Forum menu
This just popped up on FB.
http://www.iflscience.com/space/fat-earther-tries-so-very-hard-argue-astronaut-live-tv/
Surely a really simple experiment would be to have a container in vacuum and then do something involving friction. Object on a gentle slope that would slide down without friction or something.
Yeah I've not tackled his "friction needs air" argument yet, but that would be the thrust of it: stuff in a vacuum still has friction - if it didn't you'd be seeing vacuums used all over the place for friction-free bearings etc!
Imagine the improvements in electricity generation alone that could be made with true friction-free environments!
Oh, of course, that's part of the conspiracy too.
This just popped up on FB.
Aye Mark Sargent again. He's trying to set himself up as the UK's version of Eric Dubay.
Like Dubay I can't decide if he is a true believer or a cynical git trying to make money off the vulnerable and stupid.
[quote=rossburton ]Surely a really simple experiment would be to have a container in vacuum and then do something involving friction. Object on a gentle slope that would slide down without friction or something.
It's a fake experiment and you're one of the NASA stooges. Clearly it must be fake because it doesn't match up with our theories - what you call a "vacuum" is clearly impossible.
You lot should try arguing this side - it's quite fun.
Awesome work Graham..
I don't know how you do it!
Alex Jones' bollox nowadays is just to break up the adverts for his own line of male impotence pills
Ever seen a flat bubble?
Expanding on that one, galaxies are disc shaped. Although to be fair, we found that out by going into space where we could clearly see all the spherical planets...
😉
Now I'm at one of those learning moments I was talking about.
He's stuck on the classic [i]"gravity isn't real - things float or sink/fall based on their density"[/i] half truth.
So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved.
Struggling to come up with one at the moment.
Thoughts welcome. Obviously it can't involve hard sums or space travel. Doing something with a vacuum maybe?
(I could point him at the [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment ]Cavendish experiment[/url] but I doubt he'd see the link. Likewise showing him the gravitational constant popping up when calculating buoyancy force will likely be dismissed as mathematical trickery)
Late to this thread but it's great 🙂 question; do they have a response to the maths that proves galaxial objects above a certain mass form spheres? The earth is bigger than the moon (I think they agree on that) so what's their response to that or do they just discount gravity???
"Galaxial objects"? You're too many steps into the indoctrination ed. 😆 They don't even believe in space. Or gravity.
And the moon is ~32 miles across. Same as the sun.
GrahamS - Member
Now I'm at one of those learning moments I was talking about.He's stuck on the classic "gravity isn't real - things float or sink/fall based on their density" half truth.
So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved
I don't know if this would prove anything or help, but there's the Brian Cox video where they drop a ball and a feather in a vacuum to show that they fall at the same rate.
Great shout!
Yeah I wondered about that one, but it doesn't really help. Vacuum means no air density so of course the feather and ball are more dense than nothingness.
ah..... no such thing as space.... wow
do they observe newtons 3 laws of motion? because if they do then surely a tennis ball up in the air and it comes down again is the simplest, clearest act of gravity
yeah I know what's coming next, newtonian physics are optional
Yeah I wondered about that one, but it doesn't really help. Vacuum means no air density so of course the feather and ball are more dense than nothingness.
Never mind that. There's no air pressure, why don't they both float?
Hey Graham,
In the FW world, what are meteors and asteroids?
do they observe newtons 3 laws of motion?
Not really, as evidenced by the "rockets can't fly in space because there is no air" argument.
There's no air pressure, why don't they both float?
I [i]think[/i] I've just about proved to him that it's not air pressure pushing down, but relative density is a much tricker one because it is half right.
I'm currently awaiting his definition of density to see if it includes mass.
In the FW world, what are meteors and asteroids?
Good question. I don't know that one. Falling angels? Evidence of the firmament? Fake holograms?
I'll ask if I get a chance.
Ask about the ISS whilst you're there. Not the close-up footage of it, the bright dot you can see with the naked eye from down here.
Covered already Cougar. It's proof of the conspiracy. NASAtan say it is the size of a football field and 400km away? When was the last time you saw a football field from 400km away with the naked eye eh?
Regardless of how big and how far away it is or isn't, what is it really? Do they accept that it's a man-made object and just dispute its dimensions?
Generally they go for high altitude spy plane.
Some favour holograms or lasers, because they are extra special.
😆 awesome.
[i]Previously on "I'm a Flerfer Get Me Outta Here"...[/i]
..I presented (another) simple example to demonstrate that air pressure doesn't have an inherent direction to it: two boxes with the same volume, one short and wide, one tall and thin. The short wide one has a larger surface area on top, so it is "carrying" more air and should be pressed down more by "directional" air pressure and yet they weigh the same.
