To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
@@nelsontubehun every single one of Dave's demonstrations for vacuumes and pressure required a container. Low pressure or high pressure.... you need walls of a container to push on.... otherwise the gas will equalize and fill space. The fact that we breathe air pressure is proof we have containment. Gravity doesn't stop gas from ever dispersing...
@@Bnslamb you mean Dave detailing how you need containment for gas pressure? He did a good job of it... cognitive dissonance is on high though. What's funny is anyone thinking Dave does a good job here. I would love there to be evidence of gas pressure next to a vacuum... Dave shows otherwise.
Perhaps it's because evidence appears to indicate every flerf has a vacuum inside their skulls AND, as we all know, every flerf sucks. Totally. Therefore it is reasonable to postulate that flerfs feel warm and safe whenever they 'think' about a vacuum. That must be an extremely powerful feeling for any flerf, hence their stunningly consistent intellectual inadequacy when trying (and failing) to understand pressure vs vacuum. I might be wrong, of course, but then again...
@@Mandelbrot_Set That's the 'homeopathic theory' of vacuum! The more you dilute it, the more powerful it becomes!! Flerfs appear to believe you should divide the pressure on one side of a wall by that on the other, rather than taking the difference.
@@FlatEarth-q1f I do know that nature follows the laws of physics. That, however, has nothing to do with my physics teacher's statement and doesn't disprove it in any way.
@@cheeseplated technically it doesn't look up the law of physics meaning is the code word of how yall think nature is, if something defies the laws of physics that only means that people missed the true way of how nature works. It also stated that y all would have to go back to the drawing board and figure out why nature doesn't work how yall say it works in quote that came from the law of physics meaning ur azz been guessing without having any actual proof
RE your can analogy, you're absolutely right and the most important part is the whole "A sub needs to deal with pressure of 3000, but a spaceship needs to deal with pressure between 0 and 1", but the aluminum can analogy also highlight something else, which is that most materials are much better in tension than in compression. A can (or a balloon), cope VERY well with high pressure inside, low pressure outside scenarios, but cope very poorly with the reverse for the same reason. The same is true of the kinds of composites that Stockton Rush decided to use.
This, exactly. A container or machine built to withstand one kind of pressure is likely going to fail when handling another. Since it's only built to handle the strain of said pressure going in one direction (inwards pressure or outwards pressure, but typically not both) Materials with high tensile strength/structures but low compressive strength/structures are good at handling outwards pressure. and on the inverse, Structures built with high compressive strength but low tensile strength are good at handling Inwards pressure.
@@bulwinkle But who do the flattards laugh at? Everyone I guess, as those egotistical maniacs believe themselves to be the most intelligent people on the globe.
@@psilver063 Hey, shepards are not stupid just because they eat poop. And a lot of them are super intelligent. You're actually referring to chihuahuas, because their brain capacity is "See Spot, see sp--ooh, shit, lemme eat it". if it wasn't for human intervention, they wouldn't even survive. We're keeping stupid alive by coddling the weak and worthless. So, is that the dog's fault, or ours?
I've been waiting a long time for a flat earther to explain why there is a pressure gradient in our atmosphere. I guess I will be waiting a lot longer for that.
"Air comes from the ground. Plants give off oxygen" But I got explanation as to there are no hurricane winds from ground to upper atmosphere. Not sure they even understood what I was talking about.
@@stephenolan5539 "But I got exolaination as to there are no hurricane winds from ground to upper atmosphere." No one knows what you're talking about...
I heard that claim that something near the ground is constantly producing new gas in MCToon's debate last night. However, with the dome over flat land, that would mean that the atmospheric pressure would keep increasing.
@@stephenolan5539'Air comes from the ground'? What is that supposed to mean? Then what is the air in the air doing? And what do you even mean by 'air'?
I found it pretty easy to stump a flat earther on the vacuum/container thing. Getting them to agree that they know that when they go up a mountain the air gets thinner. They do agree it is thickest a sea level, and gets thinner as you go up, and up... until it is finally reaches 0, and that is space. They really had no comeback to that.
@@stephenolan5539 tubes? Just walk up a mountain, live at elevation. But if you believe in tubes.... and pumps to what, pump air down? Guess there is nothing more to be said.
Flatzoid says it's "because it's the same system", then when asked how that changes anything, he just says it slower, and s l o w e r, and s. l. o. w. e. r., and s. l. o. w. e. r.
Every time I ask Nathan Oakley why people climbing Mt Everest needs to bring with them their own oxygen he runs away - I wonder why? Another nail in the flat earth coffin - not sure we can fit anymore nails now.
I bet he'd just say the density of the air pulls it down... or something... idk. He'd start yelling and by the end of it have no actual point soooo yeah
@@DaveMcKeegan. ... to put the first one in... butvmaybe with a transparent lid or something, because otherwise you’d have to re-explain each and every previous ”nail” because they wouldn’t see it anymore. Or something. Not that they address the incompatibility between their beliefs anyways. (Never met one of those in the wild, though. The closest I encountered was a language teacher who didn’t remember whether the sun was rotating around the Earth and then both around the moon, or the other way around... and even then, she admitted her ignorance) (Oh, and, nothing at all to do with the video, but I saw an astronomical clock this summer while visiting Brittany. Built in the mid 1800s. With an associated, not-to-scale-so-it-fits-in-the-box small solar system on gears. It’s missing Neptune, because the architect didn’t want to modify his designs to add the newly discovered planet, but it does feature Jupiter’s 4 main moons. Loved it. )
Today, I watched an MCToon VOD, where they told the flerf "you can go and see it with your own eyes" and he kept asking for pictures. Any evidence we show them of false and any "proof" they give is undeniable in their mind.
You could take them to space and they would deny it saying they were drugged prior too. That’s the definition of a freaking moron. We should just call them Morons not FE’s or flerfs. Simple Morons will do.
@@ivanpetrov5255 yup its a endless cycle person: "you can go see it with your own eyes" flerf: "show me pictures, video, ect" *shows them what they ask for* flerf: "no this is clearly edited and faked" person: "we got all the data and endless proof of it all" flerf: "well i got my eyes and my ability to research it all my self" (then go back to the top and repeat) its just repeat of flerfs demanding evidence, denying everything they get and then making their own arguments of total bs, people with common sense like Dave and scimandan rip and roast it for the bbq dinner and repeat. at this point i just want to see how much further down the stupid hole flerfers will go to try and make up points for their flat earth model lol. (edit: typo fix.)
"Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure." "How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?" "Well it's a spaceship so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."
Next level science communicator??? when he mentions 14,7 psi at sea level without explaining how the pressure was achieved in the first place 🤷♂️ Does not sound very scientific to me instead sounds very next level dogmatic communicator
@@luis-alvarez929 At 8:00 in the video he talks about how pressure is achieved because of forces of containment, and how Gravity is a force which can contain the air. Lower to the ground has more air pressure because the atmosphere above is pushing down on it with it's combined weight caused by gravity. That is the explanation. You can also just google it - it's not secret arcane knowledge.
Poor Oakley. When he tackles this video, he's going to have to pause every other word instead of every 4th word in order to prevent Dave's point from being made.
lol, Classic Oakley. He'll then pretend he's skipping the meaningless bits for time's sake, but he'll actually be skipping the meaningful bits for his sake.
Pascal (French philosopher and mathematician, b.1623 ) mused upon this. Our bodies are 'suspended' between the infinitely small and the infinitely large. As flat earthers are frightened by big numbers ...best not to frighten them with this.
@@alancrabb scale is another thing that frightens them. On the scale of a human, the universe is a vacuum, scale of a molecule, gas is a vacuum, and of an atom, everything is a vacuum🤣
A fun aside of this concept is that you never actually “touch” anything in the sense we conceptualize it. Your atoms just get close enough to something else that the electrostatic forces begin to repel one another. If Flat Earthers had any understanding of how complex the universe gets, though, they wouldn’t struggle to grasp the concept of a round planet.
@alancrabb You could even trace the idea of atoms to ancient Greece, even kinda relevant in context of existence of "nothings/vacuums"(there being absolutely nothing between atoms)
But what about the air getting thinner and thinner as you get higher and higher above sea level?? So why do climbers need external oxygen when climbing everest? Why do the pressurize airplanes? Hell... flat earthers get so stuck on a single item and refuse to hear anything that refutes it. Thanks for your awesome content!
There is also the fact that aircraft altimeters use the outside air pressure to determine the aircraft's height. If there was no pressure gradient then altimeters would not work. I know you can get things like radar altimeters nowadays but they do not work over the whole range of altitudes required for modern flight. GPS is also not a good substitute, if there is a power failure barometric altimeters still work but GPS and radar altimeters do not. That is why even the most modern aircraft still have pitot probes and static ports for their basic instruments and do not rely only on modern alternatives. Atmospheric pressure and pitot pressure can give you altitude, air speed, Mach number, and rate of climb/descent.
@@martinconnelly1473yes but you are failing to consider two inescapable facts, GPS is fake because space is fake and Flerfs can only hold 7 words in their brain at any one time.
They probably think that the atmosphere stops when gravity stops, which is surprisingly common. Of course it doesn't stop but if you ask people on the street they will think gravity stops at some height above earth rather than understanding that it never stops and one needs to be in orbit to maintain weightlessness.
@martinconnelly1473 GPS has a lot of issues on flat earth on its own. Can't be satellites. If it's towers then why can't we see the Sun after it sets? Also the fact that you can literally check what satellites you are connected to and track them makes issues if they are balloons or aircraft(since somehow they appear really high and going really fast to the point of being impossible by those means). Also since no pressure gradient then why the hell do planes have a service ceiling?
@@ImieNazwiskoOK I think the standard explanations are: 1) The idea that light only travels so far before the individual photons have hit enough air molecules to be deflected away, so when the sun "goes down" it is just the light no longer reaches us. 2) the apps that let you track satellites are like google maps they are faked to present the numbers to you that you expect while doing the calculations behind the scenes. 3) each plane has a different style of window curvature/material construction to conceal the dome that keeps the water out. As for how the satellite balloons travel so fast, I've never heard a Flerf give an answer that could make sense anywhere.
He's not really talking to flerfs. He's talking to those impressionable folks who are maybe leaning a bit in that direction, and need to be talked off the ledge.
Whenever I replied to flerfers explaining to them the stochastic nature of the particles that make up a volume of gas, and how their collisions actually create what we know of as "pressure", they just stop responding :/
Well yeah. You used words with more than two syllables and possibly math with numbers greater than 20 and they don't understand those. They're actively afraid of 3+ syllable words and digit numbers.
Nice video. Small quibble, the pressure gradient is only slightly affected by the inverse square law, at least in the range that we'd call atmosphere. The dominant term for pressure at an altitude is simply how much physical air is above said altitude. Gravitational differences only amount to about 11% between the surface of the earth and the ISS.
