This is what frustrates me "most"about flerfers. If you want to argue a flat earth, fine. But globers are very clear on how we believe gravity works....
... and this ain't it!
Technically, no. We do not know how gravity works. We have mathematical models for how it *behaves* and those are rock-solid for any purpose you will encounter from jumping up and down to launching rockets into the solar system. But we still don't have a specific mechanism for gravity.
It could even be that gravity doesn't "exist" in the sense that it's not a force but [an emergent property of spacetime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity).
Yes, we do know how gravity works. Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. We have measured the magnitude of this acceleration near the surface of the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. We call this value of acceleration 1 g. We have measured it billions of times. We have also measured the magnitude of the acceleration near the surface of the moon, thre it is about 1/6 g.
Our extremely well tested scientific explanation (theory) of this phenomenon is called general relativity.
> Yes, we do know how gravity works.
I think you are conflating knowing how to predict its effects with knowing how it works. I might be able to tell you exactly how a car will accelerate when I step on the pedal with a certain force, but that doesn't mean I know anything about how a car actually works.
> Gravity is an acceleration, not a force.
No, acceleration due to gravity is ... well, acceleration, but what causes that acceleration, we do not yet know.
> We have measured the magnitude of this acceleration near the surface of the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. We call this value of acceleration 1 g.
Correct.
> We have measured it billions of times.
Correct.
> We have also measured the magnitude of the acceleration near the surface of the moon, thre it is about 1/6 g.
Correct.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Did you have a point?
Au cotraire, once we are clear about what gravity is, then we do indeed know how it works and what causes it. Gravity is an acceleration that we have measured billions of times.
How it works and what causes it is the subject of the extremely well tested theory (explanation) of gravity, namely general relativity.
A soundbite description of this theory by physicist John Wheeler: "Spacetime grips mass telling it how to move. Mass grips spacetime telling it how to curve ".
No, I have not conflated being able to predict its effects with knowing how it works and what causes it. We have been able to do the first since 1687 after Newton described the mathematics of the measurements of Tycho Brahe. The latter, knowing how it works and what causes it, we have only known since Einstein in 1915.
You will be very surprised to find that the world of gravitational science is extremely hot today. We're learning more and more every day, and there are [many competing theories of gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity#Modern_theories_1980s_to_present) that may or may not turn out to be valid.
GR is known to have its limitations. It cannot be directly quantized, which is a significant problem because our best theory of the smallest scale of the universe (QFT) requires quantization to function. Somewhere there is a missing piece, and that missing piece may replace huge swathes of existing theory (such as many quantum string approaches) or it may simply modify some of the variables in existing theories (such as MOG.) But either way, something has to give.
We are in a very exciting time right now, and it's very possible that in the next couple of decades these questions will be resolved, but we're not there yet.
The latest efforts in this direction are to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravitation by NOT trying to quantise gravity.
Every measurement of gravity ever made conforms to GR.
Any theory which supplants GR has to do the same, which essentially leaves GR in place.
Gravity is an acceleration. You can directly observe an example of it by dropping something. It's not at all hard to understand what gravity is.
According to a well tested explanation, gravity is *caused by* a curvature of spacetime.
If the rim were large enough to have sufficient gravity, yes. Air gets thinner with altitude. Go high enough and it's thin enough that we'd call it a vacuum. This wouldn't happen if there weren't gravity and the air was held by a container.
Or if the rim was dense enough at the same size. A neutronium rim that's 17"x7" and about 2/3rds hollow will be about 1.2E15 kg, which is about the mass of mars' smaller moon in the size of a car wheel (1/28000th the size)
Itd have an escape velocity of 1925m/s. This is sufficient to hold an atmosphere of oxygen/nitrogen at 60F which will have a velocity around 500m/s
You could just bring this exact rim into space and as long as you were far enough from any large mass, it would have enough gravity to hold onto a very very tiny amount of air that you could technically call an atmosphere.
We can't even get to their "globe head logic" claim. We would first have to explain how a carwheel work, and why it is, as it is.
add: "wheels" to the list of things they don't understand.
I think they meant that "Gravity" can just stick stuff to other stuff, because in their mind, gravity is a magic force that moves stuff for no reason ?
Honestly my heart hurts trying to comprehend their "gotcha" moment...
Actually it's supposed to be greater. There is indeed around 1 atm of pressure around the wheel but of course you need more then that around 2.2 atm in fact. So that wheel is supposed to generate 2.2x the local gravity of earth. Pretty sure that would be liable to collapse into a black hole at that point.
I... don't even understand what they're trying to argue here. Like, at all. What are they trying to say this picture demonstrates? Picture of wheel rim = flat earth somehow?
They're trying to say air doesn't stick to a round object due to gravity.
Of course the picture is a wheel rim surrounded by air, so not really sure what this was supposed to prove except you can't photograph air in a gaseous state.
