the corner of your eye, the other train will start to slowly move off having got a green light. This certainly gives you a start and you’ll check your screens to make sure YOU aren’t the one who has started moving. It’s funny sometimes. 😂

@@TheWombat2012 I definitely have had that experience even with my own vehicle too lol. Half a heart attack every time.

Yeah, someone recently argued that with me, that "why we don't feel the supposed change in earth's speed", so I calculated the change and it was like 0.0xx km/h² change, which is something, that not even most precise accelerometers would catch.

@@mabed6692 Yup, we can't directly feel the rotation of the Earth, but they think they should be able to feel the changes in velocity in our orbit around the sun and galaxy to which are far larger in scale?

When you're on a stationary train and the one beside you starts to move you can think its yours moving. Even just visual cues are enough to fool your sense of whether you’re moving or not.

@@dorkangel1076 Yes, but I was referring to the earth. So that is not an issue

@@righty-o3585 I know, I'm just giving an example of how unreliable our sense of moving / not moving is.

0.000694rpm or 15 degrees per hour "Thanks Bob".

I like to say half the speed the hour hand moves on an analog clock. They might, just might be able to visualize that, or have one to actually see.

@@Tsudico that's what I use too. I've challenged geoflatniks to look at the hour hand and let me know the moment it moves. Still waiting ✌️

If they want to understand...

Oh hey when you are here I know this is a fake channel.

@@Nehner You run away from the thread where we discussed the angular vs. linear speed. Did you learn anything from this video? If you didn’t, there is nothing anyone can do for you.

you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...? What is the speed of the J-17? How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation? Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane? An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole... So which things will aeroplane adjust? Curvature? Speed difference of air due to altitude? Speed difference due to latitude change? Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth. Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope.. Blsht... imagination.. Earth is flat

@@shayamaldolai It would help if you wrote that in English. If I was you, I would sue the English teacher

Lol that is a funny flerf

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sMuhgNaXm5yRnY0.html Show them ☝️

Hey. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I did it once. Jumped 283' and landed in the parking lot. I think I still hold the state record.

That was the Globe-busters trying (and failing) to debunk "Professor Dave".

No the people who believe in the flat earth have failed themselves cause they didn't pay attention in class, to realize earth being flat is not someting that is possible and they arent a scientist cause they are too lazy to actually do real science and believe what their constant tests to prove the earth is flat is wrong, again and again.

Your both wrong. Flat earthers were taught all the same lies as you both were. Flat earthers are independent thinkers that actually do their own experiments. Ball lovers are lazy minded and perfer to be told what to think.

@JJ Evans no flat earthers lost brain cells and that's why they believe earth is flat with NO VIDEO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING PAST THIS ICE WALL and infinite plane past it, or the firmament that makes us inside a snow globe. either show video evidence of the infinite plane past the ice wall or show physical proof of YOU touching the firmament with your two hands, anything else is not proof.

@@Ragingknight12 At least you admit with the video evidence that there is an ice wall. Flat earthers don't have all the answers because their not lying and trying to create a model that magically explains everything.

@JJ Evans yeah there's an ice wall but it doesn't do what you flat earthers believe. I have heard weird ass theories from flat earthers and they NEVER agree with each other. Some say the earth is a flat infinite plane that goes on forever, others say we are in a snow globe, which is it are we an Infinite plane or a snow globe we cannot be both, in my mind earth isn't flat its just a rubber ball in some child's oom that hasn't been touched in months

no, it's absolutely frightening!

Are we all adults? I know flerfs...

What is even sadder is that most of them will still not accept it.

1.Try flying a drone on encircling vehicle.... 2. What enclosed air outside earth? 3. How wind of different directions is not affecting, Speed of air nearer to earth (slower speed) compare to the air of higher altitude? 4. Why you are so stupid, globe heads?

It's like shouting through the letterbox of an empty house.

you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...? What is the speed of the J-17? How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation? Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane? An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole... So which things will aeroplane adjust? Curvature? Speed difference of air due to altitude? Speed difference due to latitude change? Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth. Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope.. Blsht... imagination.. Earth is flat

@@shayamaldolai thanks for adding to my block list you weirdo

@@shayamaldolai if you understood angular velocity, you'd know the answer to your bs question Plus, when you're flying a plane, you're constantly making small adjustments anyway, so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc, over the vast distance of your flight you wouldn't be able to tell that you were constantly nosing down

@@CoffeeAddictEvan "so even if the force of gravity wasn't making your flight path into an arc" The flight path isn't an arc. Its level at all times except during take off/ascent and descent/landing.