This time...
[b]FE'er:[/b] can you not hold something from the side like these boxes that air pushes together just because you change the shape does it mean you change the air pressure. The air on the side of the box would affect the box as well don't you think. So do you think gravity is involved.?
Well yes obviously, but I won't say that explicitly just yet as I want to keep this focused on what he believes.
[b]FE'er:[/b] are you mechanically inclined do you understand how vehicle suspension works? If gravity existed they wouldn't need suspension because suspension keeps your wheels on the ground. So does a spoiler. Both are perfect examples of air friction, and just so happens to prove that gravity doesn't exist.?
What? Suspension demonstrates air friction and wouldn't be needed if gravity existed..? I... err.. what? Think we better stick with the block example:
[b]Me:[/b] Yes I agree the boxes are indeed pushed on by air pressure from the sides. But that isn't acting to push them down, for exactly the same reason that you holding a box by pressing on the sides doesn't lift it up or push it down. Also they will pushed on by air pressure at the bottom too, lifting them up![b]FE'er:[/b] I'm sorry to say this but you're completely wrong if you push a box from one side it literally lifts up the bottom think about that?
[b]Me:[/b] It really doesn't. It just slides around. It would only lift the edge if the opposing edge catches on something causing it to tip.
But here we have equally matched balanced forces pressing on all four sides. It's not going anywhere.?
(Kindly excuse me for a moment. It is dinner time here. I will return to our conversation later)?
I really was. Plus I needed to introduce a bit of humanity on my side to stop him being so angry.
[b]Me:[/b] Back and full of pizza. 🙂
Where were we? Right so I'll clarify as we are getting sidetracked, applying a perpendicular force to the side of a box will not make it lift on its own
What can make it lift or tip over would be an opposing force acting near the base which would come from friction or just because the opposing edge has snagged on some imperfection in the surface. Hope that is clearer.
But this is irrelevant here anyway: our box is being pushed equally on all four sides. The forces balance each other out.
So all that is left is the pressure on the top and bottom face of the box.
Now your claim, if I understood correctly, was that air pressure has some kind of inherent downwards direction to it for some reason. But the wide box, with much more surface area on top to be pushed by the downwards air pressure, weighs exactly the same as the tall box that has very little surface area on top.
Hence air pressure does not have a built-in downwards direction to it.?
Comprehensive I thought. Pizza and beer obviously help me tap into the Flerfer mindset.
[b]FE'er:[/b] no, air has a go in every direction until manipulated otherwise. Also you're not taking into consideration the air inside the Box. If you heated the air inside the Box and the box was air tight. Then you would change the weight of the box now wouldn't you.?
Well no. If the box was airtight then no you wouldn't change the density by heating the contents as it has nowhere to go. It might explode though.
Also air "has a go in every direction" now? Wasn't that pretty much my point? That it doesn't have an inherent direction??
[b]Me:[/b] But we're not manipulating the air here. We are leaving the boxes completely alone.
And I did stipulate solid boxes, mostly so we could avoid complexities of the air inside.?[b]FE'er:[/b] so if it isn't the density of the air versus the density of the box what is giving the Box weight??
this is what I'm trying to explain weight and buoyancy are the exact same thing they coincide with one another one is used in air one is used in liquid.?
Was that a note of doubt there? Did I make a slight impression? But no, he's moved straight on from magically directional air pressure to density.
[b]Me:[/b] So there is confusion there I think. Pressure and density are two completely different things. Pressure is a measure of force acting over an area. Density is... well actually tell me how do [b]you[/b] define density??
I'm interested if his definition involves the word "mass" or not, since density is [i]usually[/i] defined as mass per volume. And we know objects are not drawn together by their volume, so perhaps it is their mass.... hint.. hint..
No reply to that yet and he's had all weekend to think about it. Maybe we'll get one today.
It's a laudible task Graham, but when your pupil can't grasp the basic concepts it's almost certainly a thankless one.
That said, I get the merest impression that his misunderstanding is real, rather than him trying to manipulate the facts to fit his beliefs?
Unreal
The density thing is easy to disprove.
If density was the only factor what is to differentiate between up down left and right movement ofa heavy ball in a fluid?
Alternatively a viscous flow (low Reynolds number) experiment that shows reversibility may be a good one.
I get the merest impression that his misunderstanding is real
With most of them there is a basic misunderstanding (and mistrust) of science. It always feels like if you could just point that out then they'd see they were talking cobblers. But it bounces off them.
I've now pointed out several things he's said that are factually untrue and that he can check himself very easily, but that is very unlikely to make him question his understanding.