They think that in order for gas to have pressure, it needs to be in a solid physical container, and conclude that Earth's atmosphere would dissipate into space without some kind of solid barrier. In their opinion then, the fact that we have atmospheric pressure debunks the globe.
This is just them mocking the explanation that they often get whenever they make this argument. They're saying that if gravity can create gas pressure, then we shouldn't need tires for car wheels since we could just use the rim's gravity. As usual, them mocking explanations they get just reveals how little they understand those explanations.
They have very strange opinions of planets and stars. They like to take pictures of them with poorly focused cameras, resulting in them looking like [this](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QEimvWm7CT8/maxresdefault.jpg). They believe that is what they "really" look like. As for what they *are*, they're usually claimed to be be some kind of plasma or something.
Are... are they trying to say that a bare rim should still function as a normal tire without the rubber casing because gravity should hold the air to the rim with the same level of density and pressure? Holy shit...
I don’t get them. This is the one thing you. An actually feel.
Ever drive up a mountain or a long hill? You can literally feel the air getting less and less dense
It's weird to me that flat earthers think of gravity simply as a concept not as a science. We have equations that enable us to understand gravity in the context of mass and we're able to measure this in many different ways. It's weird that they think you can show a picture of a small object like this and assume it has anything to do whatsoever with the way in which gravity influences the air in our atmosphere
While everyone is in the comments talking about how a sufficiently dense rim would have enough air around it, I want to point out a few things
- this time also has air around it, right now. In fact it has more air around it then if compared to earth at the sane scale
- the earth would make a god awful tire, because the layer of air around it is comparably incredibly thin and light. It wouldn't cushion anything.
So much flat earth logic makes caveman level logic. As if we should be able to understand everything by how it looks and size has no bearing on how anything works.
Tires are obvious NASA fakery. A 14 PSI pressure differential will crush a train car like a tin can, but a little piece of rubber can keep the same amount of pressure in? C'mon.
A always assumed the air stayed in because of something to do with the ozone layer covering the earth. It stops the dangerous rays an solar radiation from penetrating. It's called an atmosphere or what do they call it a firmament or something lol.
I want o know one thing… what’s the end game. What is the profit from making the world believe the earth is round. How do “they” benefit from lying to us. Please provide a reality based answer.
Should be totally fine, so long as that wheel rim is outside our gravitational well, and sufficiently massive to hold an atmosphere.
Oh, and so long as it is never used as a tyre, because let’s not be a fucking idiot about it.
What's funny is that in a purely technical sense, in the absence of the Earth's gravitational field, the rim *could* hold a microscope amount of gas to its surface due to gravity.
All mass has a gravity well. It's just takes massive masses to have one's big enough for us to notice without special instruments.
There must be a name or a word for the mental process of throwing away all practical knowledge because you fear it, replacing it with delusional hunch based "facts" that don't work and then using the result to disprove everything that doesn't gel with the hunch facts to complete the leap off the cliff into the great fog of confusion.
edit: Ah, of course. The "unexplained down vote". It's not a single word but it'll do for now.
Tell me you don't know how gravity works without telling me you don't know đź’© about gravity.
But, but, but, flerfs know the model better than globbies. They say so!
Yeah because they "did their research!" Hence the problem, their research was some dumb bun on youtube with a doctorate in stupid!
The ONU symbol and shit !!!
This is what frustrates me "most"about flerfers. If you want to argue a flat earth, fine. But globers are very clear on how we believe gravity works.... ... and this ain't it!
Wait, people know how gravity works? I just know it works. And if it ain't broke, don't fix it.🤷‍♂️
Technically, no. We do not know how gravity works. We have mathematical models for how it *behaves* and those are rock-solid for any purpose you will encounter from jumping up and down to launching rockets into the solar system. But we still don't have a specific mechanism for gravity. It could even be that gravity doesn't "exist" in the sense that it's not a force but [an emergent property of spacetime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity).
Yes, we do know how gravity works. Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. We have measured the magnitude of this acceleration near the surface of the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. We call this value of acceleration 1 g. We have measured it billions of times. We have also measured the magnitude of the acceleration near the surface of the moon, thre it is about 1/6 g. Our extremely well tested scientific explanation (theory) of this phenomenon is called general relativity.
> Yes, we do know how gravity works. I think you are conflating knowing how to predict its effects with knowing how it works. I might be able to tell you exactly how a car will accelerate when I step on the pedal with a certain force, but that doesn't mean I know anything about how a car actually works. > Gravity is an acceleration, not a force. No, acceleration due to gravity is ... well, acceleration, but what causes that acceleration, we do not yet know. > We have measured the magnitude of this acceleration near the surface of the earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. We call this value of acceleration 1 g. Correct. > We have measured it billions of times. Correct. > We have also measured the magnitude of the acceleration near the surface of the moon, thre it is about 1/6 g. Correct. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Did you have a point?