@@shayamaldolai Get off the internet and get an education, start with a few school science textbooks.

If you loose your balance it means that it wasn't tight enough when you started.

@@AirwavesEnglish 😂 I see, I see - I could claim to be a non-native speaker, but even native speaker make this error … I leave it that way … 😁

@@c.augustin Your honesty and sense of humour gets you a thumbs up sir.

" If they wanted to use a merry-go-round as an analogy for the Earth they should spin it at 15 degrees per hour." - This is also incorrect. What you need to do is keep the centrifugal force the same, and that depends on the radius as well as the velocity (whether you angular velocity or instantaneous linear velocity).

@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 sure, if you wanted to keep the forces the same. Dave already explained the underlying forces brilliantly. My point is more about how flerfs will often scream "1000 mph" in an attempt to say we should be feeling it if we're moving that fast. My point is that you can easily show exactly how slow the Earth is actually turning by demonstrating the angular velocity on a merry-go-round. Not to replicate the force, but strictly to show that 15 degrees per hour is slow, and the only reason you end up with a tangential velocity of 1000 mph is because the Earth is large. It still is rotating very slowly though, and there's no reason to expect us to feel a 15 degree per hour rotation. That's all.

@@coleford4258 And my point is that shouting "but it's only 1 rotation per day" is just as bad as shouting "1000 mph". Both are meaningless arguments.

@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 Yes, you are right. Assuming a 2 m radius and standing at the edge would require about 0.15 rpm (or about 7 minutes for one revolution) to experience to same centrifugal force as at the equator. I.e hardly noticable.

@@stephenandrusyszyn3444 I disagree. The rotation would have a noticeable effect on centrifugal force before a change in radius would much like what twallgren is pointing out. If a flerf is upset because 1000 mph seems like something they should feel, then a reasonable argument would be to focus on the angular velocity, and demonstrate how small that rotation is. You could then talk about how the change in radius will only have a very minor effect on the centrifugal force, but in my experience flerfs go catatonic when you actually start looking at numbers/equations. But if you still think both things are equal and silly then you're entitled to your opinion.

Earlier space station man had a twin who stayed on the surface and when he got back down they were put through extensive medical examination to get a good reading of the effects of prolonged zero G exposure. The clearest difference was really evident at a glace, the man came down almost a whole foot taller than his twin.

@@Leongon Id need a citation on that foot taller... I mean your telling me if i went to space id go from 5 foot tall to 6 foot (ie id have gained a 5th of my height). Not disputing your premise, but i am your numbers :P

@@NZBigfoot I think it was told by Chris Hatfield on Rogan podcast. I'll see if i can find it.

@@NZBigfoot I couldn't find the exact clip where I got that from lol. But I found some articles about the differences between the twins after on spent a year in the ISS, it seems they became genetically different enough so a gene test can't identify them as twins anymore, and the one who was in space became two inches taller... So I got the foot taller part wrong apparently, but still the height you gain without G forces squishing you down is crazy.

Have to agree. I have learnt so much from this debate, and very quickly realised the flerfers are all insane. Many thanks to this Dave, the other Dave and Dan, amongst others, for tearing these idiots a new a-hole!👍

That is not right. Inertia is always making you try to go in the same direction, that is what the centrifugal force is (appears to be). If the earth stopped turning that force would go away.

@@briansomething5987 You must have misunderstood what I meant. Inertia is the state of "doing nothing" until an external force is applied. In my examples, 1) the earth suddenly stopped so the inertia of being still (relative to the earth) was dramatically changed any you would be flung off the ground - same in example 2) on the bus. You are in a still position whilst travelling at speed with the bus and only when the brakes are suddenly applied would you be flung forwards because your inertia is disturbed. I will amend my original comment to reflect this

It's the reverse argument to why we don't just bundle all of our unpleasant nuclear waste into a satellite, & simply fire it into the Sun. After all, it's just 'over there', and the heliocentric model says that the Sun has massive gravity, and pulls everything towards it. That would be true if the satellite were stationary in the solar system frame of reference, but it isn't, it has the same linear velocity as Earth in its orbit around the Sun [ that 67 000 mph number ]. If it remains at that speed, it will become just another object orbiting the Sun, so that speed has to be lost through retro rockets, or similar. The amount of fuel involved becomes absolutely prohibitive.