Thanks, that was my understanding as well. If one just looks at the distance from center to surface, and from surface to 'space' (say, something like 100 km), it's apparent that the inverse square of the distance can't be the primary reason for the atmospheric lapse rate.
@@mikefochtman7164 - Yes the 'inverse square law' of gravity does create the atmospheric pressure drop, BUT you have to calculate the gravitational pull on the air relative the gravitational center of the earth. Also the weight/volume or density of air actually changes with altitude due to the 'compression' of the air. This gravitational pull of the air above us creates the 14.7 lbs/in^2 that we feel at sea level on earth. The Barometric pressure varies with what we call High pressure or Low pressure systems. If the air were visible we would see High pressure systems as tall peaks of air above us, which increase the atmospheric pressure and the Low pressure systems as 'deep valleys' in the atmosphere. A hurricane actually spins such that it reduces the amount of air above the ocean and that creates less air above the ocean that gravity can act upon which in turn creates the extreme Low pressure usually measured in "millibars" by weather forecasters.
My favorite bit of trivia on the atmospheric pressure gradient is that the Earth's pressure gradient keeps going until it fades into the Sun's pressure gradient which keeps going until it fades into the Milky Way's pressure gradient, and by the time you get out into intergalactic space, the free path (how far a gas particle travels before colliding with another gas particle) of gas particles becomes longer than the Milky Way is wide. Which, of course, means that it still isn't a perfect vacuum, even all the way out there.
Yeah, I didn't want to be that guy to call him out when he defined a vacuum as being devoid of _all_ matter...and later in the video he clarified to mean it has "less matter" as opposed to "no matter". And let's not even get started on what a vacuum means in terms of subatomic particles.
Gas between the Sun and Earth is already collisionless but as it is ionised it behaves as a plasma not a gas so is influenced by electric and magnetic fields instead of collisions. It can even have shock waves despite the fact that no atoms actually hit each other.
Dont try to explain to the Flerfs that the Voyager Probes have FINALLY reached interstellar space as they detected when they passed through the heliopause a few years ago.
Makes perfect sense. the "vacuum" is just the lack of any given amount of gravity. Air pressure (or the pressure of *any* gas or fluid) is really just a measure of how much gravity is affecting it and how much its volume, weight and energy affects other things.
Just ask a flat earther to traverse a mountain and explain the pressure difference. They can't. And if you ask them they'll yell "fake" and then head home. They will not engage in something that does disprove them. But if one would, against all odds, get a flat earther up on a mountain: Ask them this: "Why isn't the air at sea level rushing up to this mountain to equalize the pressure? Making the air pressure the same up here as down there?"
That's a really good visualization, I had never thought of it that way. The way I conceptualize it in my mind is that the atmosphere is resting at its lowest level, inside a 3 dimensional gravity well.
The air is made up of different gasses, the lighter gasses rise and the heavier gasses stay lower. The higher you go the less oxygen there is, because the lighter gasses go up. Of course the heavier gasses exert more pressure at ground level. The heavier gasses include oxygen and nitrogen and the lighter gasses are helium and hydrogen.
@@EZHostgloexcept the mixture is homogeneous all the way through except for a few specific bands like the ozone layer. If it was density based, then carbon dioxide would be at ground level with a big slab of nitrogen above that followed by oxygen above the nitrogen. So the very fact that isn't the case, utterly disproves your claim. Oops.
@@5peciesunkn0wn Nope the elements are not the same. High concentrations of carbon dioxide will kill you. Here is your science on the composition of the regular air...Chemical makeup of the atmosphere EXCLUDING water vapor GAS SYMBOL CONTENT Nitrogen N2 78.084% Oxygen O2 20.946% Argon Ar 0.934% Carbon dioxide CO2 0.042% Neon Ne 18.182 parts per million Helium He 5.24 parts per million Methane CH4 1.92 parts per million Krypton Kr 1.14 parts per million Hydrogen H2 0.55 parts per million Nitrous oxide N2O 0.33 parts per million Carbon monoxide CO 0.10 parts per million Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million Ammonia NH3 trace www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere Are you contending that these gasses are contained in blocks? The air is constantly mixing sir. The percentages differ the higher you go.
@@EZHostglo Explain what physical force is responsible for fluids of lower density rising above fluids of higher density? Density is just a measure of mass per volume, it doesn't do anything on its own.
With a smartphone we can measure a pressure difference between the air near the ceiling and the air near the floor, yet the higher pressure air from the floor doesn't rush up to the lower pressure air near the ceiling. I've been asking flerfers for years already what stops the pressures from equalising? There is no barrier between them. And what would stop the gradient from continuing down to vacuum levels with increasing altitude? They never answer and always run away.
Too complex for their little brains. 10 out of 10 flerfs cannot comprehend the most basic terms or distinguish between mass and weight. Dont overwhelm them. They have not figure this out for the last 9 or 10 years, how do you expect them to explain atmospheric pressure? This will be over their heads.
I would love to see a study of the rates of aphantasia in the flat earth community. It's like they can't visualize scale and things that aren't right in front of them.
When flat earthers ask the vacuum / container question, I usually respond with an image that fades gradually from one colour to another and then ask where the dividing line is.
this wont convince any flat earthers: 1. you used an analogy, they aren't smart enough to understand analogies, replies will be something like "he thinks the air is made out of peas" 2. you talked about air molecules, something they cannot see and thus do not believe exists.
Im amazed to see that you still have the need of explaining basic physics to adults. Good work! It's still interesting seeing this concepts with info graphics
Half the time I glance into my rearview mirror, I am reminded of how many adults are oblivious to the mysterious ways of Physics. Living in the USA, I'll use the terms common here. If we are driving at 60 mph on a highway, we're traversing 88 linear feet every second. If your vehicle is two car lengths (2 × 15 ft = 30 ft) behind me, you are only about ⅓ of a second behind me. 1 car length drops that to roughly ⅙ of a second. It takes a human being an average of one full second to see something requiring evasive action, then to lift the right foot off the accelerator, and then put said foot onto the brake pedal. And, that's negating the warm-up time for the filaments of my incandescent brake light bulbs. Welcome to my back seat. That reaction-time Math is also before taking into account the braking distance of your vehicle. Here, in Texas, freeway and tollway speed limits are as high as 85 mph. If you're still riding my back bumper at 90+ mph (most drivers fudge the speed limits a little bit), you clearly have zero understanding of Physics and how it applies to your 6,000+ Lb truck or SUV.
I'm excited to see the ridiculous "debunk" video that Flatzoid will inevitably put out in the next couple of days where he totally fails to refute anything you've said and gets everything completely wrong
I went for a drive with the missus to an area over 10,000 feet in elevation. I drank a bottle of water while we were there and put the lid back on the empty bottle, then placed it into the back seat of the car. Upon returning home (700 feet elevation), the bottle was crushed. There is clearly less pressure at altitude, without a container.
Flatzoid is doing a stream of this later i cant wait to see how he is going to straw man and misunderstand the video. Update: Flatzoid REALLY doesn't understand Density to a painful degree.
Vacuums have no "sucking" force as such. The fluids in zones of higher pressure merely fill areas of lower pressure. So the force comes from the pressure not from the vacuum.
One of the (many) problems flatearthers have is that when you explain something like this to them, even if they understand it, they're not going to suddenly think: _"Oh, I was wrong, maybe the Earth isn't flat."_ But instead, at best, they're just going to think: _"Well, I can't use this idea to prove the Earth is flat anymore, so I'll look for something else to prove it instead."_ It's kind of like if a con artist tries out new scheme, and if it fails they'll just think up a new scheme instead, and they're not going to suddenly decide: _"well that didn't work, conning people isn't for me, I guess I'll just get a job at McDonald's instead."_
When they ask that question I always send them to the mountain with the baromether. They then find out that the presshure lowers with higher altitude. Then I want them to imagine what would happen if you will continue going up. Logically: Pressure will be smaller and smaller until it will be literally vacuum.
I think it is most noble of hundreds of people sacrificing their life on 8k peaks in the death zone, in order to perpetuate the lie that the air gets thinner with altitude. Their sarcophagi shall be adorned with jewels beyond compare, and their shrines shall ever be lit.
I used to do some rocketry demonstrations so I would fill a 2 liter plastic bottle with air and make a rocket with it. I remember learning that these sorts of bottles are tested to 85psi. If they are tested to that level, then they can almost certainly withstand significantly more than that. That's just a meager plastic bottle that can withstand that differential.
That's a standard procedure with pressure rated vessels - they are typically tested to more than their working pressure for safety reasons. The classic example is steam boilers, whether used on railway locomotives, ships or power stations, whether they are making steam to drive a piston engine or a turbine: They are pressure tested hydraulically, by filling with water and ramping up the pressure with a hydraulic pump, usually to roughly double their maximum working pressure. Which is why engineers during the heyday of fast, luxury transatlantic liners would often push their power plants past their rated power output to get that last little bit of extra speed - it was mainly a national pride and prestige thing, though there was the "blue riband" trophy to be won by the ship which made the crossing in the shortest time. Another example is pneumatic tyres. The pressure range depends on the weight of the vehicle and the width of the tyre, so car tyres are usually somewhere between 30 and 40 psi and truck tyres can go up to 60 psi. What a lot of people find surprising is that bicycle tyres go a fair bit higher - mountain bikes with fat knobbly tyres somewhere between 40 and 70 psi, thin skinny road bike tyres more like 80 to 100 psi. I remember testing a road bike tyre once with a compressor to see how much pressure it would need to actually burst it - the tyre was rated for a maximum of 100 psi, but it took more than double that to burst it. So if your tyres are in decent condition, you can usually exceed their rated pressure a significant amount without worrying too much about whether they will pop.
@lloydevans2900 so, assuming a 175 Lb cyclist on a relatively light (road) bicycle weighing 25 Lbs = 200 Lbs on the tires. At 100 psi pressure in the tires, the contact patch of both tires on the ground averages 1 square inch, each. The same Math applies to cars, trucks, SUVs, and the like. That's why you always use the cold tire pressure listed on the vehicle's tire chart (usually located on the driver's door jamb, but I've see them elsewhere) - two different vehicles with different weights can use the same tires, but the heavier vehicle will require higher tire pressure (in this case). "Cold" in this instance typically means that the automobile has been parked for 3+ hours and is not driven (or driven a maximum of 1 mile) before checking the tire pressure.
@@lloydevans2900 I've always loved the quote: "If it's worth engineering, it's worth over-engineering." Hell, just look at the voyager 1&2 video Astrum channel put out the other day. The insane over-engineering done to those machines is what kept them going 50 years later with very few failures. A 5 year mission I think that managed to go 10 times that long because of all the redundancy mechanisms and over-spec design choices of the incredible team that build them.
