like evolution

Engineers have to take it into account every single day when they’re building stuff

always a missing link, like "gravitrons"

If they don’t a building might collapse

Or a bridge and so on

because of mass and density?

Because of the constant force of gravity that is acting on all things

They account for that wen they build skyscrapers

You have to know the loads of all materials

why does a helium balloon rises?

The stresses

Because helium is less dense than air

👍

why does a stone fall

And it rises to a certain altitude and then it stops rising

So its still attracted to the earth

Drop a helium balloon in a vacuum chamber and it falls

because the density of the small rubber is bigger then the full balloon

dude

space is a vacuum is the third debate you're mixing in

The rubber falls back down dude helium balloons expand like crazy

And then they burst

why does a stone fall?

Because it has weight

so why does there have to be gravity?

it's object vs surrounding

Because weight is mass times gravity

You wouldn’t have any weight without it

dude what gravity, you just said thing rise or fall because of density

No i didn’t

I said weight

or weight

Its not the same lol

meh

No really

weight, mass, density

Yes

can be confusing yes

but dude

it's a useless debate

And object can be less dense but have more mass

if done many of these I tell ya...

Then a denser object with less mass

Gravity wise

yeah I get that

And the mass is used to calculate the weight not the density

and if you operate underwater objects behave different again

Fun fact about water

because it's object vs surrounding, no magical centre force pull needed

There’s a pressure gradiant and a density gradiant

Only the pressure gradiant goes all the way to the bottom and the density gradiant stops at -1000 feet

After that its the same density all the way to the bottom

But the pressure still increases because of the weight

my iq can't handle that, I just don't see a curve and roll with it

Lol okay

but hey, have fun debating flattards, always interesting

So if you see a curve then you’re convinced then

yup

A curve left to right or curving away from you?

I mean there’s so much to find

if we where on a sphere, we would have some decent photos already, not the photoshopped ones

or Livestream without fisheye lenses

Would you accept a high altitude balloon footage?

From ground to sky

With no fisheye lens

yup, it's always straight 30 miles up

Brb

dude it's straight 300 miles up..

and don't give me a vid like the Sunrays ones... don't like another visual argument...

https://i.imgur.com/OSbXnt8.gif these are some snapshots of it. I can’t post any pictures but look up “lensdistortion” you have barreldistortion and pincushion distortion. And the way to detect this is watching the horizon go up and down in the frame. If the horizon changes shape its a fisheyelens. It the horizon stay the same both above and below the center of frame its not distorted. And here the full raw unedited video. You can see the horizon looks flat from the ground and starts to curve ever so slightly as it goes up https://youtu.be/2RATP53l9MA

Mind you this is from a flat earther.

see, most seem flat too me

Yeah you’re not expecting to see much curve to begin with the earth is gigantic

You really have to look or in this case compare it to a straight line

and in the last vid the Earth was concaved with the wobble..

still a distorted lens

When it’s wobbling really hard that’s just the camera not being able to process the image

Look when its more stable but still wobbling up and down

Then you don’t see any change

what about the pictures of beyondhorizons.eu or the cities photographed while it supposed to be meters under the horizon

Math says its not a globe

Unless you assume it is and add your mirage math

Yeah that’s a never ending discussion you have all kinds of refraction you have looming which brings object up over the horizon and you have sinking as well making object dissapear bottom up

I don’t like those kinds of topics

Too many variables

and look into daytime moon crescents

Moonlight isn't the sun's reflection

very interesting

Oh there’s actually a really fun and simple test you can do with the daytime moon

....

Sometimes it works out and sometimes its off a bit

If you hold a ball up to the moon as close to it as you can. You will see that the terminatorline (light to shadow) always matches that on the moon.

@zep tepi you cant always do that

On a clear day when both the sun and moon are out

Yes but...

?

I will try if there is a waning or waxing daytime crescent and the sun is opposite of the moon if my ball has half a shadow on it...

👍🏻

I can already give you an answer..

I've got a good observation from morning time when the sun was below the horizon (was just getting light) to the east rising....the moon was to the west about 45 degrees above horizon. I documented the moon light was left upper when it should of been left lower