*** Go to ground.news/sciman to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Try it out or subscribe through my link before October 5th, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access if you support the mission and find it as useful as I do ***
When did Sci man Dan flip to a flat earther? This was flat earth evidence over and over. I was laughing thinking it was a comedy but not so sure now. Is he a flerf? Why would he not believe pedophiles like us normal ppl?
13:44 He might not be completely off there. Tectonic drift is an accepted fact today. Spinning the mass of earth, made up of all these different materials, should have an effect. But because of the amount of mass, it is on such a slow timescale we are having a hard time to actually measure it. But we can see mountains that long ago was the bottom of old oceans. And that would be more than unlikely on a flat earth. A spinning flat earth would press everything out to the rim. A stationary flat earth would not have Continental drift.
@@lovejoydk838 That would be more unlikely on a flat earth, yes. That said, mountains coming from what were the bottoms of oceans is exactly how that works in tectonic mechanics. Two plates hit each other, and one goes under the other, forcing the top on up. It's a lot more complicated than that, of course, but the two plates, depending on where they were, would both be under the ocean, but after a sufficient amount of time, the top one would be forced up high enough to breach the surface and start forming a mountain range. That's just how tectonics work, with or without the spin of the Earth affecting it. This is how mountain ranges form on land, as well, except that they don't start under the ocean. The point is that when plates are forced together, they generally have one or both plates be forced upwards, and that makes them start gaining altitude. Over time, whether they started under an ocean or not, they'll become mountains, volcanoes, and the like. Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I simplified the concept a lot, but the basic idea and mechanism is there.
Flat earther: Why can't they put a camera on the craft and record and stream the entire launch? Glober: They have, and they did. Here it is. Flat earther: Nope. It's fake.
I think they want an entire film crew on (flat?) spacecraft watching the mission as it unfolds. Unfortunately, there is a problem--when the director picks up his megaphone and screams "WRONG!", nobody will hear :-) Remember: In space, noone can hear you scream.
So Earache Dubay goes for the old 'these photos are fake' argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that we're still waiting for the flatties to provide us with any real photos of the edge of the flat Earth or the base of the dome. So by Earache's own argument that must prove those to be fake eh?
No one knows where the edge is. None of that matters if you just show earth curvature. NASA fake photos don’t matter, show curvature and we will be quiet.
@@JC-zy2klNo it wasn't. He was saying no matter how big the container is, the amount of air will equalize all throughout. That's his "observable fact". They (the flatties) also say the world is flat, covered with a dome - thus a container. Then by virtue of his "observable fact", everywhere within the container (dome) amount of air should be the same, thus there should be no pressure gradient. But there is. And no, NASA did not tell you that. Go hiking on a high mountain, and your lungs will tell you. He wasn't explaining anything - he was just getting confused, contradicting their own belief and then screaming like a dying fish. As the flatties always do.
"It's just a lander leg approaching the moon surface". Yes! That's what you asked for, Eric! That's the video you will get. Video from a lander will show a piece of that landŕ, and the moon. What else did you expect? Aliens? Tom Hanks? 😂
Eric wants multiple cameras. He wants the landing shot with wide shots, medium shots and close-ups. He wants reverse-angle shots as well to show the terrain as the lander lands and aerial shots from drone cameras (despite the moon lacking the necessary atmosphere). Then he will dismiss everything as CGI.
Oh, he was definately expecting Tom Hanks. And the Spanish inquisition, even though you're not supposed to expect that. Their chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear...TWO chief weapons... Where the hell am I going with this?! I'm bored, I suppose. Better fire one of the servants. JENKINS! (never liked his name. Too tinny...)
"That photo is fake! It's all bright and colorful!" "Yeah, we know. That's why it says 'Artists Impression'" "Show us a real photo!" "Ok..." "That must be fake too...because it's all dull and boring" "...."
With the air being stacked, the problem is that he needs a very sensitive measuring instrument. If he uses say, an aircraft altimeter, it will indeed show a slight difference from the bottom to the top so that, even when all trap doors are open, the pressure is not exactly equal. Altimeters can reliably show differences of 5 feet.
A mobile phone or tablet with an air pressure sensor can show a pressure difference over less than 5 feet, if you use an app that displays air pressure to 2 decimal places of millibars. You don't need any special equipment such as an altimeter.
@@jerry2357 you are referring to relative differences, measured locally. Altimeters move, and air pressure changes over time, so affecting their absolute precision ...
It's an idiot's thought experiment, i.e., one which lacks any real thought: the pressure will become equal everywhere because a flat earther says it does. All a flat earther who thinks there is no atmospheric pressure gradient needs to do is climb a mountain and try to do some exercise. They'll soon see the effect of altitude. Or get in a plane and feel their ears reacting to the changes in pressure. Or try to explain why water pressure increases with depth in the ocean (or in a swimming pool). Or even just explain what pressure actually is. The stupidity of their arguments simply demonstrates that they are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.
Dan, regarding the example of Dave: the air in the connected boxes would not distribute evenly. There would be a density gradient. Density would be higher towards the ground. Of course, the effect would be minimal. But it is important for understanding physics, that it is present.
@@Isolder74 Might be. I don't think we can covince hard-core flat earthers anyway. There are others who may be susceptible to their tricks - but still open to rational explanations.
I was thinking about this too: I'm sure you could test this on a "shoebox" scale using a more dense fluid: water! You probably couldn't initially separate it into different pressures, but the water should be heavy enough to show a pressure gradient and how even if it's "evenly distributed", you can still get pressure gradients without something needing to "hold it in".
@@nickfifteen The thing is what he’s proposing is still different enough from the ambient conditions that once the valves are opened they’ll get the dramatic effect they are looking for. They are seriously convinced gravity is supposed to be magic. Never mind that the gradient can easily be measured with no sign of a container in sight. The effect is gradual enough for them to pretend it isn’t there. Besides it has been done with a denser gas, butane, and they just dismiss it.
Im surprised he ended the compilations, when these videos must be significantly easier than a full response video. Unlike other channels, Dan is more comedy than actual debunkings, so maybe he just doesn’t like the medley format
Why can't Eric Dubay and his friends understand that the various space agencies are concerned with running their space missions, not with convincing a minority of science-deniers that what they're doing is real.
Why dont have camera on moon ? We have answer to that too , it's really simple . Geostationary orbit is round 22 250 miles/35 800km , 1/10 of the distance to moon. A camera on the Moon offers no scientific benefit for viewing the Earth , it would cost more, and is harder to do.
You didn't mention a significant part of the flerf dishonesty in the moonlight section. As usual they have shown a diagram which is massively out of scale, showing the moon as being much closer than it really is compared to the size of earth. The moon is around 30 earth diameters from us.
They think 'parallel' is a direction, so 'parallel' light can only come from one angle, where in reality it would be normal to all points hot by sunlight.
Dan, you have an infinite amount of patience and I admire that immensely. I couldn't last 5 minutes doing what you do. Thanks for all the great vids. I do learn things from you, and I hope to grow my own patience.
You learn the government approved latest psyop update package the establishment wants the masses to believe.... get off the flouride water now please ..and stay away from Scam man Danny boy
9:28 Dave just debunked the flat earth model.. If air fills the available space equally, then why is there different air pressure as you go up? Why would people climbing mount everest need oxygen if there is the same amount of air up there as there is on the ground.
Hi Dan, Not sure if this is a project that would fit in with your busy schedule but would you have time to give us a top 10 of Flat Earth Fails from the 50 compilations? Or did you already do that and I missed it?