@@hopelessnerd6677 _There's a vas deferens between what a vessel can stand in tension vs what it can stand in compression._ Only if there's a male in that vessel 😉
Super super important concept! And also a really good joke The pressure at 0m, at sea level, is 14.7psi. To get a near-perfect vacuum, you go upwards. If we assume the kárman line to be close enough, that's 100km up with -14.7psi pressure differential. If we go down, underwater, how far until we get +14.7psi? About 10 meters. The pressures you find underwater are fucking insane and they build up really really quickly.
And with a higher concentration of oxygen, you can go with less than one. I saw a video using reciprocals to get ginormous numbers. But of course they were nonsense calculations even though the arithmetic was right.
Who is the flat earther who made up this new rule that gas pressure can only exist in a container? When did he make up his new rule? Two or three years ago?
Oakley certainly “popularized” it or at least shouted it loud enough to get it associated with him. He’s in this thread commenting from his sock puppet account saying pressure needs a container. The username is @user- and a bunch of jumbled letters and numbers. The name of the account is dunning kruger
All this stuff is covered in secondary school physics lessons. Just because flat earthers either didn't go to school or they just didn't believe it, doesn't make this untrue.
guess you still believe in the easter bunny and santa clause too then>? time to grow up and admit that you've been HAD! For a loong time! like an idiot you are still falling for it..
Did you know more black people are flerfers (by percentage) than any other group? Would you laugh if someone made fun of them for not going to school or believing the standard model? I bet not. I bet you enjoy viscously attacking people who have been traumatized by the education system to a point of blanket denial until it crosses that very same evil educational systems rules. In short, I bet you're a coward.
A vacuum is a place with no stuff. Gas pressure is caused by stuff hitting other stuff. You can have stuff flying through a larger area that is otherwise completely empty, and those things can hit eachother. Gas Pressure, within, a Vacuum.
I see a few of Oakley's subservient attack kittens in the comments, proudly showing us just how willingly they'll follow any third-rate gobshite. He shouts 'jump' and away they go, blindly serving their master. Adorable.
Talking of the difference between submarines and space stations reminds me of a great bit from Futurama, where the Planet Express ship is dragged to the bottom of the ocean. "We're experiencing fifty atmospheres of pressure!" "How many atmospheres can the ship take?" "Well, it's a spaceship, so somewhere between zero and one."
Great video! You do an amazing job! Gradient - Not so much the drop in gravitational force with distance, but stacking mass upon mass adds weight/pressure at the bottom. And a hypothetical closed cylinder five miles in vertical height (actually ANY height) will have a pressure gradient.
Thanks, although presumably that is still because of gravity? as the gradient is vertical, there is only a horizontal gradient when there is a horizontal force (such as the container moving)
Above the thermosphere, the molecules are so far apart that they can go kilometers without colliding. They behave more like individual particles in ballistic trajectories than as a gas.
@@DaveMcKeegan yes, but your statement about force changing with distance as the reason of pressure gradient is still incorrect and is an easy target for your opponents. Actually one can consider gravitation force being constant when calculating pressure gradient and get accurate results (it is done this way in barometric formula).
It’s not technically incorrect, it is caused by gravity, it’s just that the rate of change of gravity from earth is a pretty small factor and probably will be nitpicked. Gravity is one force acting on the air molecules, but the gravity of all the molecules above them is what primarily sets up the pressure gradient. In this way it actually is much easier to conceptualize. Divide the pressure gradient into molecule-thin ‘slices’ like the animation at 8:32, but instead of imagining each ‘slice’ experiencing one slice’s worth of gravity while the system is set up, like in the animation, picture it already at steady state. Each slice experiences roughly the same amount of gravity pulling it down, BUT a significantly varying force from above, which is the mass of all the slices above it pushing down ONTO the given slice, as they are all experiencing gravity at the same time. The exact same phenomenon can be (probably more easily) observed in the ocean. While the distance between the molecule and the earth does somewhat impact the forces it experiences, they’re minimal in comparison to this aspect. As the earth’s radius is (approximately) 6371km, getting 10km away from earth your relative change in gravity is only about 0.3%.
Yes, you would have a pressure gradient (decaying exponentially with height) even if the gravitational force were constant (which is how we do the calculation anyway). The constancy of the magnitude of the gravitational force with height over the atmosphere is a very good approximation.
Dave is also the most patient and compassionate debunker out there. I can see he feels for their lack of education and the very real fear underlying the Flat Earth's many theories explaining their views. It comes down to how they need to feel special in the Universe... which is sad, they feel unheard in every ay life so find something as a cause and get passionate about it. Ah well.
A minor point: The inverse square law of gravity has almost nothing to do with the pressure drop as you ascend toward space. Gravity in low earth orbit is only about 4% less than gravity on the ground.
Well, as somebody explained above, that's because we (erroneously) measure gravity from the surface of the earth instead of the (correct) middle of the earth. Same issues, though---it's the weight of the air above -- just different ways of saying the same thing.
@@stanlee4217 Gravity works just fine underwater. People in submarines walk around on their decks just like people on surface ships. The “weightlessness” in space is just a matter of the spacecraft, and the people in it, all falling with the same acceleration. An orbiting spaceship is just moving sideways fast enough that it keeps missing the ground.
When you take into account the pressure gradient and the fact that space isn't a perfect vacuum, the argument becomes "You can't have a really low pressure system right next to a slightly less low pressure system without a physical barrier!" I like asking them what the exact psi where this becomes impossible is. Weirdly, they've never answered me. 😁
The Kárman line is the altitude at which an airplane would have to travel so fast to generate lift that it would have to fly at orbital speeds (so the wings would be useless).
Another important difference is the sign of the pressure difference. An overpressure inside a container will blow it up like a sphere; this is a fairly stable configuration if it is already close to a sphere or tube. If you have the overpressure on the outside you have a pushing-on-a-string phenomenon where small defects in the wall causes it to deform, ovalize or buckle under pressure.
I love how thorough you are with your explanations, Dave. You always break everything down in a simple way without sounding condescending. I find myself learning so much from your videos.
Another very enjoyable video Dave! Minor note of contention though, I'm pretty sure there's still a pressure gradient inside a pressurised vessel (ie a tank). Just, they have to be very large to have a noticeable difference. [That constant little bugbear of flerfers] Gravity, is still influencing the molecules inside.
There is, it's more than Flat Earthers ask us to replicate the difference between sea level atmosphere -> outer space in a container, but they can't show the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain within a container ...
@@DaveMcKeegan In Sandusky, Ohio, there is that one huge vacuum chamber they use for testing suits and other stuff. It's something like 140 feet tall. Most flerfs have seen exactly one video about testing equipment in a vacuum chamber. It's the one that "failed". So they think this sort of thing doesn't exist. It seems like they could easily make a partial vacuum, and then test the air pressure at different heights in the container. That would be a nice way to demonstrate that there is a pressure gradient due to gravity. I've tried to find out if they've done that, but haven't seen any information on it. I know that there was a British show that did the feather/bowling ball drop in this vacuum chamber, or at least one very similar.
@@DaveMcKeegan The funny thing is, if earth would have a dome, iE a container. The dome would be so high that directly underneath it there would still be a vacuum. The pressure difference from outside a plane to inside a plane mid flight is already higher than the pressure difference from outside that plane to space. So if a plane could fly in space, which it can not. You could open the doors at 30.000 feet (do not actually do that), close them again and then the plane would be able to withstand the vacuum in space, because the pressure difference is actually lower than what it normally experiences. And as far as I'm aware everything that can withstand the pressure in 10m depth can withstand the vacuum in space. And yes that includes the human body.
I find it actually great that flerfers don't understand any physics concepts because, with channels like this, my interest in physics or science in general has really come back in the past few years :)) Thanks to you and thanks to the flers!
Bro. I JUST stumbled on your channel randomly while driving to work. I’m surprised you don’t have more subs. Let me change that by at least giving you +1. Very informative and pretty hilarious how no matter the amount of evidence you provide , to flatearthers it just goes in one ear and out the other.
My favourite debunk of this whole "no pressure without container" nonsense is weather. Flerfs have no option but to deny the fact that a low-pressure system next to a high-pressure system is a vacuum next to pressure, and they can only do so by doing some sort of special-pleading handstand, either by claiming that low-pressure weather is not low pressure enough (what is then?) or by strawmanning that space is a perfect vacuum with absolute zero pressure, which nobody actually claims.
Another thicko that can't follow a simple debate. A gas next to a vacuum without a barrier/container. How hard is it to understand that 🙄 High pressure is not a vacuum! Low pressure is not a vacuum! The weather is not a vacuum! No one claims a "perfect" vacuum! We can't produce a vacuum anywhere near the claimed vacuum of space. A vacuum chamber requires 8 ft thick "containing" concrete walls!
@4887322 if you study pressure, I think you will find that low pressure in relation to surrounding pressures does, in fact, constitute a vacuum. Oh, flerf. Right. Sorry. Research haha
@@IvanMectin what's the definition of vacuum? Maybe you should answer that as a baseline before you start asking about atmospheric pressure. Since I described it in my first comment here to you
I still want to see a Flat Earther to go up and make a photo of this 'dome' or 'barrier' that they are always talking about. Come on guys, go there, show us. Make video's, make photo's and show it to the world.
This explanation is just truly AMAZING. You've broken this down so even a first grader could understand it, though possibly not enough for a flat earther. I love your style of teaching, keep up the good work Dave. Much love ❤❤
I think it’s also important to talk about how a vacuum is not a force and that it is the absence of pressure, which is a force. Meaning that a vacuum doesn’t “suck” but it’s pressure that “pushes”.
Yeah flerfs always ignore that... taking the lid off a vacuum formed inside a container, its not sucking the air in, the air is pushing the other air around the new 'space' created into that area to fill it now that that 'space' is avilable. A vacuum cleaner doesnt suck, it simply makes a low pressure area inside the bag chamber so that the air outside rushs up the nossel into the bag, taking all the dirt it passes over with it... which is why the vacuum cleaner pump has to constantly go hell for leather to maintain that low pressure inside it to counter the constant attempt by the air outside trying to equalize it, faster it can remove air, the stronger the 'suck'... which just made me realize, a vacuum cleaner on Mars wouldnt work all that well.
Vacuum cleaners don't use electricity to create vacuum from nothing? I'm devastated to learn that vacuums don't magically entice the dirt out of my carpet.
I'm so glad you brought up the lack-of-gravity-and-container-would-result-in-an-atmospheric-equilibrium point. This is something I worked out for myself a couple of years ago and the fact that any of us could take a packet of anything from sea level up to a high mountain to prove there's a gradient in pressure smashes that point out of the water.
I saw Mythbusters do another fun demonstration with sulfur hexafluoride, a colorless gas that is heavier than air. Because the gas is heavier, you can leave it out with no lid, and it will stay in the container thanks to gravity. You can fill an aquarium with it and treat it like a liquid in our atmosphere. It's a fun, surreal demonstration that I have never seen a flerfer dare touch.
