proof density alone can't make things fall/sink

oh

yeah sure

https://gyazo.com/74ed941ed3bcfd7803e11de0469702d9 I apply gravity to the situation, boom. See, water seeks to be level, not flat. It simply means it tries to spread equally all over.

Ah, in case you want some math of why it happens, here it is, with vector visualization and graph. https://gyazo.com/27631aad8b2743e3e61f56680678c9c1

Notice that one of the drops is kinda orbiting around, but hitting the floor. I've also heard a few peeps say that orbits make no sense, even with gravity. Well, here's an orbit with vector visualization with vertical and horizontal components. https://gyazo.com/40f8fa27600f6719403ad151ee48b95a

If you do the math too, it works just right. - Oh and also, buoyancy is NOT antigravity. Here's 3 objects, each of them have the exact same mass (and therefore the same weight). The only thing that changes is their volume. https://gyazo.com/2fdf4732e6e44682c31b405037803045

As you can see, all of them have the exact same vector for gravity. But the buoyant force( which is always directly opposite to gravity's) counteracts it. - Here are 3 objects, the exact same, submerged in water, but without gravity. https://gyazo.com/65c4e72c73445bd76759860b95f02a48

Hm, there seems to be a problem... nothing sinks nor floats. That's because gravity is required for buoyancy to exist. Even though the object on the left is less dense than the water, and the 2 on the right are less dense. Huh hold on Notice how the force of buoyancy only depends on the volume, and not the mass. 2 objects with the same volume have the same buoyancy (air lift) https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/562611254443769863/562709851252326418/unknown.png?width=423&height=450

Now, depending on mass, the force of gravity will change. This is why density is related with it indirectly.

im not proving gravity

im saying that density alone cannot make things fall/rise

Balloons!

still, density alone cannot make things **fall**, like we do

there must be a pressure gradient generated by weight

and as shown in the proof, just having objects submerged in a fluid won't make anything have weight

@shiro there are pictures of earth... a lot

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
This satellite in a geosynchronous orbit takes a picture every 10 minutes. Since July 6th, 2015. 1,966,991 minutes have elapsed since it started. That's 196,699 pictures approximately. Oh... obviously somebody is awake 24/7, photoshopping pictures every 10 minutes, since 2015, because the earth just can't be a globe. Right...
Also, this debunks the claim that there are no recent pictures.
There's literally a picture every 10 minutes.

That's a japanese sat btw

@A Search for Roche's Rifle see above too

@Human Sheeple light rays in your GIF bend the wrong way

https://gyazo.com/9e817217a1f49a6e93057ae08ecc3766

As the light rays enter denser air (higher index of refraction), light rays bend towards the normal, not away from it.

The GIF has denser air at the top, and less dense air at the bottom, the complete opposite of reality.

And yes, I am speaking about this gif: https://images-ext-2.discordapp.net/external/WgvIWEmIb3c2aspLX1j4molVxS1CrkFXFUfgg_ZwQGM/https/cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/419246750260264960/468674277009260555/Sunset.gif

Vacuum's don't suck.

Very **very** common misconception.

Vacuum's don't do a thing. However, some other gas may expand to fill the vacuum, if allowed to do so.

Welp, time to make a simulation...

I have some gas surrounding a sphere with gravity.

https://gyazo.com/8ce843b3ffab9afb15ab69ed0186c6b3

It stays, but when I disable gravity, it expands as you said.

The simulation shows that vacuum can exist next to an atmosphere. Really, basic physics.

@Citizen Z You should go check out <#538929818834698260> 😉

There's a big lie there, smh.

And I mean, if you really hate simulations that much, I am doing an experiment with a few peeps from different places, to determine if the FE model matches sun observations.

So all of this is a lie then?
https://gyazo.com/f4d38369b78266137a33dddf3713f29e

@Citizen Z They are bending. However, I can see you didn't even read.
**The light rays are bending the __wrong way__**

As the light rays enter denser air (higher index of refraction), light rays bend towards the normal, not away from it.
The GIF Human Sheeple sent has denser air at the top, and less dense air at the bottom, the complete opposite of reality.