So according to the last clip, When I lived in Alaska (above the arctic circle) because the poles make the earth bend inward I should have been able to see over the North Pole all the way across and pretty much see all of northern Russia, Greenland and Canada because the curvature of the Earth wouldn't be in the way. Wanna know what I saw....water, specifically the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean.
@@AnunnakisVEVO *"everyone always trying to be funny."* When stupid people say stupid things about the Earth, i.e. claiming it's flat, concave, torus-shaped, or anything other than an oblate spheroid (or sphere / globe), the only appropriate response is to make jokes about their idiotic claims. *"I'll take knowledge over a adult trying so hard to be funny. . "* Ok. Here's some knowledge for you: when you refer to a singular noun in English, such as the word 'adult', and that noun starts with a vowel, the proper phrasing is, "an adult," not, "a adult." Furthermore, after a full stop, there's no need to type a space, followed by another full stop before starting your next sentence. You could just end it after the first full stop. *"Kick us with knowledge."* Ok. Here's some more knowledge: The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or a liar.
With the whole "can't have pressure next to a vacuum" my most basic response is to ask them how in their model they explain pressure dtopping with altitude. Also, flat earthers like to use high altitude balloon footage and videos as "proof" of a flat earth when it suits them, so how come those that carry a barometer show a significant reduction in pressure at high altitude? Why doesn't the pressure equalise?
They just say: you can't have gas pressure without a container. They seldom explain the pressure gradient, other than the gas being produced at ground level. They don't understand the model they so desperately are trying to debunk.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden They also say, you must have a container for a pressure gradient. Because the container for them is what creates the gradient. Of course, why for example water has also a gradient without an enclosed container, they can't explain, even as it would be mandatory for their model to have one.
@@christianege4989 they just switch between a sealed container and one without a lid. They sure are inventive when it comes to defending their silly notions.
Like that flerf / moonlanding-denier that asked, "Why do they say Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon when clearly the cameraman got there first?" lol
I presume that Dave has been in a swimming pool and felt the pressure on his ears while descending. Obviously there is a pressure gradient (higher on bottom, lower on top) and no lid on top. Why doesn't the high pressure water on the bottom continually shoot up to the top?
He has never felt a change in pressure in a swimming pool. The buoyancy produced by his empty skull prevents him descending any deeper than the width of his head.
Hey brother I hope you and your loved ones are doing well. Ty for your efforts over the years with your videos. I've been subbed to your channel for at least 2 years and I'm certainly not disappointed to say so. Well done 🤜🏻🤛🏻
You will still be doing Flat-earth Friday right? I look forward to various things on certain days of the week and this is the first thing for Friday Edit: commented prior to watching entire video. I’m glad you still plan on bringing this content!
re: The fish tank example, in fact there WILL be a difference in pressure from the top to the bottom - extremely small, but still a difference. The same as the surface of water in a swimming pool - it IS curved, but a very tiny amount.
Anytime a flerf brings up the surface of water in a swimming pool, I simply ask them, "If the earth is flat or a globe, what should be the measurable difference along an olympic sized pool?" FIrst, many cannot calculate what the 'hump' in the middle should be, second they have no idea how to measure it. This is a prime example of performing some science. Come up with a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it using the hypothesis to make a prediction about the results. Once you figure out what the two possible outcomes are, you realize how hard it might be to detect the difference.
@@mikefochtman7164 I can calculate how high the hump would be but can't imagine any method by which it could be measured without a great deal of work and expense. The hump height is about equal to half the thickness of a sheet of ordinary printer/copier paper. But you're right, it is unlikely the average flerf who will go on and on about "eight inches per mile squared" won't be able to calculate the hump when application of that very expression is all takes for a good approximation.
Flerf: "All we're asking for is a live video from space showing Earth curvature and then we'll believe the Earth is a globe." Normal person: "The ISS has a live feed that shows Earth curvature." Flerf: "That's fake. All we're asking for is a live video from the moon showing Earth curvature and then we'll believe the Earth is a globe."
Next then: "All we're asking for is a live video showing spherical Earth and Moon in the same frame" And yes, such footage already exists, and they were already crying foul on that, too ...
@@SaneGuyFr What's there to talk about? It was a visual representation of the moon landing they showed for the public at the same time the rover was landing. I agree it's a bit hokey. Did you think India was trying to fake the moon landing by pretending they had a camera on the moon already and their special effects department could only come up with a cartoon drawing of it?
How can anybody listen to eric dubay for longer than 10 seconds without either falling asleep or getting bored into oblivion? That person's voice is sucking the literal life out of me.
"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
I had a question I posted a few times but never got a response. If we were living on a FLAT EARTH, wouldn't everyone standing on the ground see the same stars /sky when they looked up? I am not a expert on anything to be honest and this is a serious question and I do not know the right answer, but taking it as fact that we are all living on a flat Earth what would I see here on the east cost of America over what someone on the other side of the planet see when they looked up? If flat, would it be the same stars in the sky? (I am not a flat Earther)
Several years ago, around five or six, David attempted to interview me while I was working behind a pop-up bar in London. The conversation lasted no more than two minutes, and at that time, I had no clue about his identity or anything related to the flat earth concept. I was quite appalled by the craziness of what he was telling me. He is a real gem!
Flerfers think 1000mph rotation is fast, but if you take a globe and measure the distance 1000 miles to whatever scale the globe you have is, the distance would be minimal. It takes an hour for the earth to rotate 1000 miles, or 15 degrees, and the rotation is unnoticable unless you have stars to map the rotation by. You won't feel a spin as if you were spinning a basketball.
To that weird "air pressure in a box thought experiment", I have only one thing to say: if the boxes are tall enough, the result will not be that what he is expecting.
"Gravity is my God." Lessee, 1. Absolutely incontrovertible 2. Universally consistent 3. Completely ubiquitous Aside from the lack of consciousness, I can see the point.
Discussing with stupid people is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around as if it had won.
For the box experiment to be valid you would need a stack of boxes about 60 miles high. In that case you would indeed see the pressure gradient become the same as that in the open atmosphere.
It becomes the same as in the open atmosphere, in the sense of satisfying the barometric equation, no matter the height of the stack of boxes. If the stack were 10m high the pressure difference between the top and the bottom would be a little over 0.1% of a bar.
All CGI. See, easy to debunk. You could throw a flearth believer out of the airlock of the ISS and he will claim that the helmet has a fih-eye lense. Then you throw him out without a space suit and he will claim he was drugged. Because it must not be what cannot be. Flearth leaders however are often conmen. They lie on purpose.
Dan, you are a hero for the community. Your hard work and passion about the truth is an absolute beacon of hope. Plz don't stop. I understand the retirement but s'il vous plait make some special or something because we can't lose you for real. -old fan
9:20 If you had one Amazon sized warehouse you’d be able to measure a pressure difference between the ground and the roof. This is exactly how aeroplane altimeters work. They are accurate to within 50ft.
Actually it is easy to measure different air pressure in boxes and more or less everywhere. I'm using an altimeter for cycling trips in the mountains. Today this is also done by GPS but because this isn't precise enough for altitude and to measure small differences, there is also an air pressure measurement that measures differences down to a resolution of 1m. So if I hold the altimeter to my feet it shows an altitude that is 2m lower than over my head. Works in rooms and I also can measure inside of buildings. So it perfectly proofs that air don't distribute exactly equal.
