Nathan Oakley is smarter

he is still stupid but at least he knows stuff

whatever you say

Alright I kinda get the density thing

he at least understands the model

But it does not explain anything concerning why objects fall down

Why not up?

altho Nathan Oakley did say that it dosnt make sense to divide meters by 1000 to be kilometers because why would you divide.it smaller to get larger units

<:lul:484994724118134784>

@Jazz the unanswered question...

https://youtu.be/Qa66P1kT7qU

Here is proof of what he said

@Jazz osmosis?

@kino osmosis?

What about osmosis

And things being "heavy" does not have anything to do with the density

It has something to do with the mass

why do water particles from more saturated part to the less saturated part?

why in that direction?

its like asking that question

Eh saturated?

Because it's equalising concentration

Yea

So the density will be equal

@kino why you avoiding the question?

lmao i didnt

just because you didnt understand the reference

However someting falling down does not make the density more equal

it doesnt mean i avoided lol

@kino Why things "fall down" and not up? with only density acting on the objects it should be matter....

@ShadoW (D.F.J) you tho you were only able to claim that the stuff gets attracted to the center of mass

you are yet to provide evidence of that

things don't get attracted to center.of.mass

@ShadoW (D.F.J) i explained why things why things fall down by using the osmosis reference

they do if it's far away or if it's spherical

You haven't answered me smh @kino or I don't understand your answer?

@kino what you didn't though

Yea but then how does an object falling down equal the density difference?

what density difference

Well

is this bout terminal velocity?