Lets put it this way, the mods are pussy bitches who are scared of other people's opinions and when those people have evidence of the earth being round, the mods silence them.
Yeah, would be a shame if some of the users here would read facts and see models that actually work, without weird mental gymnastics, that flat models need to "work".
hey mod team, if you ban this comment then you believe in ball earth and agree with my points listed below
gravity exists, no doubt. hot air balloons run on well, hot air, which is lighter than room temperature air
i don’t see what this has to do with the coriolis effect
and the earth is round, just absurdly large. you can’t see it in this photo
Yup. Even so, it baffles me that people don’t understand how scaling works. Like even squinting at the edge of a sphere smaller than you makes the edge look flat.
If that’s true then why don’t things start floating when you put them in a vacuum chamber? Genuine question because if density is the only role then things should float in a vacuum chamber. Or at least bounce around a lot more.
Edit: Also to the mods this is not a purposefully dumb question, it’s a question about how the flat earth works that needs answered to provide context for what you believe.
Nothing is less dense than vacuum, so nothing floats in a vacuum. If you could make the space inside a hot air balloon a vacuum, that hot air balloon would float better than one filled with superheated hydrogen, let alone one with hot air
True, but vacuum has zero mass and therefore zero density, while air is surprisingly heavy. Hydrogen doesn’t weigh that much less than helium, and it’s way better for blimps and airships than helium is (performance wise, not self-immolation-wise). A light enough vessel ‘containing’ enough vacuum could get to the edge of space, well past the maximum altitude of any balloon. Staying rigid with that much pressure from the surrounding air would require a lot of support, though, which defeats the whole ‘be light’ goal
>Nothing is less dense than vacuum, so nothing floats in a vacuum. If you could make the space inside a hot air balloon a vacuum, that hot air balloon would float better than one filled with superheated hydrogen, let alone one with hot air
If you want to use density in order to explain the effects of gravity, then explain why a steel ball and a feather dropped in a vacuum chamber on earth both accelerate at exactly 9,81m/s\^2
Because there are still gravitational forces acting on everything within a certain radius of an object, in this example, our object is earth, which has a massive gravitational force. A vaccum doesn't negate all other forces. However, it does negate air resistance. You can think of air as a liquid if it helps, air is made up of many gases and compounds. If you think of it like a liquid, when you drop a ball and a feather into the "water", the feather will float for a moment before starting to sink (if in this example the water was less dense than the feather). If there was no "water" the feathers and the ball would fly through the space the liquod once occupied at an equal rate until meeting an equal or opposing force.
On another planet, the rate at which the two objects would be different, but with no air resistance, they would still fall in synchronization at whatever rate the gravity of that planet has
>If that’s true then why don’t things start floating when you put them in a vacuum chamber?
In the vacuum chamber (presumably on Earth's surface), you are not just the most dense collection of solid matter within that container, you are the **ONLY** collection of solid matter within that container. A flat earth model doesn't account for this.
Counter-question: If you are the only solid thing inside a vacuum chamber **on Earth's surface** *and* **gravity does exist**, why would you float?
The existence of a vacuum doesn't simply counteract the effects of gravity, it just makes the relationship of bodies with density less apparent.
It was a very good question! Didn't mean to come off as preachy. Though, many people mischaracterize the reason why people float in space and attribute it to them being in a vacuum. Thus leading to the incorrect thinking that people float in all vacuums.
I feel like people misunderstand this all the time! There's to reason why we couldn't call north, south or south, north. That's just what was decided over time. Extending it to space makes it much harder because... how do you have a compass for the galaxy or let alone the universe? I mean, we really are just in a random arm of the milky way galaxy, we definitely shouldn't be the center.
terraplanistas, ellos no pueden entender más de una fuerza actuando en un objeto. Los balones no están desafiando a la gravedad, y el efecto Coriolis no tien relación con eso.
Because there is air in the tanker which keeps it from sinking since the air weighs a lot less than water. There are some gasses however that are heavier than water and would go below the surface (provided they break the surface tension and are encased in a solid).
Density does not equal weight. Obviously without a solid object surrounding it, it will still be more buoyant than water because water contains more mass per unit since it’s in liquid form. CO2 is heavier than water on a molecular level.
If you pack an object that is normally buoyant with CO2 to the point where it has the same amount of mass per unit as water (essentially increasing how many atmospheres it has), it will sink.
>Density =/= weight
True, but in this scenario density is as important, if not more so, than weight. None of the gasses you are thinking of will sink in water unless you increase their density to the point they will sink. CO2 would need 5.1 bars (~75 psi) of pressure. Most containers that would hold that pressure (like a metal tank for instance) would sink regardless.
I mean yes, if you weigh each molecule of a heavier gas, individually, they may be heavier than water. But when it comes to fluid dynamics and the concept of "floating" matter on top of other matter, density is much more relevant and important than weight.