11:05 - the light from the sun is considered nearly parallel not because the sun is so much larger (as if light were emitted only perpendicularly), but because it is so extremely far away. Perspective and angles are a matter of geometry, already that goes over Flerf heads.
Quick estimate for light rays on different places on earth. For the sun they differ by 0.002 degrees, basically parallel. For the moon it's more significant where they differ up to 0.95 degrees in the extremes.
Exactly. And when you consider it's angular size, you can explain things like the umbra/ penumbra of shadows. Those things that flerfs claim are always the size of the object that causes them. :)
Dan: This is the end of Flat Earth Fail Compilations, I'm tired of it Flerfs: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO please NO we need all the exposure and attention we can get, especially CC!
To be fair in a box the size of a warehouse you absolutely have a differential in pressure between the top and the bottom measurable with any digital altimeter
Sorry that you are ending "Flat Earth Fail Compilations", but *please* let them return for the Artemis missions. Just for the laughs on their cerebral split eagles on that. [Edit: as an European I am a bit annoyed that he didn't mentioned ESA.]
Eric Dubay, of course the Indian landing on moon was CGI. Do you think they had sent a film crew to make real footage of the lunar module arriving at its land site?
I must be dumb because I genuinely thought hollow earth and flat earth was a fantasy trope, I really didn't think people genuinely believed it to be reality
This is a great example of why I tell my high school math and science students that it is more important to learn logic and problem solving than it is to learn facts.
The last sentence of that guy at the end was just him saying words he thinks sound like he has a clue what he is talking about. infinite, perspective, spatial, dimensions, relativity. BECOS SIENTS.
India was like, "Hey, why do all the other countries have fake space programs? Let's fake our own space program because...uh, so we're cool too, or something"
Hi Menecross. Regardless of their other flaws, of course members of the public should be able to request whatever features they desire on Nasa spacecraft, especially if they are taxpayers, who after all fund the entire endeavor. For example, Nasa employees dismiss the complaints about the lack of cameras on the Webb spacecraft for the purpose of looking at the main mirror. The objections from Nasa have been many, but again, whose money is funding the whole project? [As a side note, the mirror has been hit by micro meteors, and it might be handy to have a ‘mirror pointing’ camera at this time.] Interestingly, Nasa has occasionally added things to missions at the suggestion of the public. For example, supposedly a child once wrote and asked about spiders weaving webs in space, which resulted in a space shuttle spider weaving experiment…
@@SystemsMedicine Taxpayers fund it, yes, but it's not like we're investors or producers. More like involuntary crowd-funding - we reap the rewards without having much input.
@@overcomingobstaclescreates1695 Hi Overcoming. I guess I generally agree with you about this; tho, I do think the public should express their wishes. I believe that occasionally the public has an effect on Nasa. [I happen to know of a couple of minor examples.] Nasa people do resist, but I do think that future Nasa mission planners are cognizant that the public wants more (“selfie”) cameras on spacecraft. It’s hard to see what the downside is for this, and we can imagine multiple potential upsides: diagnostic and aesthetic reasons. Cheers.
9:17 It would not be equal pressure to the top box. For get the "boxes". If you have a barometer, you will find that the pressure reading falls about 0.01 inch of mercury for each ten feet you climb above sea level. If a reading on a ten story building is 30.00 and you take the barometer to the tenth floor, the reading will be 29.90. (assuming 10 foot stories).
The answer for Dirth’s question is, it will almost equalize. There will be a pressure gradient with high at the bottom and low at the top. Because gravity. A cell phone with a barometer ap would be able to show that.
11:10 Flerf has his facts wrong (shocker). The sun's rays on Earth are not parallel because the sun is 109 times larger than the Earth. The sun's rays on Earth are, for all intents and purposes, parallel on Earth because the sun is so bloody far away from Earth; 93 million miles, give or take. It's the distance between the objects that matters, not their difference in size.
Flerf: How difficult it is to have cameras recording all stuff. Space Agency installs cameras, shows real footage (Descent of last Mars Rover for example from different angles). Flerf: C! G! EYE! It's called moving the goal post fallacy, used and abused by creationists when talking about evolution. I asked 'em: if you were planning to be dishonest anyway, why did you bother asking all this stuff I provided you? Turns out they were trying to create a 'gotcha' moment, but when it fails they resort to fallacy. They know already they are absolutely wrong, yet they go with the same crap to the very next person and see if he can get them all the way to the fallacy. One thing no creationist (or flerf, all the same) can't do is admit that they are wrong about anything. A question no flerf can answer: why the air is not equalized on Earth tho? If it's a really 'closed' system. But hey, stack boxes at least 2 km high and you'll get your difference. Even the water boiling temperature is only 93 degrees C there. The last one.. holy facepalm crap..
In the stacked boxes example, the air will not spread out evenly. There will be less air and a lower pressure in the top box. If the stack is not tall, it will be a negligible difference, but if it were a couple hundred miles tall, you'd have a near vacuum at the top. This is because air molecules have a limited amount of KE, and as they try to spread out from the bottom, they give it up trying to climb upwards, with most of them falling back before they get to the top. It's really not that much different than tossing a ball upwards and having it fall back to you.
That David Weiss clip is from the Dave Farina podcast - he got absolutely embarrassed by Farina and Co it was like watching flies get their wings pulled off
I have long wondered how the space and gravity deniers explain the drop in air pressure with altitude. OK, never mind, I can guess that they just ignore it, since it is an inconvenient fact. And even one that they can easily measure for themselves.
"You can't have a pressure gradient without pressure, and pressure requires a container" "Gas is produced at ground level so pressure is highest at ground level" And yes, both of those two excuses get regularly trotted out by flerfs.
Flatzoid's theory is that more molecules bounce off each other at sea level because there's mass for them to be bouncing off thus creating a higher pressure, as they bounce upwards they start running out of energy and don't bounce off each other as much, so less pressure. Very simple stuff, he's even drawn it on Microsoft Paint to show how it works.
@@Starhawke_Gaming" ...so what is that force?" Obviously it's the great cosmic electro-harmonic magnetismic life force. When it combines with the harmonic fourier series of cosmic energy waves, it interacts with the air to create an invisible firmament barrier that, as we all know, prevents any rockets from flying higher than 80,000 feet. Just ask someone like Wheeler, he'll explain it to you. (lol)
I really wanna debate with Weiss someday. I've been listening to the interviews he has and it's always the same rehearsed garbage every time. He blames us for regurgitating what the teacher tells us, while he regurgitates what he tells himself. I really wanna be merciless with him and see him flounder. His "debate" against Professor Dave will forever live on as a glorious testament to how dumb flerfs are. Once you rip them away from their script, like a scam caller, they crumple under their own mental density. They deserve all the humiliation they get.
The problem with debating flerfs is they'll say something so astronomically stupid that any sane person couldn't possibly imagine anything that walks on two legs could ever say something so dumb, so you can't properly prepare for how to respond. The Professor Dave debate is a perfect example. "Spectroscopy requires a container", for instance, has to be one of the dumbest things any human has ever said. How is anyone supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the science with someone so completely illiterate?
@@michaelandrew677 It's as Professor Dave said when was discussing the interview with FTFE. The purpose was to show how dumb Weiss really is, not to have any actual intellectual debate as he knows nothing of the sort will ever happen with flerfs.
@@michaelandrew677The best way to respond to stupid assertions is to ask them to explain what they mean, or how they can demonstrate that. Keep pressing the Socratoc Methid rather than try to respond with an answer. It'll expose their misunderstanding and is harder for them to dodge to another topic.