Yup

Whoever made it, either flipped the indexes of refraction, or flipped snell's law.

@Citizen Z n1 has a higher density in that diagram

shown by this image:

You can tell, because the light there is moving towards the normal.
If it were lower, it'd move AWAY

@Citizen Z You are attempting to reverse snell's law. Hmmm

Here, https://gyazo.com/13226bb6391e9986131816b270b3c25c
Every result shows that

How about... a real test? Lasers and water of course.
http://tsgphysics.mit.edu/pics/N%20Refraction/N3/N3_3.JPG

another one http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3322205092_8bb42a8c64.jpg

And another http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qap4WAjjvaY/TuFlwU1903I/AAAAAAAABWY/AQ3lCcwDxxo/s1600/Snells_7380.jpg

Oh, and one showing what you claim is what happens. Except that light is going into a lower density medium. But in the atmosphere, the sun's rays would be entering higher density, which is what is shown in all of the other pictures.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2kBOqfS0nmE/hqdefault.jpg

In conclusion, that GIF is wrong.

That's literally what I said, Snell's law.

In that diagram however, n1 has a higher index of refraction than n2.

The opposite is true in the atmosphere

How do I know? When a light ray enters a higher index of refraction, it bends towards the normal.
When a light ray enters a lower index of refraction, it bends **away** from the normal.

Light there, is bending away from the normal, showing that n2 has a lower index.

I have reasons to doubt that you are even reading my arguments.

🤔

this nickname, smh

👌

how was that not deleted by the bot..

The bot deletes my messages whenever they have more than 2 paragraphs. lol

Today, I started an experiment.
Every hour, I took measurements on the sun's angle above the horizon, and plotted them into the following graph (blue line) accordingly.
The red line is the predicted angle using the globe earth.
The green line is the predicted angle using the flat earth.
Since I cannot assume the height of the sun in FE, I added a slider to the graph.

As you can see, the measurements so far (still making more) match the red line perfectly. However, it doesn't matter what I set the flat earth sun's height to, it won't match my observations.

https://gyazo.com/185b8ae413d7545012cd7dad3817a9ea

<#538929818834698260> killing FE atm

I'll take the next measurement in about 20 minutes.

@Seeker of Truth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp7Lic5vh9E

you set it, I didn't

or maybe someone else, not sure

but it's a nickname

meh

anyway, that video.. is beauty

perspective

And I mean, I know the video's gonna be denied.

It doesn't involve math, simply demonstrations.

knew it ._.

you totally watched that 18m video in less than 3 minutes, and know it's fake or something

so? what's your counter-argument?

then prove that the results are faked... something, you can't just ignore it, show me it's wrong

It doesn't even involve math, it's easy to understand.

.

hi

@❖ Swiftstrike (DoQ) ❖ The FE model is very different from what you think. VSauce didn't address the real model, it was just a thought experiment on how gravity would work in flat earth.

@SonyPS2 You won't get a consistent answer.

Density, buoyancy, magnetism, universal acceleration (the latter is weird and a bit meh)

nope

He's not.

There's literally nothing in his hand.

Notice, as he is flipping, he grabs the guy's leg, and helps him rotate.

Then he supports his back so he doesn't keep spinning.

That's just digital compression. Similar to datamoshing. It disappears for a bit, but if the wire moves, the frames will update.

p frames, iframes, and bframes

https://gyazo.com/85c807ee70605dac86faa78ce4f1cd2b
Notice the big artifact there, where the wire is supposed to be, there's a weird pattern. Video compression.
Also notice how the video in general has those big, weird artifacts everywhere, with colors changing abruptly, and very pixelated. This is just video compression.

I suggest you do some research on video compression methods, specially b, i, and p frames.

he reason you see details on the top, is because the shirt is not compeltely flat there, and there are a lot of shadows and stuff. However, at the bottom, lighting is regular, and video compression will blend it all into a single color.

and ok

Finding a video will be hard of course.

Because I can't just google "wire disappearing by video compression" and expect to get an example.

I can get indirect proof. Other things happening, not exactly wires.

I see a reflection.

That's also why the reflection does not move, even though he rotated this head.

Tbh, I am unable to resolve anything out of the relfection.