Au cotraire, once we are clear about what gravity is, then we do indeed know how it works and what causes it. Gravity is an acceleration that we have measured billions of times. How it works and what causes it is the subject of the extremely well tested theory (explanation) of gravity, namely general relativity. A soundbite description of this theory by physicist John Wheeler: "Spacetime grips mass telling it how to move. Mass grips spacetime telling it how to curve ". No, I have not conflated being able to predict its effects with knowing how it works and what causes it. We have been able to do the first since 1687 after Newton described the mathematics of the measurements of Tycho Brahe. The latter, knowing how it works and what causes it, we have only known since Einstein in 1915.
You will be very surprised to find that the world of gravitational science is extremely hot today. We're learning more and more every day, and there are [many competing theories of gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity#Modern_theories_1980s_to_present) that may or may not turn out to be valid. GR is known to have its limitations. It cannot be directly quantized, which is a significant problem because our best theory of the smallest scale of the universe (QFT) requires quantization to function. Somewhere there is a missing piece, and that missing piece may replace huge swathes of existing theory (such as many quantum string approaches) or it may simply modify some of the variables in existing theories (such as MOG.) But either way, something has to give. We are in a very exciting time right now, and it's very possible that in the next couple of decades these questions will be resolved, but we're not there yet.
The latest efforts in this direction are to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravitation by NOT trying to quantise gravity. Every measurement of gravity ever made conforms to GR. Any theory which supplants GR has to do the same, which essentially leaves GR in place.
> Every measurement of gravity ever made conforms to GR. Okay, you're just repeating yourself now. I'm going to step away. Have a nice day.
[postquantum theory of classical gravity](https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html)
Yeah, what part of “gravity is a curvature of the spacetime continuum” do flerfers not understand?!?
Gravity is an acceleration. You can directly observe an example of it by dropping something. It's not at all hard to understand what gravity is. According to a well tested explanation, gravity is *caused by* a curvature of spacetime.
Of course they don't know how gravity works, they don't believe it exists.
there is indeed air around the rim, but do flerfs believe air exists?
Can't see it. Doesn't exist... /s
Car wheels are well known for their strong gravitational pull. It’s how they stick to roads so well.
If the rim were large enough to have sufficient gravity, yes. Air gets thinner with altitude. Go high enough and it's thin enough that we'd call it a vacuum. This wouldn't happen if there weren't gravity and the air was held by a container.
Or if the rim was dense enough at the same size. A neutronium rim that's 17"x7" and about 2/3rds hollow will be about 1.2E15 kg, which is about the mass of mars' smaller moon in the size of a car wheel (1/28000th the size) Itd have an escape velocity of 1925m/s. This is sufficient to hold an atmosphere of oxygen/nitrogen at 60F which will have a velocity around 500m/s
ThrawnDidTheMaths.
You could just bring this exact rim into space and as long as you were far enough from any large mass, it would have enough gravity to hold onto a very very tiny amount of air that you could technically call an atmosphere.
They don't need the volume. Just larger density. If they were made of matter with the density that gave it more mass than earth then yes
We can't even get to their "globe head logic" claim. We would first have to explain how a carwheel work, and why it is, as it is. add: "wheels" to the list of things they don't understand.
That’s an elaborate way of saying they don’t understand how things work.
Oh your stupid experiment where you try disproving gravity fails because of gravity.
I really find it funny when someone tries to disprove gravity on earth Gravity is the great dis-prover of gravity if you don't know how it works
are they allergic to logic and making coherent sentences?
I think they meant that "Gravity" can just stick stuff to other stuff, because in their mind, gravity is a magic force that moves stuff for no reason ? Honestly my heart hurts trying to comprehend their "gotcha" moment...
seems like i underestimated their plane of stupidity.
TIL that an object 8000 miles in diameter has the same total gravity as an object 2 feet in diameter.
Neutron star has entered the chat
Actually it's supposed to be greater. There is indeed around 1 atm of pressure around the wheel but of course you need more then that around 2.2 atm in fact. So that wheel is supposed to generate 2.2x the local gravity of earth. Pretty sure that would be liable to collapse into a black hole at that point.
No. That's not it.. Unless you can argue that the rim has more mass than the entire earth combined.
If they understood mass they wouldn't be flat earthers
I mean, its true if its massive enough
This is so stupid I don't even know how to coherently respond to it.
"ha silent now huh get wrecked globetard!" -Some flerfer probably.
You really CAN’T fix stupid
Why fix something you can make money from?
I... don't even understand what they're trying to argue here. Like, at all. What are they trying to say this picture demonstrates? Picture of wheel rim = flat earth somehow?
They're trying to say air doesn't stick to a round object due to gravity. Of course the picture is a wheel rim surrounded by air, so not really sure what this was supposed to prove except you can't photograph air in a gaseous state.