The dishonesty of Moon Zodiac is beyond comparison. No one, absolutely no one, who has seen the moon in the sky thinks it is one diameter away from the earth.
No, the Sun's light is not assumed parallel because it's big; it's because it's far away. The Moon is also far away. A flashlight at a few meters would also have a similar angular size to the Sun, but its rays would not be near parallel.
I know I am not the smartest person. Far from it, in fact. However, I know that I am exponentially more intelligent than every single flat earth believer.
I think what Eric wants is twice the expense and materials for each mission. You need the probe itself and another to follow and show the probe doing its work. Then he can say it's fake anyway.
The reason why we don't get live footage from the moon is that the Deep Space Network is quite old and has very limited transfer speeds. Engineers prefer to receive telemetry data because it provides more information in case something goes wrong, allowing them to investigate issues more effectively. SpaceX has a unique setup for live broadcasting that most other companies don't have, with high enough transfer speeds to enable live 4K footage transmission.
Since Bob Knodel passed away the debunkers have stopped using the "15 degree per hour drift" meme out of respect. I agree we definitely must have some yodelling, though!
@@ceejay0137 Dead or alive, Knodel doesn't deserve any respect. He deliberately lied to take advantage of the poorly educated, the gullible, and the mentally unwell. He was nothing but a snake-oil salesman.
*** Go to ground.news/sciman to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Try it out or subscribe through my link before October 5th, 2023 for 30% off unlimited access if you support the mission and find it as useful as I do ***
When did Sci man Dan flip to a flat earther? This was flat earth evidence over and over. I was laughing thinking it was a comedy but not so sure now. Is he a flerf? Why would he not believe pedophiles like us normal ppl?
13:44 He might not be completely off there. Tectonic drift is an accepted fact today. Spinning the mass of earth, made up of all these different materials, should have an effect.
But because of the amount of mass, it is on such a slow timescale we are having a hard time to actually measure it. But we can see mountains that long ago was the bottom of old oceans. And that would be more than unlikely on a flat earth.
A spinning flat earth would press everything out to the rim. A stationary flat earth would not have Continental drift.
When are you going to debate WITSIT ??
@@lovejoydk838 That would be more unlikely on a flat earth, yes. That said, mountains coming from what were the bottoms of oceans is exactly how that works in tectonic mechanics. Two plates hit each other, and one goes under the other, forcing the top on up.
It's a lot more complicated than that, of course, but the two plates, depending on where they were, would both be under the ocean, but after a sufficient amount of time, the top one would be forced up high enough to breach the surface and start forming a mountain range. That's just how tectonics work, with or without the spin of the Earth affecting it.
This is how mountain ranges form on land, as well, except that they don't start under the ocean. The point is that when plates are forced together, they generally have one or both plates be forced upwards, and that makes them start gaining altitude. Over time, whether they started under an ocean or not, they'll become mountains, volcanoes, and the like.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, and I simplified the concept a lot, but the basic idea and mechanism is there.
"Look at this footage. It's too perfect. Clearly fake."
"Look at this footage. It's too imperfect. Clearly fake."
Flat earther: Why can't they put a camera on the craft and record and stream the entire launch?
Glober: They have, and they did. Here it is.
Flat earther: Nope. It's fake.
I think they want an entire film crew on (flat?) spacecraft watching the mission as it unfolds.
Unfortunately, there is a problem--when the director picks up his megaphone and screams "WRONG!", nobody will hear :-)
Remember: In space, noone can hear you scream.
Why aren’t there pictures of the flat earth?
@@RupertReynolds1962Interesting thing: Kubrick's screams could, in fact, be heard in space.
@@RupertReynolds1962 Space is just an Alien idea to them ...
It's called Confirmation Bias. Everyone does it sooner or later
So Earache Dubay goes for the old 'these photos are fake' argument while conveniently ignoring the fact that we're still waiting for the flatties to provide us with any real photos of the edge of the flat Earth or the base of the dome. So by Earache's own argument that must prove those to be fake eh?
Quiet you!
@@GrendelSheperd NO!
No one knows where the edge is. None of that matters if you just show earth curvature. NASA fake photos don’t matter, show curvature and we will be quiet.
Nice of Weiss to openly acknowledge that air inside a container would equalise ... wonder how he explains the pressure gradient of our atmosphere 🤔
That was him explaining it.
@@JC-zy2klNo it wasn't. He was saying no matter how big the container is, the amount of air will equalize all throughout. That's his "observable fact". They (the flatties) also say the world is flat, covered with a dome - thus a container. Then by virtue of his "observable fact", everywhere within the container (dome) amount of air should be the same, thus there should be no pressure gradient. But there is. And no, NASA did not tell you that. Go hiking on a high mountain, and your lungs will tell you.
He wasn't explaining anything - he was just getting confused, contradicting their own belief and then screaming like a dying fish. As the flatties always do.
"It's just a lander leg approaching the moon surface". Yes! That's what you asked for, Eric! That's the video you will get. Video from a lander will show a piece of that landŕ, and the moon. What else did you expect? Aliens? Tom Hanks? 😂
Eric wants multiple cameras. He wants the landing shot with wide shots, medium shots and close-ups. He wants reverse-angle shots as well to show the terrain as the lander lands and aerial shots from drone cameras (despite the moon lacking the necessary atmosphere).
Then he will dismiss everything as CGI.
Oh, he was definately expecting Tom Hanks. And the Spanish inquisition, even though you're not supposed to expect that. Their chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear...TWO chief weapons...
Where the hell am I going with this?!
I'm bored, I suppose. Better fire one of the servants.
JENKINS! (never liked his name. Too tinny...)
Maybe he was expecting to see Sydney Opera House, or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, or a herd of wildebeest ...
@@davidfaraday7963 And complain that they cut between different cameras.
@@phillwainewright4221nah, that’s what you get from a hotel in Torquay😂.
I've explained this before, the Earth is flattened at the poles because of the pressure of the wing nuts holding the globe on the stand!
Send up some WD40 and get them to loosen them off a bit. Can't risk a puncture can we.
@@PeerAdderheck no... we'd let the frost giants escape!! Oden locked them up inside the hollow earth, don't ya know 😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
There's also the people living inside the globe tightening their wing nuts.😮
So a bunch of flat earthers are holding the globe on the stand?
It never gets old. Flat earthers asking for footage, and when you show them the footage, they say it's fake. It's an endless cycle.
Just need the most realistic looking fake video possible, then they will believe that.. 😅
"That photo is fake! It's all bright and colorful!"
"Yeah, we know. That's why it says 'Artists Impression'"
"Show us a real photo!"
"Ok..."
"That must be fake too...because it's all dull and boring"
"...."
@@DistantVision85every thing is fake unless its a hand drawn map showing a flat earth
so you ask them for proof, but its either debunked, debunkable or just downright stupid
@Pabz2030 They should have taken an IPhone to the space, it would record good quality meterial. It's that simple :D
Eric Dubay is the answer to the question no one ever asked.
With the air being stacked, the problem is that he needs a very sensitive measuring instrument. If he uses say, an aircraft altimeter, it will indeed show a slight difference from the bottom to the top so that, even when all trap doors are open, the pressure is not exactly equal. Altimeters can reliably show differences of 5 feet.
David Weiss is a plugged Pitot tube.