Look. It's quite simple. If a flat earther accepts that there's less air pressure at the top of Mount Everest than there is at sea level then simply ask him why doesn't the pressure difference equalize? There's no boundary between the sea and the top of Mount Everest. Why doesn't the air move from high pressure to low pressure?
It is in gas molecules' nature to "repel" each other. But if you introduce something that attracts gas molecules, like gravity, the net effect is that the gas molecules will tolerate spending a greater amount of time near each other, and this influence falls off with the distance. Similarly, the average American would prefer at least six feet of personal space around them. But people are attracted to Coachellas. So in the vicinity of a Coachella, they will tolerate being closer together, even though nobody is fenced in. Coachellas have nuclei called "stages". And the closer you get to one of the stages, the closer together the people will be because of the stronger attractive force. This is kind of how capacitors store energy. Different in a lot of important ways, but similar.
Or like the shoppers crowding the doors before opening time for the Black Friday sales. Buoyancy: they all want to be at the doors but the more aggressive, more committed bargain hunters elbow the more timid to the back.
It gets even more troublesome for them when considering the sun is supposed to be inside the firmament as well so logically the temperature and thus the pressure should increase as you get closer to it. 🤦♂️
No cause there is a density gradient. Just like water pressure is strong at depth and colder at depth and weakens as you go to the surface gas behaves the same way.
@@macmac9371 But... that still eventually leads to space. Like, if you put a flat plane with some force (like, uhh... gravity,) creating a density gradient underneath a sufficiently tall cylinder, eventually the pressure would drop low enough to function like space does around a spherical planet. Like if you had a flat pan with a bunch of iron balls constantly being shaken around to replicate the behavior of a gas, and you put a strong enough magnet on one side of it, that side would have more balls, even though there's no wall keeping them from the other side of the pan. And if it's on a theoretical infinite flat plane being shaken with a magnet on it, some balls would still stick to the magnet, even if they aren't always in contact with it.
Thanks for another great video even a non-flat earther can learn from. I can say the second half of the video felt a little weird without the excited ball of fluff begging for scratches 😅 And thank you for suggesting Stellarium app, had a great weekend with almost no clouds blocking the stars. Didn't catch the ISS, but there will be time for that 👍🏻
I'm not a loony flat earther, but I have always wondered exactly how the atmosphere worked, and never understood science teachers' or even SciManDan's explanations. But thanks, Dave, now I finally understand how it works.
My go-to when I encounter a flat Earther who mentions gas pressure and containers is a simple fan. If you turn on a fan and feel the wind hit your skin, you've just created gas pressure without a container. That demonstration usually goes over thier heads.
A hurricane shows that a vacuum can exist without a container. A vacuum is most simply defined as a region of lower pressure than surroundings (a hard vacuum is a region with zero particles). A hurricane eye is a region of lower pressure with no container, yet somehow, magically the pressure can still go down. Simply put, weather demonstrates on a daily basis that a vacuum exists without a container.
They won't accept this. In their minds it's space level vacuum or it doesn't count. Even air pressure at 200k feet which is something like 0.002 psi doesn't count for... reasons.
So they haven't climbed a mountain, or even experienced the discomfort of air pressure differential in the ear from riding as a passenger in a car or bus over a mountain pass?
@@jacobtothe2112 Oakley and his crew used to deny the pressure gradient until they came up with some lame excuse as to how it could exist on their precious Flatopia.
If you find them please share what part of the circle of the earth they're on, because that's always confused me. It's almost like old books sometimes contradict themselves. Hmmm...
I asked a high school student why earth's atmosphere does not diffuse into space. He answered "gravity", grabbed a drink from the fridge and was gone. That is how much time he thinks is worth spending on this question.
It'a very sad that you have to even make a video about such a self-explanatory topic, but you went above and beyond and also explained a lot of related things that some people may not know about.
Someone who lives in Denver, CO would laugh at this argument. We know packages sealed at lower altitude show up here puffed out. We know going higher up in the mountains means we get a lot less oxygen, and packages sealed here get puffed up, up there. It's just a fact of nature that one can observe living on a mountainside. Obviously the air isn't getting sucked off the face of the planet if I can easiliy experience, measure, and demonstrate pressure gradients by driving up and down a freaking stretch of paved road.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DaveMcKeegan . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
FED does a pretty good rebuttal...
th-cam.com/users/liveXcRa8I4nqAQ?si=0s2TeTmfBfbor8OP
All problem would be solved if everyone would use "Very-very low pressure" instead of "Vacuum"
@@Derektrucks87
Yes, for the easy fooled.
@@nelsontubehun every single one of Dave's demonstrations for vacuumes and pressure required a container. Low pressure or high pressure.... you need walls of a container to push on.... otherwise the gas will equalize and fill space. The fact that we breathe air pressure is proof we have containment. Gravity doesn't stop gas from ever dispersing...
@@Bnslamb you mean Dave detailing how you need containment for gas pressure? He did a good job of it... cognitive dissonance is on high though. What's funny is anyone thinking Dave does a good job here. I would love there to be evidence of gas pressure next to a vacuum... Dave shows otherwise.
Futurama: "how many atmospheres can the hull withstand?" "Well, its a spaceship so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."
I love futurama
Me too, but I'm a little disappointed with the new Hulu season. Seems to have lost its edge😢
If only they’d built it with six thousand and one hulls!
😂😂
That is one of my favorite lines from Futurama. That is the episode where they find the lost city of Atlanta. Is the water getting warmer?
I love how they sometimes describe it as "an infinitely powerful vacuum," exactly as if it were a giant Hoover.
Perhaps it's because evidence appears to indicate every flerf has a vacuum inside their skulls AND, as we all know, every flerf sucks. Totally. Therefore it is reasonable to postulate that flerfs feel warm and safe whenever they 'think' about a vacuum. That must be an extremely powerful feeling for any flerf, hence their stunningly consistent intellectual inadequacy when trying (and failing) to understand pressure vs vacuum. I might be wrong, of course, but then again...
They also believe that its power increases exponentially with each negative exponent in pressure.
Nah, it would be a Dyson. Space is bagless.
@@Mandelbrot_Set That's the 'homeopathic theory' of vacuum! The more you dilute it, the more powerful it becomes!! Flerfs appear to believe you should divide the pressure on one side of a wall by that on the other, rather than taking the difference.
Flat earthers often claim that you need thick concrete walls to contain the vacuum. I point to the walls of a Thermos bottle.
As my physics teacher said: "A vacuum doesn't suck, it just doesn't push back."
Oh, I like that one. I’m going to keep that one in mind!
Cheers
U do know law of physics doesn't defy how nature works u do know that right
@@FlatEarth-q1f I do know that nature follows the laws of physics. That, however, has nothing to do with my physics teacher's statement and doesn't disprove it in any way.
@@cheeseplated technically it doesn't look up the law of physics meaning is the code word of how yall think nature is, if something defies the laws of physics that only means that people missed the true way of how nature works. It also stated that y all would have to go back to the drawing board and figure out why nature doesn't work how yall say it works in quote that came from the law of physics meaning ur azz been guessing without having any actual proof
RE your can analogy, you're absolutely right and the most important part is the whole "A sub needs to deal with pressure of 3000, but a spaceship needs to deal with pressure between 0 and 1", but the aluminum can analogy also highlight something else, which is that most materials are much better in tension than in compression.
A can (or a balloon), cope VERY well with high pressure inside, low pressure outside scenarios, but cope very poorly with the reverse for the same reason. The same is true of the kinds of composites that Stockton Rush decided to use.
This, exactly.
A container or machine built to withstand one kind of pressure is likely going to fail when handling another.
Since it's only built to handle the strain of said pressure going in one direction (inwards pressure or outwards pressure, but typically not both)
Materials with high tensile strength/structures but low compressive strength/structures are good at handling outwards pressure.
and on the inverse, Structures built with high compressive strength but low tensile strength are good at handling Inwards pressure.
I bet his materials science prof is less than thrilled about having let him pass his class.
Flerfer: Show me a vacuum!
Rest of Humanity: Here's an X-ray of your skull.
Brainless moment 😂😂💥
Flat earthers are a living reminder that I am not as big of an idiot as I think... Thanks, flerfs!
Everyone has a purpose.
The purpose of Flerfs is to be an object lesson in stupidity for the rest of us.
Yep even total idiots need someone to laugh at.
@@bulwinkle But who do the flattards laugh at? Everyone I guess, as those egotistical maniacs believe themselves to be the most intelligent people on the globe.
They make my German Shepard look like a freaking genius on the level of Eisenstein and she use to eat poop
@@psilver063 Hey, shepards are not stupid just because they eat poop. And a lot of them are super intelligent. You're actually referring to chihuahuas, because their brain capacity is "See Spot, see sp--ooh, shit, lemme eat it". if it wasn't for human intervention, they wouldn't even survive. We're keeping stupid alive by coddling the weak and worthless. So, is that the dog's fault, or ours?
I've been waiting a long time for a flat earther to explain why there is a pressure gradient in our atmosphere. I guess I will be waiting a lot longer for that.
"Air comes from the ground. Plants give off oxygen"
But I got explanation as to there are no hurricane winds from ground to upper atmosphere.
Not sure they even understood what I was talking about.
@@stephenolan5539 "But I got exolaination as to there are no hurricane winds from ground to upper atmosphere."
No one knows what you're talking about...
I heard that claim that something near the ground is constantly producing new gas in MCToon's debate last night. However, with the dome over flat land, that would mean that the atmospheric pressure would keep increasing.
@@stephenolan5539'Air comes from the ground'? What is that supposed to mean? Then what is the air in the air doing? And what do you even mean by 'air'?
@@stephenolan5539 "Are you having a laugh?"
I found it pretty easy to stump a flat earther on the vacuum/container thing. Getting them to agree that they know that when they go up a mountain the air gets thinner. They do agree it is thickest a sea level, and gets thinner as you go up, and up... until it is finally reaches 0, and that is space. They really had no comeback to that.
I've been told that air is produced at ground level. And told q long time ago that tubes transport air from high altitudes to low altitudes.
@@stephenolan5539 tubes? Just walk up a mountain, live at elevation. But if you believe in tubes.... and pumps to what, pump air down? Guess there is nothing more to be said.
@@HankD13
And they have nothing to say when I tell them the pressure differential would cause hurricane winds.
Flatzoid says it's "because it's the same system", then when asked how that changes anything, he just says it slower, and s l o w e r, and s. l. o. w. e. r., and s. l. o. w. e. r.
I have never encountered a flat earther that could understand that.
Every time I ask Nathan Oakley why people climbing Mt Everest needs to bring with them their own oxygen he runs away - I wonder why?
Another nail in the flat earth coffin - not sure we can fit anymore nails now.
