@Fading DAILY REMINDER GRAVITY IS A JOKE THAT CAN BE DEFEATED WITH A CHILDREN'S HELIUM BALLOON
1. CHANGING THE DENSITY OF THE BODY: https://imgur.com/a/uIY067X

I haven't found any balls on amazon

Unless there's something more to that gif are we just ignoring buoyancy?

might have to get it custom made

yeah that seems like something you'd have to commission

I'm not quite sure why flat earthers deny gravity. Gravity doesn't really change whether or not the earth is flat.

@Fading Sheeple got it wrong because adding balloons of the same mass and volume does not change the density

@Bannebie it depends on what their explanations for the other planets and things are

@Hamburger Guy That makes even less sense than I thought but okay

@Fading Except we don't know what planets are

@Hamburger Guy You don't understand negative relative density

@Bannebie My point is the source of denial of gravity can be dependent on the explanations for planets that flat earthers provide, which gravity might prove an issue with

@Fading LOGICAL FALLACY: SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: https://imgur.com/tSgXe5B

@Fading Burden of proof is on you to PROVE gravity

Then they should find a different explanation for planets, because gravity is simply an effect we observe

If I have a ton of balloons of the same density individually adding more balloons will not change the density

Do the math

You mean balloons filled with WATER?

right you won't take off no

The point is that we have no idea what planets are, so using gravity to explain anything about planets is senseless.

How would Helium be different

10 fold lower density than air

@Bannebie So just to be aware of what we're talking about here, you don't believe we know whether or not planets are large masses in space?

@Fading 😂

The light you see in the sky weighs NOTHING

it's light

Yes, I don't believe anyone knows what exactly planets are since there's no way we can directly observe their size or weight.

@Bannebie You can measure angular size

Yeah uh you can view their size with telescopes lol

Observable testable repeatable, that's science

Yes, but that's just the *apparent* size.

@Fading Where's the testable and repeatable part?

Oh whoopsie you forgot that bit didn't you

@Human Sheeple of what?

SCIENCE

Testable and repeatable part of what?

For the *actual* size you'd need the distance, which can't be measured

If I can SEE a streetlamp 10km away, am I allowed to say it's a burning ball of fusion gas? Or if I climbed that lamp post and disassembled it and tested what it's made of, would I find a bunch of LEDs?

Well we use planetary orbits combined with angular size to calculate a planet's true size

@Human Sheeple We're talking about different things, I'm just saying we have _some_ information of what a planet is whereas Bannebie appears to be claiming we have _none_