A mobile phone or tablet with an air pressure sensor can show a pressure difference over less than 5 feet, if you use an app that displays air pressure to 2 decimal places of millibars. You don't need any special equipment such as an altimeter.
@@jerry2357 you are referring to relative differences, measured locally. Altimeters move, and air pressure changes over time, so affecting their absolute precision ...
Yeah, it was disappointing that Dan implied that there wouldn't be a gradient.
It's an idiot's thought experiment, i.e., one which lacks any real thought: the pressure will become equal everywhere because a flat earther says it does. All a flat earther who thinks there is no atmospheric pressure gradient needs to do is climb a mountain and try to do some exercise. They'll soon see the effect of altitude. Or get in a plane and feel their ears reacting to the changes in pressure. Or try to explain why water pressure increases with depth in the ocean (or in a swimming pool). Or even just explain what pressure actually is. The stupidity of their arguments simply demonstrates that they are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.
Dan,
regarding the example of Dave: the air in the connected boxes would not distribute evenly. There would be a density gradient. Density would be higher towards the ground.
Of course, the effect would be minimal. But it is important for understanding physics, that it is present.
They always propose these on a scale where they know that the effect would not be obvious. They know that the stack would be the same as the room.
@@Isolder74 Might be. I don't think we can covince hard-core flat earthers anyway. There are others who may be susceptible to their tricks - but still open to rational explanations.
I was thinking about this too: I'm sure you could test this on a "shoebox" scale using a more dense fluid: water! You probably couldn't initially separate it into different pressures, but the water should be heavy enough to show a pressure gradient and how even if it's "evenly distributed", you can still get pressure gradients without something needing to "hold it in".
@@sebastiand152what's important is cutting off a flat Earther's revenue stream.
@@nickfifteen The thing is what he’s proposing is still different enough from the ambient conditions that once the valves are opened they’ll get the dramatic effect they are looking for. They are seriously convinced gravity is supposed to be magic. Never mind that the gradient can easily be measured with no sign of a container in sight. The effect is gradual enough for them to pretend it isn’t there.
Besides it has been done with a denser gas, butane, and they just dismiss it.
End of an era (almost). Excellent series. Thanks Dan!
What will fill up the monthly episode in their place?
@@Darth12000 More flat earth buffoonery
we live in hope!@@AmirBrooks
@@Darth12000Flat Earth Complications
Im surprised he ended the compilations, when these videos must be significantly easier than a full response video. Unlike other channels, Dan is more comedy than actual debunkings, so maybe he just doesn’t like the medley format
The dishonestly of people like Dubay makes me sick
"Why can't they show us video footage?" he said, conveniently forgetting the live images from the Artemis mission.
But wouldn’t they say it’s faked with CGI even if we show them video footage
Why can't Eric Dubay and his friends understand that the various space agencies are concerned with running their space missions, not with convincing a minority of science-deniers that what they're doing is real.
@@__TK___ *Any* real video from space is labeled "CGI" by them.
Why dont have camera on moon ? We have answer to that too , it's really simple . Geostationary orbit is round 22 250 miles/35 800km , 1/10 of the distance to moon.
A camera on the Moon offers no scientific benefit for viewing the Earth , it would cost more, and is harder to do.
@@pete_lind And imagine the maintenance costs ,😄
You didn't mention a significant part of the flerf dishonesty in the moonlight section. As usual they have shown a diagram which is massively out of scale, showing the moon as being much closer than it really is compared to the size of earth. The moon is around 30 earth diameters from us.
Flat earthers have no concept of scale, 3D space and astronomical distances.
If the Earth was the size of a tennis ball, the Moon would be the size of a table-tennis ball, and ten feet away.
@@phillwainewright4221 That's quite a nice visualisation 👍
They think 'parallel' is a direction, so 'parallel' light can only come from one angle, where in reality it would be normal to all points hot by sunlight.
Gutted 😥 I always watch these to help me realise that however stupid I may feel at times, there are always people who can smash my personal best.
Well, he's not deleting the existing ones, is he? 🙃
Dan, you have an infinite amount of patience and I admire that immensely. I couldn't last 5 minutes doing what you do.
Thanks for all the great vids. I do learn things from you, and I hope to grow my own patience.
You learn the government approved latest psyop update package the establishment wants the masses to believe.... get off the flouride water now please ..and stay away from Scam man Danny boy
Bet he screams like mad at them when he’s not making content 😂
Shame it has to end. These one are my favorites. Especially with CC in it.
You mean Chris, CC from New York. Westchester County. ? 😅
@@WitchidWitchid The one and only.
9:28 Dave just debunked the flat earth model.. If air fills the available space equally, then why is there different air pressure as you go up? Why would people climbing mount everest need oxygen if there is the same amount of air up there as there is on the ground.
I love how flerfers always confuse a calculation of earth's circumference with globe-proof.
Dan, I don't understand why you would end your most entertaining series. How will I ever get to watch CC From NY and his adoring wife?
Creaky blinder usually has a CC, Chris from New York, Westchester County, video every so often
well as he said at 15:39 you could probably still find some CC bits in a future random FEF episode, it just won't be within the FEFC series. 😌
@@irrelevant_noob I much prefer entire episodes dedicated to CC's insanity over a few minutes inside a compilation!
Dubay is especially frustrating because he thinks dumb memes are evidence.
He thinks "It's fake!" and "Nu-uh" ard devastating logical arguments in a debate too.
Hi Dan, Not sure if this is a project that would fit in with your busy schedule but would you have time to give us a top 10 of Flat Earth Fails from the 50 compilations? Or did you already do that and I missed it?
So according to the last clip, When I lived in Alaska (above the arctic circle) because the poles make the earth bend inward I should have been able to see over the North Pole all the way across and pretty much see all of northern Russia, Greenland and Canada because the curvature of the Earth wouldn't be in the way. Wanna know what I saw....water, specifically the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic Ocean.
So, according to this dude Earth is neither flat, spherical, donut-shaped not concave. I know! It's Silesian dumpling shaped!
@@FrikInCasualMode everyone always trying to be funny. I'll take knowledge over a adult trying so hard to be funny. . Kick us with knowledge.
@@AnunnakisVEVO you don't understand sarcasm, do you.
@@AnunnakisVEVO
*"everyone always trying to be funny."*
When stupid people say stupid things about the Earth, i.e. claiming it's flat, concave, torus-shaped, or anything other than an oblate spheroid (or sphere / globe), the only appropriate response is to make jokes about their idiotic claims.
*"I'll take knowledge over a adult trying so hard to be funny. . "*
Ok. Here's some knowledge for you: when you refer to a singular noun in English, such as the word 'adult', and that noun starts with a vowel, the proper phrasing is, "an adult," not, "a adult." Furthermore, after a full stop, there's no need to type a space, followed by another full stop before starting your next sentence. You could just end it after the first full stop.
*"Kick us with knowledge."*
Ok. Here's some more knowledge: The Earth is an oblate spheroid. Anyone who claims otherwise is either an idiot or a liar.
@@frocat5163 👏👏👏🏆🏅
With the whole "can't have pressure next to a vacuum" my most basic response is to ask them how in their model they explain pressure dtopping with altitude.
Also, flat earthers like to use high altitude balloon footage and videos as "proof" of a flat earth when it suits them, so how come those that carry a barometer show a significant reduction in pressure at high altitude? Why doesn't the pressure equalise?
They just say: you can't have gas pressure without a container. They seldom explain the pressure gradient, other than the gas being produced at ground level. They don't understand the model they so desperately are trying to debunk.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden basically, they don't understand anything.