They're going to need a bigger coffin
Don't tell Chief Brody from _Jaws._
I bet he'd just say the density of the air pulls it down... or something... idk. He'd start yelling and by the end of it have no actual point soooo yeah
@@DaveMcKeegan. ... to put the first one in... butvmaybe with a transparent lid or something, because otherwise you’d have to re-explain each and every previous ”nail” because they wouldn’t see it anymore. Or something. Not that they address the incompatibility between their beliefs anyways.
(Never met one of those in the wild, though. The closest I encountered was a language teacher who didn’t remember whether the sun was rotating around the Earth and then both around the moon, or the other way around... and even then, she admitted her ignorance)
(Oh, and, nothing at all to do with the video, but I saw an astronomical clock this summer while visiting Brittany. Built in the mid 1800s. With an associated, not-to-scale-so-it-fits-in-the-box small solar system on gears. It’s missing Neptune, because the architect didn’t want to modify his designs to add the newly discovered planet, but it does feature Jupiter’s 4 main moons. Loved it. )
He’s in this comment section with his sock puppet account so you can try asking him again
Even if you show a flatearther some facts who don't fit in their fairy tale, they will deny it.
Today, I watched an MCToon VOD, where they told the flerf "you can go and see it with your own eyes" and he kept asking for pictures.
Any evidence we show them of false and any "proof" they give is undeniable in their mind.
This is true. Common sense stops working when it’s about earth for some reason
You could take them to space and they would deny it saying they were drugged prior too. That’s the definition of a freaking moron. We should just call them Morons not FE’s or flerfs. Simple Morons will do.
Yes. Blind denial beats logic every time! 😀
@@ivanpetrov5255
yup its a endless cycle
person: "you can go see it with your own eyes"
flerf: "show me pictures, video, ect"
*shows them what they ask for*
flerf: "no this is clearly edited and faked"
person: "we got all the data and endless proof of it all"
flerf: "well i got my eyes and my ability to research it all my self"
(then go back to the top and repeat)
its just repeat of flerfs demanding evidence, denying everything they get and then making their own arguments of total bs, people with common sense like Dave and scimandan rip and roast it for the bbq dinner and repeat. at this point i just want to see how much further down the stupid hole flerfers will go to try and make up points for their flat earth model lol.
(edit: typo fix.)
"Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres
of pressure." "How many atmospheres can
this ship withstand?" "Well it's a spaceship
so I'd say anywhere between zero and one."
Re-entry puts lots of pressure on the hull. Maybe even a few atmospheres...
Yeah but the iss ain't gonna reenter until it's decommissioned in a few years...
@@kayakMike1000on one spot that is shielded and designed for it yes, not the whole ship
Even if flat earthers didn't exist, this would be a terrific explanation of gas pressure. Your science communication is next level.
Really! To say well its just Gwavity man! That is what we are taught in school as 11 year old kids. Next level man!
uhm no?????
@jamiebruce4924
@@jamiebruce4924and yet people are still dumb enough to think the earth is flat just because some crack smoker said it
Next level science communicator??? when he mentions 14,7 psi at sea level without explaining how the pressure was achieved in the first place 🤷♂️ Does not sound very scientific to me instead sounds very next level dogmatic communicator
@@luis-alvarez929 At 8:00 in the video he talks about how pressure is achieved because of forces of containment, and how Gravity is a force which can contain the air. Lower to the ground has more air pressure because the atmosphere above is pushing down on it with it's combined weight caused by gravity. That is the explanation. You can also just google it - it's not secret arcane knowledge.
Poor Oakley. When he tackles this video, he's going to have to pause every other word instead of every 4th word in order to prevent Dave's point from being made.
lol, Classic Oakley. He'll then pretend he's skipping the meaningless bits for time's sake, but he'll actually be skipping the meaningful bits for his sake.
He'll just pull his usual tactic and only cover the first half of the video, say they'll come back to it and then never do 😂
you did say gravity was a force so I imagine he'll go mental and concentrate on that bit of the video @@DaveMcKeegan
@@JB_inkshe and flatzoid will spend an hour each on that statement and dismiss everything else while insulting Dave every couple of minutes
@@JB_inks and he mentioned 'buoyancy'!!!
Atoms themselves are made up of 99.99% empty space, so technically 99.99% of a person is a vacuum. 🤷🏻♂️
Pascal (French philosopher and mathematician, b.1623 ) mused upon this. Our bodies are 'suspended' between the infinitely small and the infinitely large. As flat earthers are frightened by big numbers ...best not to frighten them with this.
@@alancrabb scale is another thing that frightens them. On the scale of a human, the universe is a vacuum, scale of a molecule, gas is a vacuum, and of an atom, everything is a vacuum🤣
@@BrahmsLiszt Don't panic!
A fun aside of this concept is that you never actually “touch” anything in the sense we conceptualize it. Your atoms just get close enough to something else that the electrostatic forces begin to repel one another. If Flat Earthers had any understanding of how complex the universe gets, though, they wouldn’t struggle to grasp the concept of a round planet.
@alancrabb You could even trace the idea of atoms to ancient Greece, even kinda relevant in context of existence of "nothings/vacuums"(there being absolutely nothing between atoms)
But what about the air getting thinner and thinner as you get higher and higher above sea level?? So why do climbers need external oxygen when climbing everest? Why do the pressurize airplanes? Hell... flat earthers get so stuck on a single item and refuse to hear anything that refutes it. Thanks for your awesome content!
There is also the fact that aircraft altimeters use the outside air pressure to determine the aircraft's height. If there was no pressure gradient then altimeters would not work. I know you can get things like radar altimeters nowadays but they do not work over the whole range of altitudes required for modern flight. GPS is also not a good substitute, if there is a power failure barometric altimeters still work but GPS and radar altimeters do not. That is why even the most modern aircraft still have pitot probes and static ports for their basic instruments and do not rely only on modern alternatives. Atmospheric pressure and pitot pressure can give you altitude, air speed, Mach number, and rate of climb/descent.
@@martinconnelly1473yes but you are failing to consider two inescapable facts, GPS is fake because space is fake and Flerfs can only hold 7 words in their brain at any one time.
They probably think that the atmosphere stops when gravity stops, which is surprisingly common. Of course it doesn't stop but if you ask people on the street they will think gravity stops at some height above earth rather than understanding that it never stops and one needs to be in orbit to maintain weightlessness.
@martinconnelly1473 GPS has a lot of issues on flat earth on its own.
Can't be satellites.
If it's towers then why can't we see the Sun after it sets?
Also the fact that you can literally check what satellites you are connected to and track them makes issues if they are balloons or aircraft(since somehow they appear really high and going really fast to the point of being impossible by those means).
Also since no pressure gradient then why the hell do planes have a service ceiling?
@@ImieNazwiskoOK I think the standard explanations are:
1) The idea that light only travels so far before the individual photons have hit enough air molecules to be deflected away, so when the sun "goes down" it is just the light no longer reaches us.
2) the apps that let you track satellites are like google maps they are faked to present the numbers to you that you expect while doing the calculations behind the scenes.
3) each plane has a different style of window curvature/material construction to conceal the dome that keeps the water out.
As for how the satellite balloons travel so fast, I've never heard a Flerf give an answer that could make sense anywhere.
Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?
Professor Farnsworth: Well, it was built for space travel, so anywhere between zero and one.
Bender: What's that? Is someone bending girders?
"Why are you spending so much time in the bathroom?"
Dave is a great science communicator
Yea I wanna hang out with him
He's not as good as Quantum Eraser, Anthony Riley, and Nathan Oakley. The black swan and the Isle of Man debunked the ball earth, checkmate.
He certainly is. I was a teacher for a long time and wish I had his innate ability to convey complex ideas in a simple way.
@@debroofgreen Just a tip, when you are being sarcastic over text put a "/s" at the end of the sarcastic bit.
@debroofgreen
Or alternatively you could look up an explanation for the photo and be less scared of objective reality
I love that you talk to flat earthers like they can actually understand basic concepts.
One can always hope that we will find one flerf that can understand the basics
I guess it's not completely impossible that one or two might actually start to question their brainwashing if repeatedly exposed to reason.
@@gryph01 That's going to be as tough as finding Bigfoot.
I don't think he's talking to flat Earthers. Dave isn't into casting pearls before swine...
He's not really talking to flerfs. He's talking to those impressionable folks who are maybe leaning a bit in that direction, and need to be talked off the ledge.
Whenever I replied to flerfers explaining to them the stochastic nature of the particles that make up a volume of gas, and how their collisions actually create what we know of as "pressure", they just stop responding :/
Well yeah. You used words with more than two syllables and possibly math with numbers greater than 20 and they don't understand those. They're actively afraid of 3+ syllable words and digit numbers.
Always good to see a video from the cutest youtuber (and his pet human).
Nice video. Small quibble, the pressure gradient is only slightly affected by the inverse square law, at least in the range that we'd call atmosphere. The dominant term for pressure at an altitude is simply how much physical air is above said altitude. Gravitational differences only amount to about 11% between the surface of the earth and the ISS.
yes. the discrepancy comes from the fact that we measure altitude relative to the SURFACE of the earth, not the CENTRE.
Checkmate globies. It's FLAT.
Thanks, that was my understanding as well. If one just looks at the distance from center to surface, and from surface to 'space' (say, something like 100 km), it's apparent that the inverse square of the distance can't be the primary reason for the atmospheric lapse rate.
@@debroofgreen your brain is flat. is that enough for you, or do we need to dissect you for everyone to see it?
@@mikefochtman7164 - Yes the 'inverse square law' of gravity does create the atmospheric pressure drop, BUT you have to calculate the gravitational pull on the air relative the gravitational center of the earth. Also the weight/volume or density of air actually changes with altitude due to the 'compression' of the air. This gravitational pull of the air above us creates the 14.7 lbs/in^2 that we feel at sea level on earth. The Barometric pressure varies with what we call High pressure or Low pressure systems. If the air were visible we would see High pressure systems as tall peaks of air above us, which increase the atmospheric pressure and the Low pressure systems as 'deep valleys' in the atmosphere. A hurricane actually spins such that it reduces the amount of air above the ocean and that creates less air above the ocean that gravity can act upon which in turn creates the extreme Low pressure usually measured in "millibars" by weather forecasters.
My favorite bit of trivia on the atmospheric pressure gradient is that the Earth's pressure gradient keeps going until it fades into the Sun's pressure gradient which keeps going until it fades into the Milky Way's pressure gradient, and by the time you get out into intergalactic space, the free path (how far a gas particle travels before colliding with another gas particle) of gas particles becomes longer than the Milky Way is wide.
Which, of course, means that it still isn't a perfect vacuum, even all the way out there.
I gotta say, you worded it quite well
Yeah, I didn't want to be that guy to call him out when he defined a vacuum as being devoid of _all_ matter...and later in the video he clarified to mean it has "less matter" as opposed to "no matter".