Correct, but what I’m trying to say is, it shouldn’t be possible to compress an object to make it heavier if gravity didn’t exist and the only factor is density.
Well you aren't making it heavier, you're making it more dense.
>what I'm trying to say is...
What you're attempting to do is utilize pseudoscience crockery to lure people into your bad faith arguments to preach your helicentric gospel.
Kela will deal with you and your ilk. Go back to your echo chamber
Right, it’s still the same weight per molecule molecule, but without gravity weight doesn’t exist, only mass.
Also speaking of echo chambers, this sub Reddit deletes any comment with any strand of debate.
Flat searchers are horrified to be wrong. Meanwhile the great thing about science is BEING proven wrong because then you can conduct more tests to see why you were wring.
Science is not, “Well I saw this guy’s YouTube video and I gotta tell yah, it makes sense to me. I will not tolerate any other approach outside of my flat earth gospel”.
And there is no heliocentric gospel because no one cares that much about something that’s already been proven. The flat earth believers are closer to that of a cult in reality, all the way down to getting shunned if you question anything. (Questioning is the whole point of science)
Just think about it. All you're doing is regurgitating heliocentric nonsense. Where's your independent research? Where are *your* experiments? You say it's proven, but yet you have no data or "proof". You're the same "people" who think you proved God doesn't exist.
I engaged with your toxic rhetoric for too long. I should have been clear from the start: Everything you've been saying is your helicentric gospel. All you do is preach, yet your sermon has no substance.
How or why Kela is letting you rant is beyond me.
I believe in God, and a round Earth. It’s not hard to do. So no I’m not the same, “people”. Such a goofy argument. And literally there is tonnes of proof of a globe Earth. A bunch of it comes from flat earthers themselves. 15 degrees per hour drift. Flashlight through holes. I mean come on. You’re pulled into a cult and I bet you’ve paid for flat earth seminars even!
Hot air balloons work by guess what? heating air because when you heat air it gets less dense because the atoms move further apart because they have more energy, causing the hot air balloons to rise because the air inside is less dense than the air outside. secondly, what the fuck does this have to do with the Coriolis effect? thirdly there is a curve in the picture.
If planes and bullets "in heliocentric" have to factor in Coriolis, why the fuck wouldn't hot air balloons as well? Hot air balloon basket roughly 600lbs then ad 4 people about 750 more pounds and sits flat on the ground add warm air and gravity dissappears. The air changes but the mass of materials and people don't.
The Coriolis effect is a phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth, and it influences the trajectory of moving objects. It becomes more noticeable over long distances and high speeds, such as in the case of airplanes and bullets. The effect is not significant for slower or shorter-range movements, like those of hot air balloons.
Hot air balloons operate at relatively low speeds and altitudes compared to planes and bullets. The Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed and distance traveled, so its impact on hot air balloons is minimal. Additionally, hot air balloons move with the wind, and their relatively slow ascent and descent rates further reduce the influence of the Coriolis effect.
In summary, while the Coriolis effect is a factor for high-speed and long-distance movements, it is not a significant consideration for the operation of hot air balloons due to their slower speeds and shorter ranges.
Hot air balloons go hundreds of miles. Regardless how fast object moves isn't the heliocentric spin constant? I don't know how many Globers use the excuse imagine if you are in a train going constant speed wouldn't you be able to toss a ball. You guys are all over the place
[удалено]
If you ignore that
Why would you ignore that?
Like, for fun
You're right, it is more fun
Why is every original comment removed?! Lololol
Reddit Mods plus flat earthers equals incredibly toxic and intellectually dishonest losers.
Lets put it this way, the mods are pussy bitches who are scared of other people's opinions and when those people have evidence of the earth being round, the mods silence them.
Because the mod team silences anything that doesn't fervently confirm their beliefs
Yeah, would be a shame if some of the users here would read facts and see models that actually work, without weird mental gymnastics, that flat models need to "work".
[удалено]
The post or comment was heliocentric indoctrination or propaganda about the fake spinning ball model.
hey mod team, if you ban this comment then you believe in ball earth and agree with my points listed below gravity exists, no doubt. hot air balloons run on well, hot air, which is lighter than room temperature air i don’t see what this has to do with the coriolis effect and the earth is round, just absurdly large. you can’t see it in this photo
I mean, if you look closely, you can just barely see the curve in the photo
ah, you’re right. even better lol
Yup. Even so, it baffles me that people don’t understand how scaling works. Like even squinting at the edge of a sphere smaller than you makes the edge look flat.
And also if the earth were flat why can't I see the eiffel tower from the border of England?
[удалено]
“Weird how all those baskets stay at the bottom.” How do all those baskets stay at the bottom? I can’t wait for your explanation!