Unreal
Jeebus! Some of Glasgow's finest minds contemplating the subject there. "ah drop't oot ah school 'n furst year, bit am pure qwalafite tae debate fizziks an'at"
The density thing is easy to disprove.
You'd think so.. and yet...
If density was the only factor what is to differentiate between up down left and right movement ofa heavy ball in a fluid?
Yeah this is the tricky bit - trying to point out that yes, it does behave like that with regard to density, but.... density itself is not the force doing that, because density has no direction, the direction is provided by gravity.
They've got it half right, but stopped before considering where the direction part comes from.
How do they deal with time differences? Surely if the earth was flat we'd all see the sunrise at about the same time.
The scenario of a helium balloon in a room (with no draughts/windows, or other external factors) with a small basket attached underneath.
The balloon rises to the ceiling & small weights are gradually added to the basket until the balloon floats in the middle of the room, neither ascending or descending.
One more weight is added & the balloon slowly descends to the ground.
If you were to give him this scenario, what do you think he would say? I am not sure I understand his stance well enough to know what his logic would be for this situation?
If he is saying that it is air pressure that is pushing downwards, how does adding the 'equilibrium + a bit' weight to the balloon trigger it to descend & stay down?
[quote=GrahamS ]So ideally I need a simple to understand practical experiment that demonstrates that gravity is the force involved.
As opposed to something completely made up and total bollocks? You still seem to be making the mistake of thinking that there's any purpose in trying to argue using reason and logic. I reckon your best bet is to make up something even more absurd than what they believe in and try and to convince them of that - it could go one of two ways, either they're so credulous of alternative theories that they'll be spouting it themselves tomorrow, or if they argue against it you can turn their arguments on their own theories...
How do they deal with time differences?
The sun moves around over the Earth. It is very close and surprisingly directional in nature for some reason.
If you were to give him this scenario, what do you think he would say?
He's day you've increased the density of the balloon and basket until it exceeds the density of the air and falls. (Which is correct).
His wittering about downward air pressure is confused, but the density stuff is the more standard FE'er trope.
As opposed to something completely made up and total bollocks?
Well it's not [i]totally[/i] made up. They are half right that density is what makes things float or sink. But they end it their rather than making the leap to why?
if they argue against it you can turn their arguments on their own theories...
If only - loads of FE'er theories are self-contradictory. Pointing that out never seems to help. In fact the neatness of the globe Earth "theory" is sometimes called out as proof it must be wrong 🙄
GrahamS - MemberHe's day you've increased the density of the balloon and basket until it exceeds the density of the air and falls.
...and falls.....because of what though? What is his reasoning behind the 'downwards force', if not gravity? I thought this related to his air pressure pushing downwards theory?
I suspect he doesn't have answer to that part, or even realise that one is missing.
If he does then I'm betting he'll cite a "natural order" or some such nonsense. Things naturally order vertically by density, that's just what happens because.... God.
In the spirit of learning things by trying to teach idiots: Which way is down isn't as simple as you might expect.
[quote=GrahamS ]Well it's not totally made up. They are half right that density is what makes things float or sink. But they end it their rather than making the leap to why?
Well it is, because he's relying on the directionality of air pressure in order to make his explanation work, which is complete ...
If only - loads of FE'er theories are self-contradictory. Pointing that out never seems to help. In fact the neatness of the globe Earth "theory" is sometimes called out as proof it must be wrong
It would still be interesting to see how he argues against things which he realises are complete bollocks. If only because it would then be fun to throw those arguments back at him. I'm not seeing the point here being to persuade him...
No new updates? Awwwww
He's gone strangely quiet since I asked him for [i]his[/i] definition of density. Not sure if he saw the oncoming logical trap or he just didn't have an answer.
But since you asked, for your entertainment here's how that same tactic played out with a slightly .. ummm.. [i]less lucid[/i] flerfer called Sasha galkina on [url=
debunk video[/url]:
[b]FE'er:[/b] Graham, Brilliance logic we just need to fix 'gravity' from imaginary "reality" in to observe able one.Things fall down when we pick them up and let go back to its natural place of density and when we bring air under water and let it go bubbles rise up back to it natural level of density and there is velocity laws too which perfectly serves our life with our technical mechanical needs.
and then show up this crazy Jew known for a fraud all over the Internet Einstein and say it is gravity, give me Nobel prise dummies.
Waite a minute, 'gravity' what exactly is contribution to the table what it is new that we don't already know? what that imaginary word describes?