And let's not even get started on what a vacuum means in terms of subatomic particles.
Gas between the Sun and Earth is already collisionless but as it is ionised it behaves as a plasma not a gas so is influenced by electric and magnetic fields instead of collisions. It can even have shock waves despite the fact that no atoms actually hit each other.
Dont try to explain to the Flerfs that the Voyager Probes have FINALLY reached interstellar space as they detected when they passed through the heliopause a few years ago.
Makes perfect sense. the "vacuum" is just the lack of any given amount of gravity.
Air pressure (or the pressure of *any* gas or fluid) is really just a measure of how much gravity is affecting it and how much its volume, weight and energy affects other things.
Pretty generous of you to assume flerfers believe in atoms.
That is true, I am certain of FE and I don’t believe in atoms.
atoms thats what your gases are up above !! in your fake space
@@ALofiLife We are certain of your FAIL.
@@DoctorX101 insults are illogical.
@@ALofiLife No, not if they are true and relevant.
Nevertheless, in your case, they are not insults, but observations.
Just ask a flat earther to traverse a mountain and explain the pressure difference.
They can't. And if you ask them they'll yell "fake" and then head home. They will not engage in something that does disprove them.
But if one would, against all odds, get a flat earther up on a mountain: Ask them this:
"Why isn't the air at sea level rushing up to this mountain to equalize the pressure? Making the air pressure the same up here as down there?"
That's a really good visualization, I had never thought of it that way.
The way I conceptualize it in my mind is that the atmosphere is resting at its lowest level, inside a 3 dimensional gravity well.
The air is made up of different gasses, the lighter gasses rise and the heavier gasses stay lower. The higher you go the less oxygen there is, because the lighter gasses go up. Of course the heavier gasses exert more pressure at ground level. The heavier gasses include oxygen and nitrogen and the lighter gasses are helium and hydrogen.
@@EZHostgloexcept the mixture is homogeneous all the way through except for a few specific bands like the ozone layer. If it was density based, then carbon dioxide would be at ground level with a big slab of nitrogen above that followed by oxygen above the nitrogen. So the very fact that isn't the case, utterly disproves your claim. Oops.
@@5peciesunkn0wn Nope the elements are not the same. High concentrations of carbon dioxide will kill you. Here is your science on the composition of the regular air...Chemical makeup of the atmosphere EXCLUDING water vapor
GAS SYMBOL CONTENT
Nitrogen N2 78.084%
Oxygen O2 20.946%
Argon Ar 0.934%
Carbon dioxide CO2 0.042%
Neon Ne 18.182 parts per million
Helium He 5.24 parts per million
Methane CH4 1.92 parts per million
Krypton Kr 1.14 parts per million
Hydrogen H2 0.55 parts per million
Nitrous oxide N2O 0.33 parts per million
Carbon monoxide CO 0.10 parts per million
Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million
Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million
Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million
Ammonia NH3 trace
www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere
Are you contending that these gasses are contained in blocks? The air is constantly mixing sir. The percentages differ the higher you go.
@@EZHostglo Explain what physical force is responsible for fluids of lower density rising above fluids of higher density? Density is just a measure of mass per volume, it doesn't do anything on its own.
With a smartphone we can measure a pressure difference between the air near the ceiling and the air near the floor, yet the higher pressure air from the floor doesn't rush up to the lower pressure air near the ceiling. I've been asking flerfers for years already what stops the pressures from equalising? There is no barrier between them. And what would stop the gradient from continuing down to vacuum levels with increasing altitude? They never answer and always run away.
Too complex for their little brains. 10 out of 10 flerfs cannot comprehend the most basic terms or distinguish between mass and weight. Dont overwhelm them. They have not figure this out for the last 9 or 10 years, how do you expect them to explain atmospheric pressure? This will be over their heads.
brave flatturds bravely run away
@@wilsont1010
10 out of 7 of them don't even comprehend fractions!!! Nuh-uh...not at all!!!
I would love to see a study of the rates of aphantasia in the flat earth community. It's like they can't visualize scale and things that aren't right in front of them.
When flat earthers ask the vacuum / container question, I usually respond with an image that fades gradually from one colour to another and then ask where the dividing line is.
this wont convince any flat earthers:
1. you used an analogy, they aren't smart enough to understand analogies, replies will be something like "he thinks the air is made out of peas"
2. you talked about air molecules, something they cannot see and thus do not believe exists.
Im amazed to see that you still have the need of explaining basic physics to adults. Good work! It's still interesting seeing this concepts with info graphics
Half the time I glance into my rearview mirror, I am reminded of how many adults are oblivious to the mysterious ways of Physics. Living in the USA, I'll use the terms common here. If we are driving at 60 mph on a highway, we're traversing 88 linear feet every second. If your vehicle is two car lengths (2 × 15 ft = 30 ft) behind me, you are only about ⅓ of a second behind me. 1 car length drops that to roughly ⅙ of a second. It takes a human being an average of one full second to see something requiring evasive action, then to lift the right foot off the accelerator, and then put said foot onto the brake pedal. And, that's negating the warm-up time for the filaments of my incandescent brake light bulbs. Welcome to my back seat. That reaction-time Math is also before taking into account the braking distance of your vehicle.
Here, in Texas, freeway and tollway speed limits are as high as 85 mph. If you're still riding my back bumper at 90+ mph (most drivers fudge the speed limits a little bit), you clearly have zero understanding of Physics and how it applies to your 6,000+ Lb truck or SUV.
I love watching these videos, not only because it shows flerfers wrong, but I learn stuff as well.
I'm excited to see the ridiculous "debunk" video that Flatzoid will inevitably put out in the next couple of days where he totally fails to refute anything you've said and gets everything completely wrong
I don't know Flatzoid, but he could be a grifter. Hate views, are still views.
NO. Flatzoid really IS that dumb. One of the dumbest of all. You cannot fake that much dumb.
@@AlkisGDah yes, the good old “all publicity is good publicity” viewpoint
@@AlkisGD Oh he is most definitely a grifter 😁
I called it ;) The 'debunk' was a hilarious fail
I love how you explain things so clearly, without insults or talking down to anyone. Keep up the good work.
I went for a drive with the missus to an area over 10,000 feet in elevation. I drank a bottle of water while we were there and put the lid back on the empty bottle, then placed it into the back seat of the car. Upon returning home (700 feet elevation), the bottle was crushed. There is clearly less pressure at altitude, without a container.
Flatzoid is doing a stream of this later i cant wait to see how he is going to straw man and misunderstand the video.
Update: Flatzoid REALLY doesn't understand Density to a painful degree.
He was on it like a tramp on a discarded kebab.
Vacuums have no "sucking" force as such. The fluids in zones of higher pressure merely fill areas of lower pressure. So the force comes from the pressure not from the vacuum.
One of the (many) problems flatearthers have is that when you explain something like this to them, even if they understand it, they're not going to suddenly think:
_"Oh, I was wrong, maybe the Earth isn't flat."_
But instead, at best, they're just going to think:
_"Well, I can't use this idea to prove the Earth is flat anymore, so I'll look for something else to prove it instead."_
It's kind of like if a con artist tries out new scheme, and if it fails they'll just think up a new scheme instead, and they're not going to suddenly decide: _"well that didn't work, conning people isn't for me, I guess I'll just get a job at McDonald's instead."_
When they ask that question I always send them to the mountain with the baromether.
They then find out that the presshure lowers with higher altitude. Then I want them to imagine what would happen if you will continue going up.
Logically: Pressure will be smaller and smaller until it will be literally vacuum.
I think it is most noble of hundreds of people sacrificing their life on 8k peaks in the death zone, in order to perpetuate the lie that the air gets thinner with altitude. Their sarcophagi shall be adorned with jewels beyond compare, and their shrines shall ever be lit.
Most are just left on the mountain.
@@Isolder74 That's just what THEY want you to believe
@@smaakjeks They're all now working for NASA.
@@leftpastsaturn67 Treu faxz
We have indeed a container:
...
...
...
...it's called GRAVITY!
I used to do some rocketry demonstrations so I would fill a 2 liter plastic bottle with air and make a rocket with it. I remember learning that these sorts of bottles are tested to 85psi. If they are tested to that level, then they can almost certainly withstand significantly more than that. That's just a meager plastic bottle that can withstand that differential.
That's a standard procedure with pressure rated vessels - they are typically tested to more than their working pressure for safety reasons. The classic example is steam boilers, whether used on railway locomotives, ships or power stations, whether they are making steam to drive a piston engine or a turbine: They are pressure tested hydraulically, by filling with water and ramping up the pressure with a hydraulic pump, usually to roughly double their maximum working pressure. Which is why engineers during the heyday of fast, luxury transatlantic liners would often push their power plants past their rated power output to get that last little bit of extra speed - it was mainly a national pride and prestige thing, though there was the "blue riband" trophy to be won by the ship which made the crossing in the shortest time.
Another example is pneumatic tyres. The pressure range depends on the weight of the vehicle and the width of the tyre, so car tyres are usually somewhere between 30 and 40 psi and truck tyres can go up to 60 psi. What a lot of people find surprising is that bicycle tyres go a fair bit higher - mountain bikes with fat knobbly tyres somewhere between 40 and 70 psi, thin skinny road bike tyres more like 80 to 100 psi. I remember testing a road bike tyre once with a compressor to see how much pressure it would need to actually burst it - the tyre was rated for a maximum of 100 psi, but it took more than double that to burst it. So if your tyres are in decent condition, you can usually exceed their rated pressure a significant amount without worrying too much about whether they will pop.
@lloydevans2900 so, assuming a 175 Lb cyclist on a relatively light (road) bicycle weighing 25 Lbs = 200 Lbs on the tires. At 100 psi pressure in the tires, the contact patch of both tires on the ground averages 1 square inch, each.
The same Math applies to cars, trucks, SUVs, and the like. That's why you always use the cold tire pressure listed on the vehicle's tire chart (usually located on the driver's door jamb, but I've see them elsewhere) - two different vehicles with different weights can use the same tires, but the heavier vehicle will require higher tire pressure (in this case).
"Cold" in this instance typically means that the automobile has been parked for 3+ hours and is not driven (or driven a maximum of 1 mile) before checking the tire pressure.
@@lloydevans2900 I've always loved the quote: "If it's worth engineering, it's worth over-engineering."
Hell, just look at the voyager 1&2 video Astrum channel put out the other day. The insane over-engineering done to those machines is what kept them going 50 years later with very few failures. A 5 year mission I think that managed to go 10 times that long because of all the redundancy mechanisms and over-spec design choices of the incredible team that build them.
There's a vas deferens between what a vessel can stand in tension vs what it can stand in compression. Ask anybody on the Titan.
@@hopelessnerd6677 _There's a vas deferens between what a vessel can stand in tension vs what it can stand in compression._ Only if there's a male in that vessel 😉
Sadly this video just flew over the heads of those with vacuums between their ears.