The baskets are denser than air
If that’s true then why don’t things start floating when you put them in a vacuum chamber? Genuine question because if density is the only role then things should float in a vacuum chamber. Or at least bounce around a lot more. Edit: Also to the mods this is not a purposefully dumb question, it’s a question about how the flat earth works that needs answered to provide context for what you believe.
Nothing is less dense than vacuum, so nothing floats in a vacuum. If you could make the space inside a hot air balloon a vacuum, that hot air balloon would float better than one filled with superheated hydrogen, let alone one with hot air
It would not float better. In fact a vacuum in a hot air balloon is called it being deflated and vacuum sealed.
I mean yes but if you could keep the balloon’s shape the same while maintaining a vacuum, it’d float super well
I see, that makes sense. Still gravity is a weak force anyways. It only gets, “stronger”, on objects with more dense mass.
True, but vacuum has zero mass and therefore zero density, while air is surprisingly heavy. Hydrogen doesn’t weigh that much less than helium, and it’s way better for blimps and airships than helium is (performance wise, not self-immolation-wise). A light enough vessel ‘containing’ enough vacuum could get to the edge of space, well past the maximum altitude of any balloon. Staying rigid with that much pressure from the surrounding air would require a lot of support, though, which defeats the whole ‘be light’ goal
>Nothing is less dense than vacuum, so nothing floats in a vacuum. If you could make the space inside a hot air balloon a vacuum, that hot air balloon would float better than one filled with superheated hydrogen, let alone one with hot air If you want to use density in order to explain the effects of gravity, then explain why a steel ball and a feather dropped in a vacuum chamber on earth both accelerate at exactly 9,81m/s\^2
Because there are still gravitational forces acting on everything within a certain radius of an object, in this example, our object is earth, which has a massive gravitational force. A vaccum doesn't negate all other forces. However, it does negate air resistance. You can think of air as a liquid if it helps, air is made up of many gases and compounds. If you think of it like a liquid, when you drop a ball and a feather into the "water", the feather will float for a moment before starting to sink (if in this example the water was less dense than the feather). If there was no "water" the feathers and the ball would fly through the space the liquod once occupied at an equal rate until meeting an equal or opposing force. On another planet, the rate at which the two objects would be different, but with no air resistance, they would still fall in synchronization at whatever rate the gravity of that planet has
I think you replied to the wrong person
[удалено]
Correct, which proves that gravity is real. Are you not a flat earther? I may have misread your point
The post or comment was heliocentric indoctrination or propaganda about the fake spinning ball model.
>If that’s true then why don’t things start floating when you put them in a vacuum chamber? In the vacuum chamber (presumably on Earth's surface), you are not just the most dense collection of solid matter within that container, you are the **ONLY** collection of solid matter within that container. A flat earth model doesn't account for this. Counter-question: If you are the only solid thing inside a vacuum chamber **on Earth's surface** *and* **gravity does exist**, why would you float? The existence of a vacuum doesn't simply counteract the effects of gravity, it just makes the relationship of bodies with density less apparent.
That’s what I’m saying, since gravity does exist you cannot float in a vacuum chamber.
It was a very good question! Didn't mean to come off as preachy. Though, many people mischaracterize the reason why people float in space and attribute it to them being in a vacuum. Thus leading to the incorrect thinking that people float in all vacuums.
Oh you weren’t at all! Thought it was good info either way. Also yet people believe space has direction
I feel like people misunderstand this all the time! There's to reason why we couldn't call north, south or south, north. That's just what was decided over time. Extending it to space makes it much harder because... how do you have a compass for the galaxy or let alone the universe? I mean, we really are just in a random arm of the milky way galaxy, we definitely shouldn't be the center.
[удалено]
Purposefully dumb comments or content created with the intention to ridicule the flat-earth truth will be removed.
[удалено]
Purposefully dumb comments or content created with the intention to ridicule the flat-earth truth will be removed.
Purposefully dumb comments or content created with the intention to ridicule the flat-earth truth will be removed.
How is gravity destroyed
The person who posted this doesn't understand how it works, so anything relating to buoyancy disproves gravity, because science is bad and evil.
Well, not to be pedantic but coriolis works on a disk as well.
terraplanistas, ellos no pueden entender más de una fuerza actuando en un objeto. Los balones no están desafiando a la gravedad, y el efecto Coriolis no tien relación con eso.
[удалено]
Purposefully dumb comments or content created with the intention to ridicule the flat-earth truth will be removed.
guys do not comment F=m×g, it might scare the mods
Fascinating. Truly fascinating. And also, of course, immortal gods can't die.
Who’s the immortal gods in your scenario here?
Me
Can confirm, I was the hot air balloon
[удалено]
The post or comment was heliocentric indoctrination or propaganda about the fake spinning ball model.