@@frankdebrouwer-leiden They also say, you must have a container for a pressure gradient. Because the container for them is what creates the gradient.
Of course, why for example water has also a gradient without an enclosed container, they can't explain, even as it would be mandatory for their model to have one.
@@christianege4989 they just switch between a sealed container and one without a lid. They sure are inventive when it comes to defending their silly notions.
Flat earthers never answer uncomfortable questions.
Just send a cameraman with the rover next time. We all know the cameraman is immortal.
That’s a fact!
True. If nature documentaies taught me anything, it is the fact that cameraman is immortal and invisible.
Connor MacLeod can run the camera. As long as his head doesn't come off, he'll be fine.
Like that flerf / moonlanding-denier that asked, "Why do they say Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon when clearly the cameraman got there first?" lol
5:29? why no one is talking about that part
@@naughtiusmaximus7503 I see what you did there ⚔
I remember when you said episode 10 was going to be the last one. Going to be a shame to see it end but all good things.
Best part about this series. Youll never run out of content!
Nathan Thompson yelling at kids on a school yard should be part of #50
I have loved these from the beginning... Thank you.
I presume that Dave has been in a swimming pool and felt the pressure on his ears while descending. Obviously there is a pressure gradient (higher on bottom, lower on top) and no lid on top. Why doesn't the high pressure water on the bottom continually shoot up to the top?
He has never felt a change in pressure in a swimming pool. The buoyancy produced by his empty skull prevents him descending any deeper than the width of his head.
Hey brother I hope you and your loved ones are doing well. Ty for your efforts over the years with your videos. I've been subbed to your channel for at least 2 years and I'm certainly not disappointed to say so. Well done 🤜🏻🤛🏻
Dan won't stop making videos or stop making flat earth Friday videos. It's only the flat earth compilation videos that will end.
You will still be doing Flat-earth Friday right? I look forward to various things on certain days of the week and this is the first thing for Friday
Edit: commented prior to watching entire video. I’m glad you still plan on bringing this content!
Absolutely. That won’t stop
@@SciManDanYay! I love the compilations though.
@@SciManDan Kindsa think at some point there will be an an episode 51 dedicated to Area 51 type conspiracies. 🖖
@@nomenclature9373 Unlike Antarctica, you *will* get arrested for visiting Area 51!
re: The fish tank example, in fact there WILL be a difference in pressure from the top to the bottom - extremely small, but still a difference. The same as the surface of water in a swimming pool - it IS curved, but a very tiny amount.
Yeah, Weis just presented a scale model of the atmosphere.
Anytime a flerf brings up the surface of water in a swimming pool, I simply ask them, "If the earth is flat or a globe, what should be the measurable difference along an olympic sized pool?" FIrst, many cannot calculate what the 'hump' in the middle should be, second they have no idea how to measure it.
This is a prime example of performing some science. Come up with a hypothesis, design an experiment to test it using the hypothesis to make a prediction about the results. Once you figure out what the two possible outcomes are, you realize how hard it might be to detect the difference.
@@mikefochtman7164
I can calculate how high the hump would be but can't imagine any method by which it could be measured without a great deal of work and expense. The hump height is about equal to half the thickness of a sheet of ordinary printer/copier paper.
But you're right, it is unlikely the average flerf who will go on and on about "eight inches per mile squared" won't be able to calculate the hump when application of that very expression is all takes for a good approximation.
Flerf: "All we're asking for is a live video from space showing Earth curvature and then we'll believe the Earth is a globe."
Normal person: "The ISS has a live feed that shows Earth curvature."
Flerf: "That's fake. All we're asking for is a live video from the moon showing Earth curvature and then we'll believe the Earth is a globe."
Next then: "All we're asking for is a live video showing spherical Earth and Moon in the same frame"
And yes, such footage already exists, and they were already crying foul on that, too ...
In Flattardia, all goalposts are motorized. Because they need to be moved constantly.
Someone should show numbnuts Weiss the balloon experiment in which a semi-inflated balloon is attached at the neck with an inflated balloon.
@@SaneGuyFr Why are you replying with this on EVERY comment? Why would we talk about it?
@@SaneGuyFr What's there to talk about? It was a visual representation of the moon landing they showed for the public at the same time the rover was landing. I agree it's a bit hokey. Did you think India was trying to fake the moon landing by pretending they had a camera on the moon already and their special effects department could only come up with a cartoon drawing of it?
Great idea, Eric- Is it possible to crowdsource a flerf-funded lunar mission to put a solar powered ‘webcam’ on the Moon?
Disappointed you're ending this series, I love these videos
How can anybody listen to eric dubay for longer than 10 seconds without either falling asleep or getting bored into oblivion? That person's voice is sucking the literal life out of me.
I actually use his videos to fall asleep when i have problems to sleep. So his videos has a purpose. 😊
"Space has infinite dimensions because it's spatial"
Did he just say that?
Apparently, he did. First I thought it was my brain trying to put words to the sounds he made. 😆
That dude knew a lot of words. Too bad he didn't know how to correctly use any of them.
"What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
A flat earther once said: ''The flat earth society has members all around the globe". 🤣🤣🤣
I had a question I posted a few times but never got a response. If we were living on a FLAT EARTH, wouldn't everyone standing on the ground see the same stars /sky when they looked up?
I am not a expert on anything to be honest and this is a serious question and I do not know the right answer, but taking it as fact that we are all living on a flat Earth what would I see here on the east cost of America over what someone on the other side of the planet see when they looked up? If flat, would it be the same stars in the sky? (I am not a flat Earther)
That last guy...word salad extreme 😅
The second I saw that half-inflated beachball it was done for me.... LMAO knew it was gonna be a classic! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Several years ago, around five or six, David attempted to interview me while I was working behind a pop-up bar in London. The conversation lasted no more than two minutes, and at that time, I had no clue about his identity or anything related to the flat earth concept. I was quite appalled by the craziness of what he was telling me.
He is a real gem!
found your channel just before the first compilation , ive learned alot , laughed alot and had a all round good time
Flerfers think 1000mph rotation is fast, but if you take a globe and measure the distance 1000 miles to whatever scale the globe you have is, the distance would be minimal. It takes an hour for the earth to rotate 1000 miles, or 15 degrees, and the rotation is unnoticable unless you have stars to map the rotation by. You won't feel a spin as if you were spinning a basketball.
To that weird "air pressure in a box thought experiment", I have only one thing to say: if the boxes are tall enough, the result will not be that what he is expecting.
"Gravity is my God." Lessee,
1. Absolutely incontrovertible
2. Universally consistent
3. Completely ubiquitous
Aside from the lack of consciousness, I can see the point.
Discussing with stupid people is like playing chess against a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut around as if it had won.
😂😂😂. Made me chuckle - thanks for that 😂
Thats a cantona quote
Enjoy your vaccinations!
"...And then the pigeon poop spouts more random butthurt wank in response," it seems. "eNjOy YoUr vX", lol.
@@ComeJesusChristit's good, cuz I'm still alive
For the box experiment to be valid you would need a stack of boxes about 60 miles high. In that case you would indeed see the pressure gradient become the same as that in the open atmosphere.
It becomes the same as in the open atmosphere, in the sense of satisfying the barometric equation, no matter the height of the stack of boxes. If the stack were 10m high the pressure difference between the top and the bottom would be a little over 0.1% of a bar.
It’s incredible how much difficulty these Flerfs have with the pressure gradient, it’s really not that complicated, simple really.