@@NJM1948 No, that is still not right. The 'inertia' you are talking about is tangential to the earth. It is constant, and the force can be calculated (as in the video). If the earth suddenly stopped moving you are not going to GAIN inertia. You would not be flung off the ground. You would just get a slight bit heavier. The difference between a sudden top and a gradual slowing just determines how quickly you will get heavier. A sudden stop means you would get heavier quickly.

@@briansomething5987 you need to google the terms you're using... you're wrong. You have momentum at your current angular velocity. If the earth stopped, you don't stop with it - just as if you're in a car and the car hits a brick wall, you don't just stop because the car stopped, you're thrown into the car because YOU ARE STILL MOVING. jesus you're thick. The statement was "The only time we would be flung off the earth", he didn't say gravity stops existing, and your understanding of inertia is hilarious. Inertia is the tendency of an object in motion to REMAIN IN MOTION. Inertia is not gravity, you would not gain inertia, but lose inertia as you decelerate After the earth stopped -> side note, losing inertia causes a loss of mass (get lighter)...

and all those people mated, producing hordes of ignorant flerfers.....

I’m reading an article right now how 16 and 17 yo dying suddenly from myocarditis. Sad sad situation

@@Globeisahoaxx you mean that one accident from a rollercoaster?

I think I read the same article. Did it claim that women's reproductive systems would fly out of their bodies if they went more than 30mph?

@@John73John Not the one I read. I never heard that one. Wow.

But.. but... but, er, er, density! Yeah, the density of the air stops the sonic boom from reaching all the way down from the top of the sky. Or, no wait, the sun's not really a even a physical object so it doesn't displace any air in the first place! Yeah, that'll do. -Possible flerth counter-argument

@@Hawk_of_Battle Yes, we heard those genius rebuttals before!

But will it go over their heads in a straight line or a curve? And what will its tangenital velocity be? (that was a deliberate misspelling)

Indeed. That's why if you calibrate scales on equator they will show different values for same weights, when then brought to e.g. Canada or down to Australia.

@@mabed6692 Yup. Greatersapien showed this in one of his videos, and the great thing is that everyone has the ability to do this. Of course flerfs ignore all of that, but that's just par for the course.

@@critthought2866 Not only him! Check Bob the Science Guy - video called "Rotation Test for Flat Earth". Great video. He also had some data from other people, all nicely plotted into graph with predicted results etc. Also he gave interesting challenge (at the end of the video) for flerfs, that claim that the change is only due to different temperatures.

@@mabed6692 Yeah, Bob does great stuff.

you know you are saying blsht....but questions is why you saying blsht...? What is the speed of the J-17? How much nose drop ( foot/second)it required to stay with the curvature ? Have you done the calculation? Air nearer to earth have to have lesser speed than that the air of higher altitude. How that possible? Why it is not affecting aeroplane? An aeroplane flying from equator to north pole,need to also adjust .. because air arround equator is moving at higher speed than north pole... So which things will aeroplane adjust? Curvature? Speed difference of air due to altitude? Speed difference due to latitude change? Stupid.. earth is flat... Aeroplane fly over flat earth. Here you saying air pressure do the adjustment, some say gravity do the adjustment, some say aeroplane do the adjustment by gyroscope.. Blsht... imagination.. Earth is flat

Aeroplane don't need to specifically adjust for the earth curvature since it's so minute, any other adjustments the AP make will incorporate earth's curvature over a period of time. Also, it's like cruise control of a car, it's never perfect, but work within an acceptable margin of error, so if you've set your car to cruise at 60mph, it's almost never exactly 60 mph, but will go up and down within a few mph of error, just like an aeroplane's autopilot.