Next imaginary shit the Globe no one can see the globe . It is like small girl drowning picture and teacher ask what do you rowing? and gill say: Jesus The Lord. Teacher: but honey , nobody sow Jesus. Girll: in a minute they will... ;O)
and NASA did same shit as a little girl, made CGI pictures. By the way there is a guy artist who did those pictures for NASA show. He give interview on some news powers and video sure on Youtube too.
People are so stupid and gullible that some times I thing fraud comes kind of natural. We lie to the kids to manipulate them too. Behave yourself, Santa give a gifts only to the good kids and good kids listen to their mama. 'greed and fear' Devil loves that
Please do as I say, I feel stressed out with other things that I am occupied right now. We can talk about it before you go to the bed in the evening.
Don't lie to your kids. Sincereness and truthfulness that is what I need.
Either we get smarter or lie gets to old and dumb I want to get over with this NASA sow like I get over with Santa. and I don't need next level of imaginary shit to finger out. I just want to live with people in a flow by free giving from the heart.
End this imaginary shit people. The biggest secret of the Devil is , that he lives in the place, that does not exist.
It is all in your minds it is not real with out evidence with out no men that could explain their imaginary shit.
Do you believe in Pinocchio? No. Do you know papa Carlo? yes. So Pinocchio is Carlos son.... an exactly that is how NASA show fans play on this debate.?
I... umm... what...?
Okay, try to keep the focus:
[b]Me:[/b] Exactly how do you define "Density" Sasha??
Short and sweet. Hopefully they'll reciprocate...
[b]FE'er:[/b] The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume.Mass is made of small partials and as more dense it is as more heavy it is and if it less dense, it has a power of balloon carry on basket.
If I let it go stone on your foot, would you see me as doing it or it just a gravity?
Einstein was genius it just not in a way that most of us would like to.
Shalom ISRAEL (((money))) is the mark of the Devil please meet your Master you have his card or you have Visa card as permission to live?
Governments receive orders from the bank it is not other way around.
One end of the slavery chain is in your wallet, another end is in the bank.
we exchange our effort to survive in a symbols on the paper which gives us permission of small fraction of what we create .
No one of us can consume more then one need and we live in abundance
If everyones life have same value what do we need money for? We need access to necessities for life library style. I don't like to own gadgets and tools I just need to use it when I need and then put it back for maintenance and let other people use.
Not sure if they need fewer drugs or I need more.
Still time to play the card and see how it works...
[b]Me:[/b] Great, so we both agree on the normal definition of density as mass per volume, yes?
You talk about "natural place of density" - I also agree. Objects of the same density do seem to naturally want to be together. They naturally attract each other based on their density, which is mass per volume. And that natural attraction of masses is called "gravity".?
[i]*mic drop*[/i]
That was a day ago and still no response. I can only assume that either their head has exploded or the meth wore off.
Having read that, it occurs to me that Sasha Galkina might actually be Chewkw.
I did think the rambling stream of tangential consciousness style seemed oddly familiar 😆
I haven't read the whole thread .. but what about this as a thought experiment (to try to encourage him to wonder where density differences he cares so much about come from).
Imagine a really long tube lying on the ground.
You seal up the ends of the tube trapping the air inside and lift up one end so that the top end is miles in the air and the bottom end rests on the ground.
What would happen to a helium balloon (that would normally rise to the height of the top if it was outside the tube) sitting inside that tube?
Does he think it a) would float to the top, b) sink to the bottom or c) stay stationary in the tube.
If a) then that rise implies that the air in the tube (which was distributed equally along the tube while it lay on the ground) has now somehow become more dense at the bottom of the tube than the top.
That implies that "something" influenced the air in the tube to move towards the bottom of the tube (become more dense) and leave the top of the tube (become less dense) as it became vertical (otherwise the balloon would be stationary
If b) Wrong answer, but there is also a density difference. So what caused it?
If c) Right answer (I guess) from his POV as there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference, and no density difference means no movement? But the cognitive dissonance should hopefully flip his brain right out of his ear. Problem solved.
In any case if he suggests that the balloon moves, it implies unequal density, so where did the change come from?
[Having said that I largely agree that you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. E.g. brexit, communism, religion etc.. "Theres nothing wrong with [thing]. You're just doing it wrong!"]
Good idea for an experiment, but the reasoning on a) is wrong.
The air density may have been even along the tube while it was on the ground, but the balloon was still less dense than that and wanted to go up.
Sealing the tube and turning it vertically the air density inside doesn't need to change, the balloon is still less dense and still goes up.
there is nothing in his universe to create a density difference
I suspect he'd argue, as Sasha did above, that there is a natural order. A [i]"natural place of density"[/i] as Sasha put it.
They usually don't attempt to explain what causes this natural order (spoiler: it's gravity)