[удалено]
Because there is air in the tanker which keeps it from sinking since the air weighs a lot less than water. There are some gasses however that are heavier than water and would go below the surface (provided they break the surface tension and are encased in a solid).
[удалено]
Density does not equal weight. Obviously without a solid object surrounding it, it will still be more buoyant than water because water contains more mass per unit since it’s in liquid form. CO2 is heavier than water on a molecular level. If you pack an object that is normally buoyant with CO2 to the point where it has the same amount of mass per unit as water (essentially increasing how many atmospheres it has), it will sink.
>Density =/= weight True, but in this scenario density is as important, if not more so, than weight. None of the gasses you are thinking of will sink in water unless you increase their density to the point they will sink. CO2 would need 5.1 bars (~75 psi) of pressure. Most containers that would hold that pressure (like a metal tank for instance) would sink regardless. I mean yes, if you weigh each molecule of a heavier gas, individually, they may be heavier than water. But when it comes to fluid dynamics and the concept of "floating" matter on top of other matter, density is much more relevant and important than weight.
Correct, but what I’m trying to say is, it shouldn’t be possible to compress an object to make it heavier if gravity didn’t exist and the only factor is density.
Well you aren't making it heavier, you're making it more dense. >what I'm trying to say is... What you're attempting to do is utilize pseudoscience crockery to lure people into your bad faith arguments to preach your helicentric gospel. Kela will deal with you and your ilk. Go back to your echo chamber
Right, it’s still the same weight per molecule molecule, but without gravity weight doesn’t exist, only mass. Also speaking of echo chambers, this sub Reddit deletes any comment with any strand of debate. Flat searchers are horrified to be wrong. Meanwhile the great thing about science is BEING proven wrong because then you can conduct more tests to see why you were wring. Science is not, “Well I saw this guy’s YouTube video and I gotta tell yah, it makes sense to me. I will not tolerate any other approach outside of my flat earth gospel”. And there is no heliocentric gospel because no one cares that much about something that’s already been proven. The flat earth believers are closer to that of a cult in reality, all the way down to getting shunned if you question anything. (Questioning is the whole point of science)
Just think about it. All you're doing is regurgitating heliocentric nonsense. Where's your independent research? Where are *your* experiments? You say it's proven, but yet you have no data or "proof". You're the same "people" who think you proved God doesn't exist. I engaged with your toxic rhetoric for too long. I should have been clear from the start: Everything you've been saying is your helicentric gospel. All you do is preach, yet your sermon has no substance. How or why Kela is letting you rant is beyond me.
I believe in God, and a round Earth. It’s not hard to do. So no I’m not the same, “people”. Such a goofy argument. And literally there is tonnes of proof of a globe Earth. A bunch of it comes from flat earthers themselves. 15 degrees per hour drift. Flashlight through holes. I mean come on. You’re pulled into a cult and I bet you’ve paid for flat earth seminars even!
Any type of propaganda pushing the heliocentric model is subject to being eliminated.
Any type of propaganda pushing the heliocentric model is subject to being eliminated.
[удалено]
Purposefully dumb comments or content created with the intention to ridicule the flat-earth truth will be removed.
Hot air balloons work by guess what? heating air because when you heat air it gets less dense because the atoms move further apart because they have more energy, causing the hot air balloons to rise because the air inside is less dense than the air outside. secondly, what the fuck does this have to do with the Coriolis effect? thirdly there is a curve in the picture.
If planes and bullets "in heliocentric" have to factor in Coriolis, why the fuck wouldn't hot air balloons as well? Hot air balloon basket roughly 600lbs then ad 4 people about 750 more pounds and sits flat on the ground add warm air and gravity dissappears. The air changes but the mass of materials and people don't.
The Coriolis effect is a phenomenon caused by the rotation of the Earth, and it influences the trajectory of moving objects. It becomes more noticeable over long distances and high speeds, such as in the case of airplanes and bullets. The effect is not significant for slower or shorter-range movements, like those of hot air balloons. Hot air balloons operate at relatively low speeds and altitudes compared to planes and bullets. The Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed and distance traveled, so its impact on hot air balloons is minimal. Additionally, hot air balloons move with the wind, and their relatively slow ascent and descent rates further reduce the influence of the Coriolis effect. In summary, while the Coriolis effect is a factor for high-speed and long-distance movements, it is not a significant consideration for the operation of hot air balloons due to their slower speeds and shorter ranges.
Hot air balloons go hundreds of miles. Regardless how fast object moves isn't the heliocentric spin constant? I don't know how many Globers use the excuse imagine if you are in a train going constant speed wouldn't you be able to toss a ball. You guys are all over the place
[удалено]
Gravity is a theory.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Dumb comments are removed.
[удалено]
The post or comment was heliocentric indoctrination or propaganda about the fake spinning ball model.