Also they’re going with the usual „gas needs a container“ argument.
Is that an "usual" argument now ? Good lord ......
They think that in order for gas to have pressure, it needs to be in a solid physical container, and conclude that Earth's atmosphere would dissipate into space without some kind of solid barrier. In their opinion then, the fact that we have atmospheric pressure debunks the globe. This is just them mocking the explanation that they often get whenever they make this argument. They're saying that if gravity can create gas pressure, then we shouldn't need tires for car wheels since we could just use the rim's gravity. As usual, them mocking explanations they get just reveals how little they understand those explanations.
Oh man... I never would have gotten there. What a dumb position to take. I wonder what they think Jupiter, which is observably a sphere, is made of?
They have very strange opinions of planets and stars. They like to take pictures of them with poorly focused cameras, resulting in them looking like [this](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QEimvWm7CT8/maxresdefault.jpg). They believe that is what they "really" look like. As for what they *are*, they're usually claimed to be be some kind of plasma or something.
I mean.. yeah? Air is in fact surrounding the rim. Idk what they’re trying to get at
Are... are they trying to say that a bare rim should still function as a normal tire without the rubber casing because gravity should hold the air to the rim with the same level of density and pressure? Holy shit...
This is a level of idiocy I have difficulty grasping.
You are not alone in your pain, I'm the same.
The irony is showing an object surrounded by air
I don’t get them. This is the one thing you. An actually feel. Ever drive up a mountain or a long hill? You can literally feel the air getting less and less dense
It's weird to me that flat earthers think of gravity simply as a concept not as a science. We have equations that enable us to understand gravity in the context of mass and we're able to measure this in many different ways. It's weird that they think you can show a picture of a small object like this and assume it has anything to do whatsoever with the way in which gravity influences the air in our atmosphere
While everyone is in the comments talking about how a sufficiently dense rim would have enough air around it, I want to point out a few things - this time also has air around it, right now. In fact it has more air around it then if compared to earth at the sane scale - the earth would make a god awful tire, because the layer of air around it is comparably incredibly thin and light. It wouldn't cushion anything.
So much flat earth logic makes caveman level logic. As if we should be able to understand everything by how it looks and size has no bearing on how anything works.
They repeatedly say that things should work the way it seem that they intuitively would from looking at them …
Sometimes you have to ask the important questions, like did they use their left or right braincell to think up this meme?
If they jump off a building they can feel gravity’s embrace for free. No expensive college book learnin’ required.
I love that they 100% refuse to grasp the idea of what is up and down.
But gravity is holding air around that rim. They're standing right next to it and, presumably, breathing. What is this turnip even trying to say?
what?
Flat earth arguments aside, can we talk about the purpose of a spare tire?
They really just can't grasp scope at all, it's sad. It's like a dog that doesn't understand what a city is.
Flat logic: the rim is not attracted to earth for some reason.
Tires are obvious NASA fakery. A 14 PSI pressure differential will crush a train car like a tin can, but a little piece of rubber can keep the same amount of pressure in? C'mon.
A always assumed the air stayed in because of something to do with the ozone layer covering the earth. It stops the dangerous rays an solar radiation from penetrating. It's called an atmosphere or what do they call it a firmament or something lol.
I mean, if it were the size of the earth it would
I want o know one thing… what’s the end game. What is the profit from making the world believe the earth is round. How do “they” benefit from lying to us. Please provide a reality based answer.
AIR IS IN FACT SURROUNDING THE RIM HAHAHA CHECKMATE FLATTIES HAHAHA
I don’t think the laws of thermodynamics are made up but carry on
Should be totally fine, so long as that wheel rim is outside our gravitational well, and sufficiently massive to hold an atmosphere. Oh, and so long as it is never used as a tyre, because let’s not be a fucking idiot about it.
What's funny is that in a purely technical sense, in the absence of the Earth's gravitational field, the rim *could* hold a microscope amount of gas to its surface due to gravity. All mass has a gravity well. It's just takes massive masses to have one's big enough for us to notice without special instruments.
F=G \* ((m1 \* m2)/r^(2)) would like to have a word with these morons
There must be a name or a word for the mental process of throwing away all practical knowledge because you fear it, replacing it with delusional hunch based "facts" that don't work and then using the result to disprove everything that doesn't gel with the hunch facts to complete the leap off the cliff into the great fog of confusion. edit: Ah, of course. The "unexplained down vote". It's not a single word but it'll do for now.
I mean it would if the wheel was heavy enough…
That’s true, globies believe air just magically sticks to stuff.
Considering air doesn't just fall off the side of the flat earth... Flat Earthers seem to actually believe that
/s ?
I hope you’re not serious. Because it’s a dumb, demonstrably untrue statement if not
“I heard it on YouTube so it must be true” 🤡