"How much pressure can the ship take?"
"It is a Spaceship so I'd say anywhere between 0 and 1."
Super super important concept! And also a really good joke
The pressure at 0m, at sea level, is 14.7psi. To get a near-perfect vacuum, you go upwards. If we assume the kárman line to be close enough, that's 100km up with -14.7psi pressure differential.
If we go down, underwater, how far until we get +14.7psi? About 10 meters. The pressures you find underwater are fucking insane and they build up really really quickly.
Liquids are more dense than gases!? Say it ain't so😂
@@ferociousfeind8538 Full disclosure, the joke is from futurama, but I really like it, like most jokes from futurama.
And with a higher concentration of oxygen, you can go with less than one.
I saw a video using reciprocals to get ginormous numbers. But of course they were nonsense calculations even though the arithmetic was right.
Who is the flat earther who made up this new rule that gas pressure can only exist in a container? When did he make up his new rule? Two or three years ago?
I heard long before that.
I think it was Nathan Oakley that popularized that one among flat earthers
Oakley isn't much for independent thought. He may have gotten it from Quantum Eraser.
Oakley certainly “popularized” it or at least shouted it loud enough to get it associated with him. He’s in this thread commenting from his sock puppet account saying pressure needs a container. The username is @user- and a bunch of jumbled letters and numbers. The name of the account is dunning kruger
The same one that said things come back over the horizon if you zoom in?
All this stuff is covered in secondary school physics lessons. Just because flat earthers either didn't go to school or they just didn't believe it, doesn't make this untrue.
guess you still believe in the easter bunny and santa clause too then>? time to grow up and admit that you've been HAD! For a loong time! like an idiot you are still falling for it..
They were too busy sniffing glue to learn high school physics.
Did you know more black people are flerfers (by percentage) than any other group? Would you laugh if someone made fun of them for not going to school or believing the standard model?
I bet not. I bet you enjoy viscously attacking people who have been traumatized by the education system to a point of blanket denial until it crosses that very same evil educational systems rules.
In short, I bet you're a coward.
I wonder if they were football/rugby players and took too many hits to the head? Although I'm sure many of the American ones were home schooled.
A vacuum is a place with no stuff.
Gas pressure is caused by stuff hitting other stuff.
You can have stuff flying through a larger area that is otherwise completely empty, and those things can hit eachother. Gas Pressure, within, a Vacuum.
Brilliance is found in the smallest of things. Another great video to enlarge my understanding.
"How many atmospheres can the ship stand?"
"Well it's a space ship, so between zero and one."
I see a few of Oakley's subservient attack kittens in the comments, proudly showing us just how willingly they'll follow any third-rate gobshite. He shouts 'jump' and away they go, blindly serving their master.
Adorable.
Attack kittens? They seem more like a kit or leveret. They come out of the den just long enough to be seen and then run back to mama jokely
@@cuross01 I was being generous.
Talking of the difference between submarines and space stations reminds me of a great bit from Futurama, where the Planet Express ship is dragged to the bottom of the ocean.
"We're experiencing fifty atmospheres of pressure!"
"How many atmospheres can the ship take?"
"Well, it's a spaceship, so somewhere between zero and one."
Great video! You do an amazing job!
Gradient - Not so much the drop in gravitational force with distance, but stacking mass upon mass adds weight/pressure at the bottom.
And a hypothetical closed cylinder five miles in vertical height (actually ANY height) will have a pressure gradient.
Thanks, although presumably that is still because of gravity? as the gradient is vertical, there is only a horizontal gradient when there is a horizontal force (such as the container moving)
Above the thermosphere, the molecules are so far apart that they can go kilometers without colliding. They behave more like individual particles in ballistic trajectories than as a gas.
@@DaveMcKeegan yes, but your statement about force changing with distance as the reason of pressure gradient is still incorrect and is an easy target for your opponents. Actually one can consider gravitation force being constant when calculating pressure gradient and get accurate results (it is done this way in barometric formula).
It’s not technically incorrect, it is caused by gravity, it’s just that the rate of change of gravity from earth is a pretty small factor and probably will be nitpicked. Gravity is one force acting on the air molecules, but the gravity of all the molecules above them is what primarily sets up the pressure gradient. In this way it actually is much easier to conceptualize. Divide the pressure gradient into molecule-thin ‘slices’ like the animation at 8:32, but instead of imagining each ‘slice’ experiencing one slice’s worth of gravity while the system is set up, like in the animation, picture it already at steady state. Each slice experiences roughly the same amount of gravity pulling it down, BUT a significantly varying force from above, which is the mass of all the slices above it pushing down ONTO the given slice, as they are all experiencing gravity at the same time. The exact same phenomenon can be (probably more easily) observed in the ocean.
While the distance between the molecule and the earth does somewhat impact the forces it experiences, they’re minimal in comparison to this aspect. As the earth’s radius is (approximately) 6371km, getting 10km away from earth your relative change in gravity is only about 0.3%.
Yes, you would have a pressure gradient (decaying exponentially with height) even if the gravitational force were constant (which is how we do the calculation anyway). The constancy of the magnitude of the gravitational force with height over the atmosphere is a very good approximation.
This is the best and smartest flat earth debunker out there!
Edit: the replies is a warzone
@@zipzup They have better things to do!
Dave is also the most patient and compassionate debunker out there. I can see he feels for their lack of education and the very real fear underlying the Flat Earth's many theories explaining their views. It comes down to how they need to feel special in the Universe... which is sad, they feel unheard in every ay life so find something as a cause and get passionate about it. Ah well.
But he’s a nasa supporter lol. So he’s not very smart. Everyone should know basic observation though and learn about vacuums and gravity on the way
If you want a comprehensive, no-holds barred demolition of every flat earth conceit, take a look at @CoolHardLogic. No punches pulled.
@@TransitionedToASharkI mean stephen hawking supported them and he was the worlds smartest.
Sulphur hexafluoride. You can fill an open topped container with it and have a pressure difference similar to that of a vacuum.
Amazing manner of visual explanations again, you truly do it like almost no other; really enjoy watching
A minor point:
The inverse square law of gravity has almost nothing to do with the pressure drop as you ascend toward space. Gravity in low earth orbit is only about 4% less than gravity on the ground.
Same as in water. The pressure on a certain height / depth is due to the weight of air / water above
that explains the hair on the iss and stuff floating around>? yeah right. Why doesn't gravity work underwater?
@@stanlee4217Gravity works underwater. If you take a stone and drop it into a pool, the stone will sink.
Well, as somebody explained above, that's because we (erroneously) measure gravity from the surface of the earth instead of the (correct) middle of the earth. Same issues, though---it's the weight of the air above -- just different ways of saying the same thing.
@@stanlee4217 Gravity works just fine underwater. People in submarines walk around on their decks just like people on surface ships.
The “weightlessness” in space is just a matter of the spacecraft, and the people in it, all falling with the same acceleration. An orbiting spaceship is just moving sideways fast enough that it keeps missing the ground.
When you take into account the pressure gradient and the fact that space isn't a perfect vacuum, the argument becomes "You can't have a really low pressure system right next to a slightly less low pressure system without a physical barrier!"
I like asking them what the exact psi where this becomes impossible is. Weirdly, they've never answered me. 😁
They can’t answer a question that doesn’t make any sense.
@@darrylday30 The question makes perfect sense if you have even a basic understanding of how atmospheric pressure works.
@@Beacon80 My bad, I misunderstood to whom the question was asked. I’ve got to stop watching TH-cam when I should be asleep.
@@darrylday30 I have made that same mistake myself. No worries.
The Kárman line is the altitude at which an airplane would have to travel so fast to generate lift that it would have to fly at orbital speeds (so the wings would be useless).
aah. Ok, that's what it is. I thought it was some radiation belt thing.
@@5peciesunkn0wnyou'd be think of the van allen belts, those are much farther up
@@FennecMizaryeah...
Which is where the 53~ mile version of the karman line comes from. 100km is completely arbitrary (albeit a nice number)
Another important difference is the sign of the pressure difference. An overpressure inside a container will blow it up like a sphere; this is a fairly stable configuration if it is already close to a sphere or tube.
If you have the overpressure on the outside you have a pushing-on-a-string phenomenon where small defects in the wall causes it to deform, ovalize or buckle under pressure.
I love how thorough you are with your explanations, Dave. You always break everything down in a simple way without sounding condescending. I find myself learning so much from your videos.
And yet the flerfs cant understand it but they think we live under a dome that nobody can see
And soon you will believe the Earth is round? Just kidding...
@@dominiclester3232 come on now, let’s not talk crazy!! 😆😆 (I’m also kidding, I’m not a flerf, just like learning how things work)
@@fastone371 I think flerfs don’t want to understand it. Clearly that close their brains to logic, I’m not sure why, though.
This hack is nothing but condescending. Review word definitions, Mudflood.
"there's vacuum between the air molecules" is a bit like "You're naked under your clothes"
Another very enjoyable video Dave!
Minor note of contention though, I'm pretty sure there's still a pressure gradient inside a pressurised vessel (ie a tank). Just, they have to be very large to have a noticeable difference. [That constant little bugbear of flerfers] Gravity, is still influencing the molecules inside.
There is, it's more than Flat Earthers ask us to replicate the difference between sea level atmosphere -> outer space in a container, but they can't show the pressure difference between sea level and the top of a mountain within a container ...
@@DaveMcKeegan In Sandusky, Ohio, there is that one huge vacuum chamber they use for testing suits and other stuff. It's something like 140 feet tall. Most flerfs have seen exactly one video about testing equipment in a vacuum chamber. It's the one that "failed". So they think this sort of thing doesn't exist.
It seems like they could easily make a partial vacuum, and then test the air pressure at different heights in the container. That would be a nice way to demonstrate that there is a pressure gradient due to gravity.
I've tried to find out if they've done that, but haven't seen any information on it. I know that there was a British show that did the feather/bowling ball drop in this vacuum chamber, or at least one very similar.
@@MrOttopants I think they wanted to test a fission engine there. That is why they made the walls so thick. To block the radiation.
@@DaveMcKeegan The funny thing is, if earth would have a dome, iE a container. The dome would be so high that directly underneath it there would still be a vacuum. The pressure difference from outside a plane to inside a plane mid flight is already higher than the pressure difference from outside that plane to space. So if a plane could fly in space, which it can not. You could open the doors at 30.000 feet (do not actually do that), close them again and then the plane would be able to withstand the vacuum in space, because the pressure difference is actually lower than what it normally experiences.
And as far as I'm aware everything that can withstand the pressure in 10m depth can withstand the vacuum in space. And yes that includes the human body.
Yes, the example of a container of Sulphur Hexafloride is a great example of this.
That's about the best description of vacuum/pressure and atmosphere I've heard...
Dave should definitely be a teacher! He communicates information so well!