Like nearly every Space shuttle mission shot from several different cameras for the duration of the flight to orbit....
All CGI. See, easy to debunk.
You could throw a flearth believer out of the airlock of the ISS and he will claim that the helmet has a fih-eye lense. Then you throw him out without a space suit and he will claim he was drugged.
Because it must not be what cannot be.
Flearth leaders however are often conmen. They lie on purpose.
Dan, you are a hero for the community. Your hard work and passion about the truth is an absolute beacon of hope. Plz don't stop. I understand the retirement but s'il vous plait make some special or something because we can't lose you for real. -old fan
9:20 If you had one Amazon sized warehouse you’d be able to measure a pressure difference between the ground and the roof. This is exactly how aeroplane altimeters work. They are accurate to within 50ft.
Yes, even barometers have an elevation correction. It's not that hard to measure the pressure gradient.
Actually it is easy to measure different air pressure in boxes and more or less everywhere. I'm using an altimeter for cycling trips in the mountains. Today this is also done by GPS but because this isn't precise enough for altitude and to measure small differences, there is also an air pressure measurement that measures differences down to a resolution of 1m. So if I hold the altimeter to my feet it shows an altitude that is 2m lower than over my head. Works in rooms and I also can measure inside of buildings. So it perfectly proofs that air don't distribute exactly equal.
Magmatic, plasmatic, torus field of molten iron and other constituents. Makes sense to no one. Thanks Dan.
Spatially special, infinitely spatially specially spatial, specials spatially infinitely spatial. Infinite. Spatial. Special. Spatially.
Relieved to hear that I will still get to hear you say 'Dear oh dear' on Fridays!
The last dummy with the blow up globe is a parody. I think. Has to be 😬
Please don't stop this series I love it! At least maybe a brief segment or weekly goof checking in on these dingbats.
11:05 - the light from the sun is considered nearly parallel not because the sun is so much larger (as if light were emitted only perpendicularly), but because it is so extremely far away.
Perspective and angles are a matter of geometry, already that goes over Flerf heads.
Quick estimate for light rays on different places on earth. For the sun they differ by 0.002 degrees, basically parallel. For the moon it's more significant where they differ up to 0.95 degrees in the extremes.
Exactly. And when you consider it's angular size, you can explain things like the umbra/ penumbra of shadows. Those things that flerfs claim are always the size of the object that causes them. :)
@@mikefochtman7164 - not only the diameter has to scale, also the distance.
Dan: This is the end of Flat Earth Fail Compilations, I'm tired of it
Flerfs: NOOOOOOOOOOOOO please NO we need all the exposure and attention we can get, especially CC!
How do some of these people manage to breathe on their own
Best series. Thank you for all the content Dan, cant wait for #50!
Dubay’s voice is infuriating
It's the worst, absolute drivel delivered in a monotone with wierd random pauses.
To be fair in a box the size of a warehouse you absolutely have a differential in pressure between the top and the bottom measurable with any digital altimeter
Sorry that you are ending "Flat Earth Fail Compilations", but *please* let them return for the Artemis missions. Just for the laughs on their cerebral split eagles on that.
[Edit: as an European I am a bit annoyed that he didn't mentioned ESA.]
“A nice ROUND number?” I see what you did there SciManDan, clever clever!
Eric Dubay, of course the Indian landing on moon was CGI. Do you think they had sent a film crew to make real footage of the lunar module arriving at its land site?
I must be dumb because I genuinely thought hollow earth and flat earth was a fantasy trope, I really didn't think people genuinely believed it to be reality
So Eric Dubay basically wants a live feed in 4K 60fps? From the moon? Yeah, right.
This is a great example of why I tell my high school math and science students that it is more important to learn logic and problem solving than it is to learn facts.
I agree. So where is logic in Australia at the bottom of the ball, with people and buildings upside down
@@Globeishoax Every hear of gravity? It works everywhere it is tried!
@@trackinggod8087 take a globe model and locate Australia at the bottom. Do you see it upside down?
@@Globeishoax Your point? Up and down are arbitrary. The south pole could just as easily have been put at the top.
@@trackinggod8087 just take a globe model and see where South Pole is
The last sentence of that guy at the end was just him saying words he thinks sound like he has a clue what he is talking about.
infinite, perspective, spatial, dimensions, relativity. BECOS SIENTS.
Have I been the only one, who got so much relief, from SciMans statement in the last minute?
India was like, "Hey, why do all the other countries have fake space programs? Let's fake our own space program because...uh, so we're cool too, or something"
If you drop the word fake, then that IS what they said
And just to 'prove' its 'real', we'll swallow our national pride and pretend it has failed!!!
5:29? why no one is talking about that part
@@SaneGuyFrwhy are you copy-pasting the same thing in all comments?
@@jezuconz7299 I want an answer so please give me an answer to delete my comments
Sad to hear FEFC is ending, it was always a great and relaxing video to watch while eating lunch!
These people think they are so important for the space agencies to spend money on cameras just to prepare a video to show them.
Hi Menecross. Regardless of their other flaws, of course members of the public should be able to request whatever features they desire on Nasa spacecraft, especially if they are taxpayers, who after all fund the entire endeavor. For example, Nasa employees dismiss the complaints about the lack of cameras on the Webb spacecraft for the purpose of looking at the main mirror. The objections from Nasa have been many, but again, whose money is funding the whole project? [As a side note, the mirror has been hit by micro meteors, and it might be handy to have a ‘mirror pointing’ camera at this time.] Interestingly, Nasa has occasionally added things to missions at the suggestion of the public. For example, supposedly a child once wrote and asked about spiders weaving webs in space, which resulted in a space shuttle spider weaving experiment…
@@SystemsMedicine Taxpayers fund it, yes, but it's not like we're investors or producers. More like involuntary crowd-funding - we reap the rewards without having much input.
@@overcomingobstaclescreates1695 Hi Overcoming. I guess I generally agree with you about this; tho, I do think the public should express their wishes. I believe that occasionally the public has an effect on Nasa. [I happen to know of a couple of minor examples.] Nasa people do resist, but I do think that future Nasa mission planners are cognizant that the public wants more (“selfie”) cameras on spacecraft. It’s hard to see what the downside is for this, and we can imagine multiple potential upsides: diagnostic and aesthetic reasons. Cheers.
9:17 It would not be equal pressure to the top box. For get the "boxes". If you have a barometer, you will find that the pressure reading falls about 0.01 inch of mercury for each ten feet you climb above sea level. If a reading on a ten story building is 30.00 and you take the barometer to the tenth floor, the reading will be 29.90. (assuming 10 foot stories).
8:12 If air and gravity works like he says we would all have to crawl about on our hands and knees to breathe 😊
The answer for Dirth’s question is, it will almost equalize. There will be a pressure gradient with high at the bottom and low at the top.
Because gravity.
A cell phone with a barometer ap would be able to show that.
11:10 Flerf has his facts wrong (shocker). The sun's rays on Earth are not parallel because the sun is 109 times larger than the Earth. The sun's rays on Earth are, for all intents and purposes, parallel on Earth because the sun is so bloody far away from Earth; 93 million miles, give or take. It's the distance between the objects that matters, not their difference in size.
I think Eric believes there should be a welcoming party and signs say "Welcome to the moon, hope you had a pleasant journey"
Flerf: How difficult it is to have cameras recording all stuff.
Space Agency installs cameras, shows real footage (Descent of last Mars Rover for example from different angles).