@@shayamaldolai Air pressure does the adjustment. Planes fly through the air. When the plane is in balanced flight, the lift (largely due to the angle of attack) equals the downward force of gravity. Hence the plane maintains its altitude and follows the air pressure around the globe.

@@shayamaldolai Hey you should troll somewhere else

@@shayamaldolai I'll answer all of your questions, then you can try to answer mine. 1) The plane altitude thing doesn't seem like a bad argument at fiirst. However, there is one issue with it: the very way airplanes work in the first place. They need a constant jetstream of airflow to keep their altitude and/or speed. You seem to be pretty smart, so I think you understand how aircraft work. The airplane, will, however, always level out on its own. As it moves in a relatively straight line, the atmosphere gets thinner. This causes the plane to lose its speed. If it, however, loses speed, it will no longer achieve a big enough airstream to stay afloat; if the pilots keep pointing straight, it will start to lose its altitude again. Shortly put: because the atmosphere is getting thinner and thinner the further away from the center of the earth you get. They simplay cannot keep flying straight, as an aircraft needs a minimum of air flowing under its wings, etc. to fly. If you'd try to keep going straight, the aircraft would simply start to stall out and lose altitude. You can ask a pilot about it: a plane simply has a point beyond where it cannot climb as the engines have a limited amount of thrust (which also needs air to work). 2) Different atmospheric layers are, technically, indeed moving at different speeds. However, the air is a) a gas, so it isn't really connected to itself and simply makes up for the rotational forces by moving the upper parts at slightly, and I repeat *slightly* faster speeds. Besides, as the atmosphere is getting thinner, the air has more space to expand to. And no, a vacuum doesn't suck things into it. That "phenomenon" only applies to gases to which the same amount of force is being applied to. Ask a physician. Then, keep in mind that the atmosphere is obviously spinning with the earth. This video has done a pretty decend job at explaining why the earths rotation does indeed not "just" throw us off of it, which also applies to the atmosphere. Otherwise, we would constantly be feeling winds moving at ~1000mi/h,which would not be pleasant or physically explainable. It follows that aircraft don't have to adjust their course in order to flyin a straight path. You can also imagine this in a different way: Everything (on earth) is rotating around the (imaginary, just for simplification as, technically, every atom excerts a gravitational force) axis at the same rate; not speed, but rate (=it takes the same amount of time for a 360° rotation). It follows that no matter how far up [in the atmosphere] you are, you won't be feeling any of the rotational energy. One thing that I've never seen any "flerf" acknowledge is the preservation of energy, a.k.a. the fact that as long as a movement is not being stopped; it will continue in the same direction. As the earth is already spinning for a v e r y long time, everything has synched with it and therefore, only the rotational energy remains. The reason this force does not "throw" us out into space has been explained in this video so I'll spare you that bit. Oh, and I'm not a bot or anything. So I'd like you to first debunk my statements before opening new layers of the argument. Otherwise, things would quickly get out of hand. I'll wait. ;) Oh....I am now spamming you as well. Just answer.

Fortunately, engineers then came up with the idea of putting walls on passenger cars.

@@Lemon_Inspector people go on the highway in convertibles. The walls aren’t the saving grace there.

another example of relativity: calling a trunk a boot 😝

It's what James Bond would call it... 🇬🇧😉

Dave's response video to Gary Fong made me go and watch the entire hour long Hasseblad in Space Webinar. I can barely take a picture with my phone, but for some reason I was totally engaged in that video about how cameras were altered to function on the moon with space suits.

Believing in a spinning globe is one thing but bouncing around on the moon is something else, lol and all that.

@@craighuey881troll

Some artillery is insane, the Paris Gun from 1918, the shell time was 3 minutes and reached over 130,000ft in altitude

@@DaveMcKeegan The Germans built a gun on the French coast to bombard London. Fortunately it was bombed into oblivion before it could be used.

@@awatt I’m not sure that building a gun that was so massive it took weeks to move and needed a railway track to get supplies to it, effectively creating a nice big arrow saying “big gun needs bombing > this way” was one of the best ideas of that war.