If he was that smart he wouldn’t be on yt grifting
@@Black-Circle Which is why you're here on YT grifting.
Got it, thanks.
@@leftpastsaturn67 understand what the word grifting means first boy
@@Black-Circle Says the simpering dullard who doesn't.
Priceless.
I think he was trying to say if you think you’re smarter, why aren’t you teaching……just saying!
I find it actually great that flerfers don't understand any physics concepts because, with channels like this, my interest in physics or science in general has really come back in the past few years :))
Thanks to you and thanks to the flers!
Flat earthers fear this guy
Flat earthers worst fear has to be sphere itself
@@SaneGuyFrbehold! the O R B
Flerfs do not fear him. Flerfs aren't smart enough to be afraid of someone using common sense and logic.
@@SaneGuyFrthem darn globephobes 🗿
Lol Flat Earthers laugh at this guy's ignorance & idiocy...
Only a brainless moron would say gas pressure doesn't need a container.
Bro. I JUST stumbled on your channel randomly while driving to work. I’m surprised you don’t have more subs. Let me change that by at least giving you +1.
Very informative and pretty hilarious how no matter the amount of evidence you provide , to flatearthers it just goes in one ear and out the other.
My favourite debunk of this whole "no pressure without container" nonsense is weather. Flerfs have no option but to deny the fact that a low-pressure system next to a high-pressure system is a vacuum next to pressure, and they can only do so by doing some sort of special-pleading handstand, either by claiming that low-pressure weather is not low pressure enough (what is then?) or by strawmanning that space is a perfect vacuum with absolute zero pressure, which nobody actually claims.
Another thicko that can't follow a simple debate. A gas next to a vacuum without a barrier/container. How hard is it to understand that 🙄
High pressure is not a vacuum!
Low pressure is not a vacuum!
The weather is not a vacuum!
No one claims a "perfect" vacuum!
We can't produce a vacuum anywhere near the claimed vacuum of space.
A vacuum chamber requires 8 ft thick "containing" concrete walls!
@4887322 if you study pressure, I think you will find that low pressure in relation to surrounding pressures does, in fact, constitute a vacuum.
Oh, flerf. Right. Sorry. Research haha
@@cuross01 What's the air pressure in a vacuum?
What experiment proves this?
@@IvanMectinlow pressure is in fact, a vacuum.
@@IvanMectin what's the definition of vacuum? Maybe you should answer that as a baseline before you start asking about atmospheric pressure. Since I described it in my first comment here to you
I still want to see a Flat Earther to go up and make a photo of this 'dome' or 'barrier' that they are always talking about. Come on guys, go there, show us. Make video's, make photo's and show it to the world.
Damn, I love this stuff. Dave stays so calm and collected when dealing with these utter morons
Also the gravity of the earth is part of the reason we have an atmosphere
This explanation is just truly AMAZING. You've broken this down so even a first grader could understand it, though possibly not enough for a flat earther. I love your style of teaching, keep up the good work Dave. Much love ❤❤
I think it’s also important to talk about how a vacuum is not a force and that it is the absence of pressure, which is a force. Meaning that a vacuum doesn’t “suck” but it’s pressure that “pushes”.
Yeah flerfs always ignore that... taking the lid off a vacuum formed inside a container, its not sucking the air in, the air is pushing the other air around the new 'space' created into that area to fill it now that that 'space' is avilable. A vacuum cleaner doesnt suck, it simply makes a low pressure area inside the bag chamber so that the air outside rushs up the nossel into the bag, taking all the dirt it passes over with it... which is why the vacuum cleaner pump has to constantly go hell for leather to maintain that low pressure inside it to counter the constant attempt by the air outside trying to equalize it, faster it can remove air, the stronger the 'suck'... which just made me realize, a vacuum cleaner on Mars wouldnt work all that well.
Vacuum cleaners don't use electricity to create vacuum from nothing? I'm devastated to learn that vacuums don't magically entice the dirt out of my carpet.
I didn't learn this in high school.
We learned that in elemantary school, grades 7-9, here in finland.
I'm so glad you brought up the lack-of-gravity-and-container-would-result-in-an-atmospheric-equilibrium point. This is something I worked out for myself a couple of years ago and the fact that any of us could take a packet of anything from sea level up to a high mountain to prove there's a gradient in pressure smashes that point out of the water.
I saw Mythbusters do another fun demonstration with sulfur hexafluoride, a colorless gas that is heavier than air. Because the gas is heavier, you can leave it out with no lid, and it will stay in the container thanks to gravity. You can fill an aquarium with it and treat it like a liquid in our atmosphere. It's a fun, surreal demonstration that I have never seen a flerfer dare touch.
There are flerfs who would claim it’s due to demons
@@Oddball5.0 is one of them named Maxwell?
@@cobalt4045 I’d never heard of that, but just looked it up. Interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Look. It's quite simple.
If a flat earther accepts that there's less air pressure at the top of Mount Everest than there is at sea level then simply ask him why doesn't the pressure difference equalize?
There's no boundary between the sea and the top of Mount Everest. Why doesn't the air move from high pressure to low pressure?
It is in gas molecules' nature to "repel" each other. But if you introduce something that attracts gas molecules, like gravity, the net effect is that the gas molecules will tolerate spending a greater amount of time near each other, and this influence falls off with the distance. Similarly, the average American would prefer at least six feet of personal space around them. But people are attracted to Coachellas. So in the vicinity of a Coachella, they will tolerate being closer together, even though nobody is fenced in. Coachellas have nuclei called "stages". And the closer you get to one of the stages, the closer together the people will be because of the stronger attractive force.
This is kind of how capacitors store energy. Different in a lot of important ways, but similar.
Or like the shoppers crowding the doors before opening time for the Black Friday sales. Buoyancy: they all want to be at the doors but the more aggressive, more committed bargain hunters elbow the more timid to the back.
It gets even more troublesome for them when considering the sun is supposed to be inside the firmament as well so logically the temperature and thus the pressure should increase as you get closer to it. 🤦♂️
If flerfs were able to understand any of this, they wouldn't be flerfs.
4k allowing us the see all the love fluff on Dave
It practically triggers my allergies just looking at him.
@@xczechrbro update your immune system 🤦♂️
I would love to see Nathan Oakley convert nanometers into meters. 😂
Another excellent video. I'm going to Everest Base Camp and measuring air pressure is one of the experiments that I will be doing enroute.
If the earth was flat with a dome over it and nothing called gravity, wouldn't air pressure then be same at any altitude?!?
Yes. But if there was no gravity (no matter what you called it), then there would be people floating around at all altitudes too.
No cause there is a density gradient. Just like water pressure is strong at depth and colder at depth and weakens as you go to the surface gas behaves the same way.
Right, but that density gradient is the result of gravity, so it does not disprove it.@@macmac9371
@@macmac9371 But... that still eventually leads to space. Like, if you put a flat plane with some force (like, uhh... gravity,) creating a density gradient underneath a sufficiently tall cylinder, eventually the pressure would drop low enough to function like space does around a spherical planet.
Like if you had a flat pan with a bunch of iron balls constantly being shaken around to replicate the behavior of a gas, and you put a strong enough magnet on one side of it, that side would have more balls, even though there's no wall keeping them from the other side of the pan.
And if it's on a theoretical infinite flat plane being shaken with a magnet on it, some balls would still stick to the magnet, even if they aren't always in contact with it.
Alltogether now, "gas goes down goes boom boom"
Gas pressure comes from beans.
They literally don't believe air gets thinner at higher elevations... except when it helps them, like when it could refract light
Which is really funny, because it goes against the lived experience of anyone who has ever driven up a mountain.
Thanks for another great video even a non-flat earther can learn from. I can say the second half of the video felt a little weird without the excited ball of fluff begging for scratches 😅
And thank you for suggesting Stellarium app, had a great weekend with almost no clouds blocking the stars. Didn't catch the ISS, but there will be time for that 👍🏻
I'm not a loony flat earther, but I have always wondered exactly how the atmosphere worked, and never understood science teachers' or even SciManDan's explanations. But thanks, Dave, now I finally understand how it works.
Did you buy any books from Eric, remember to get your money back.
My go-to when I encounter a flat Earther who mentions gas pressure and containers is a simple fan. If you turn on a fan and feel the wind hit your skin, you've just created gas pressure without a container. That demonstration usually goes over thier heads.
It is a religion. Mere evidence is not enough to change their minds.
A hurricane shows that a vacuum can exist without a container. A vacuum is most simply defined as a region of lower pressure than surroundings (a hard vacuum is a region with zero particles). A hurricane eye is a region of lower pressure with no container, yet somehow, magically the pressure can still go down. Simply put, weather demonstrates on a daily basis that a vacuum exists without a container.
They won't accept this. In their minds it's space level vacuum or it doesn't count. Even air pressure at 200k feet which is something like 0.002 psi doesn't count for... reasons.
Gravity IS the barrier
The very fact that earth has a pressure gradient instantly debunks flerfs; that's why they were still denying it existed as little as 4 years ago.
So they haven't climbed a mountain, or even experienced the discomfort of air pressure differential in the ear from riding as a passenger in a car or bus over a mountain pass?
@@jacobtothe2112 Oakley and his crew used to deny the pressure gradient until they came up with some lame excuse as to how it could exist on their precious Flatopia.
Flat erf however, DOES require an echo chamber to work...
A container of echos.... I like that.
Very smooth transition Dave!
You can lead an idiot to the truth but you can't make them think. Thanks Dave
No shit. Thank you.
I'd replace "an idiot" with "the ignorant." They might be ignorant in one area of knowledge, but not another.
@@cyalknightI'd replace "ignorant" with "an idiot". They might be mentally challenged enough to believe in a flat earth
I'm still looking for the four corners of the earth
If you find them please share what part of the circle of the earth they're on, because that's always confused me. It's almost like old books sometimes contradict themselves. Hmmm...
Thank you for making science fun. I learn so much from watching your videos 👍💜
I asked a high school student why earth's atmosphere does not diffuse into space. He answered "gravity", grabbed a drink from the fridge and was gone. That is how much time he thinks is worth spending on this question.
It'a very sad that you have to even make a video about such a self-explanatory topic, but you went above and beyond and also explained a lot of related things that some people may not know about.
I was going to say gravity left the chat but they dont believe in it
Perhaps you can explain what it is
.if flat earthers think there's a dome. wouldn't we all be dead from all the carbon monoxide?
Someone who lives in Denver, CO would laugh at this argument. We know packages sealed at lower altitude show up here puffed out. We know going higher up in the mountains means we get a lot less oxygen, and packages sealed here get puffed up, up there. It's just a fact of nature that one can observe living on a mountainside. Obviously the air isn't getting sucked off the face of the planet if I can easiliy experience, measure, and demonstrate pressure gradients by driving up and down a freaking stretch of paved road.