Flerf: C! G! EYE!
It's called moving the goal post fallacy, used and abused by creationists when talking about evolution. I asked 'em: if you were planning to be dishonest anyway, why did you bother asking all this stuff I provided you? Turns out they were trying to create a 'gotcha' moment, but when it fails they resort to fallacy. They know already they are absolutely wrong, yet they go with the same crap to the very next person and see if he can get them all the way to the fallacy. One thing no creationist (or flerf, all the same) can't do is admit that they are wrong about anything.
A question no flerf can answer: why the air is not equalized on Earth tho? If it's a really 'closed' system. But hey, stack boxes at least 2 km high and you'll get your difference. Even the water boiling temperature is only 93 degrees C there.
The last one.. holy facepalm crap..
In the stacked boxes example, the air will not spread out evenly. There will be less air and a lower pressure in the top box. If the stack is not tall, it will be a negligible difference, but if it were a couple hundred miles tall, you'd have a near vacuum at the top. This is because air molecules have a limited amount of KE, and as they try to spread out from the bottom, they give it up trying to climb upwards, with most of them falling back before they get to the top. It's really not that much different than tossing a ball upwards and having it fall back to you.
You should really make the 50th an hour long!
That David Weiss clip is from the Dave Farina podcast - he got absolutely embarrassed by Farina and Co it was like watching flies get their wings pulled off
I have long wondered how the space and gravity deniers explain the drop in air pressure with altitude. OK, never mind, I can guess that they just ignore it, since it is an inconvenient fact. And even one that they can easily measure for themselves.
"You can't have a pressure gradient without pressure, and pressure requires a container"
"Gas is produced at ground level so pressure is highest at ground level"
And yes, both of those two excuses get regularly trotted out by flerfs.
Flatzoid's theory is that more molecules bounce off each other at sea level because there's mass for them to be bouncing off thus creating a higher pressure, as they bounce upwards they start running out of energy and don't bounce off each other as much, so less pressure. Very simple stuff, he's even drawn it on Microsoft Paint to show how it works.
@@cygnustsp Well he's almost right. All he has to do now is figure out WHY they lose energy as they bounce upwards.
@@davidfaraday7963- exactly. The loss of energy shows that a force is acting on them, so what is that force?
@@Starhawke_Gaming" ...so what is that force?" Obviously it's the great cosmic electro-harmonic magnetismic life force. When it combines with the harmonic fourier series of cosmic energy waves, it interacts with the air to create an invisible firmament barrier that, as we all know, prevents any rockets from flying higher than 80,000 feet. Just ask someone like Wheeler, he'll explain it to you. (lol)
Ngl, that beach ball earth creating an "ice wall" thing got more scientific back up than Flat Earth itself. 😂
It's good to know that there's a nozzle at the North Pole to reinflate the earth should we ever need to.
There is no need.
It's spinning so fast everything flings out, you know 1 RPD (revolution per day).
Makes us all dizzy doesn't it
@@TheHellis Dizzy Nozzle!
😆😉😂😁😀😃
I saw a photo of Dubay all twisted up in one of his crazy yoga poses; he’s smiling at the camera and it looked absolutely demonic. Guy creeps me out.
I really wanna debate with Weiss someday. I've been listening to the interviews he has and it's always the same rehearsed garbage every time. He blames us for regurgitating what the teacher tells us, while he regurgitates what he tells himself. I really wanna be merciless with him and see him flounder. His "debate" against Professor Dave will forever live on as a glorious testament to how dumb flerfs are. Once you rip them away from their script, like a scam caller, they crumple under their own mental density. They deserve all the humiliation they get.
The problem with debating flerfs is they'll say something so astronomically stupid that any sane person couldn't possibly imagine anything that walks on two legs could ever say something so dumb, so you can't properly prepare for how to respond. The Professor Dave debate is a perfect example. "Spectroscopy requires a container", for instance, has to be one of the dumbest things any human has ever said. How is anyone supposed to have a meaningful discussion about the science with someone so completely illiterate?
@@michaelandrew677 It's as Professor Dave said when was discussing the interview with FTFE. The purpose was to show how dumb Weiss really is, not to have any actual intellectual debate as he knows nothing of the sort will ever happen with flerfs.
The debate wasn't a testament to how dumb he is, it was a testament to how dishonest he is. He knows the earth is not flat.
Wow, a flerf black hole - so thick that they collapse under the weight of their own ignorance.
@@michaelandrew677The best way to respond to stupid assertions is to ask them to explain what they mean, or how they can demonstrate that.
Keep pressing the Socratoc Methid rather than try to respond with an answer. It'll expose their misunderstanding and is harder for them to dodge to another topic.
The dishonesty of Moon Zodiac is beyond comparison.
No one, absolutely no one, who has seen the moon in the sky thinks it is one diameter away from the earth.
The "personal incredulity fueled drivel" line goes alot harder than it needs to lmao
I at first read "fuel drive" and thought: if we could fuel vehicles using personal incredulity we would not need fossils for that anymore for sure
Personal Incredulity Fuelled Drivel Wednesdays.That bloke against CC in the first round,winner to drivel off against Hovind?
No, the Sun's light is not assumed parallel because it's big; it's because it's far away. The Moon is also far away.
A flashlight at a few meters would also have a similar angular size to the Sun, but its rays would not be near parallel.
Now I feel suitably intelligent.
Actually, a brick would be intelligent next to these people.
😂
I know I am not the smartest person. Far from it, in fact. However, I know that I am exponentially more intelligent than every single flat earth believer.
@paulmcdonald4137 😅🤣😂😅🤣😂
A brick serves a purpose, most of them not so much.
And a cracked pot would feel right at home.
If you’re so intelligent, explain why they didn’t bother to film any of the Indian mission and just put out CGI renders
The last video was totally insane!
I think what Eric wants is twice the expense and materials for each mission. You need the probe itself and another to follow and show the probe doing its work. Then he can say it's fake anyway.
Or he will say, why is there no probe recording the probe recording the spacecraft?... and then say it's all fake anyway... he's helpless.
Dan, Don't stop the fail compilations, please.
Yessss. Please SciMan 🙏🏼
gonna miss these fefc
I always come here to get my Friday laugh 😂.
Scimandan, another awesome video🤟
My OCD is torn. Fifty is a round number but do you not want one for each week of the year?
Good point.
So you want 52.15 videos ?
@@Erlewyn are you trying to hurt me?
@@Erlewyn synodic or sidereal?
The reason why we don't get live footage from the moon is that the Deep Space Network is quite old and has very limited transfer speeds. Engineers prefer to receive telemetry data because it provides more information in case something goes wrong, allowing them to investigate issues more effectively. SpaceX has a unique setup for live broadcasting that most other companies don't have, with high enough transfer speeds to enable live 4K footage transmission.
regardless of the submissions, please include: Bob saying "a 15 degree per hour drift" and some earth photo yodelling :)
Absolutely.
The yodeling and "Thanks Bob" will live forever!😊
Since Bob Knodel passed away the debunkers have stopped using the "15 degree per hour drift" meme out of respect. I agree we definitely must have some yodelling, though!
@@ceejay0137
Hummmm. I see the point, but darn it, Bob put out the effort to get an experimental result. Gotta respect that too.
@@ceejay0137 Dead or alive, Knodel doesn't deserve any respect. He deliberately lied to take advantage of the poorly educated, the gullible, and the mentally unwell. He was nothing but a snake-oil salesman.