@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding "V-3 - Mimoyecques The hatred against the indomitable British enemy reached a pinnacle with the deployment of the V-3, reportedly Hitler’s favorite, a supercannon capable of shelling London from a distance of around 100 miles. The installation in Mimoyecques, close to Cap-Gris-Nez, about 8 miles southwest of Calais, was single-targeted against the ‘symbol town’ of London, for the cannon could not be oriented - it was built inside a hill and pointed upwards in a fixed attitude. The design was based on the older idea of multiple-charged shells, i.e. shells which were accelerated gradually to a very high target speed while running along an exceptionally long (430 ft) barrel. The site in Mimoyecques, codenamed ‘Bauvorhaben 711’, by design accommodated 25 such barrels, allowing the battery to shoot at the very high rate of 10 shells per minute, all day and night."

@@SamualRobotham-IWasOnlyKidding kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKx6fZeKvr2yf5s.html An animation of the site

But they are setting themselves up for being ripped apart

i think the explanations are more for ppl that seek for information whichever flat earth is something to consider to be more than just a phantasy or not. flerfers won't acknowledge the explanations... so i really can understand what creaky is doing, i started calling flerfers also by what they are, idiots, bible belivers (christian fundamentalists if you wanna be very critical) or just con-man who earn money by making YT vids or other stuff. it's just in vain to try to explain how wrong their believes are...

@@certhass That part about making fun of them and poking their content only for entertainment is totally fine, that's a matter of preferences. Creaky is funny. My only complain about him is that he, and often, just puts out whatever idea pops in his head first for an explanation of whatever the flerfs are questioning, and he gets it wrong very often. So the comparison between him who demeans them and gets information wrong all the time is a massive contrast with this guy who avoids demeaning them and makes sure he's putting out there the correct explanations for the phenomena the flerfs are questioning. I wanted more channels like this.

@@Leongon yeah, that could be true. i could point you to a very good science channel but sadly its only german

Scimandan also does a good job and even normal IQ people can learn more about the world we live in. Flerfs should pay attention and read more. if only they could put aside their anger and embarrassment for one day, it would help them understand.

They're morons

Commander Stella reporting for duty!!

Guarantee one of the first ones will talk about us assuming the r value.

We need to devise a FLERF BINGO card or checklist with all their stock words and claims and excuses on so we can tick them off. I used to play BUZZWORD BINGO in managers meetings once.

@@SpaceManWyo I need a copy!

✋

Don’t. He’ll then end up worrying about giant inflatable bananas.

Because they believe the ‘flat plane’ is stationary and the local sun & moon move above us a few thousand miles away.

@@kernicterus1233 I think the point being made is that an aeroplane flying, at a speed in of near 1000kph and on a constant course either due east or due west would be constantly turning, therefore the same force that would throw us off the globe should try and throw us out of the plane.

@@thearmouredpenguin7148 Flerfers categorically state that the earth is a flat and stationary plane, that is how they would answer. I got the point thank you, however, they would not get it as their pancake earth ain't movin' at all.

Or so you lead to believe

@@Globeisahoaxx *PROVE* otherwise, or shut up!

​@@Globeisahoaxx you had to edit this 😂 pathetic

Like, what do they even mean "why are we not being squashed down by gravity" lol. Go ahead, just stop standing, let yourself go. You'll quickly and painfully realise that you are constantly being squashed down aka you're being pulled to the ground you stand upon. We as organisms are just physiologically adapted to having enough strength to add additional force to get ourselves up from the ground. Again, we can't levitate on our own, while some animals are capable of producing so much lift force that they do stay in the air. Again, that's because of the density of the air in the atmosphere which has basically pooled on the Earth's surface because of Earth's gravitational pull. ...everything just fits so neatly together, how is it possible that these people are so thick.

Flat earthers don’t learn. So it’s good you aren’t one 😂

"The human body is awful at judging the amount of change in relative motion." I'd say the human body is very good at sensing charges in relative motion - that is acceleration and braking - because these are extremely useful sense to have when you are a bipedal primate out in the grasses hunting game and running on foot. We cannot sense constant smooth motion at all, because its not a useful sense to have for said primate. These senses we have are the result of millions of years of evolution. For the same reason our minds can comprehend small numbers, up to say, about 100 quite easily yet we fail to grasp huge numbers because during our evolution there was simply no use for such a skill.

I used to ride paternoster lifts and it always felt that I was stationary and the building was moving up or down.