You tried to first prove it to me with the scientific method then went full red herring fallacy and derailed your thesis lol

A model that doesn't even recognize gravity

And is built totally ditching it's effect?

Look up what burden of proof means @Alpha

I know what burden of proof means

FALLACY REEEEEE
- ever heard of the "fallacy" fallacy? Just because you claim it follows a fallacy doesn't mean you refute it.

Why don't you prove it exists instead of shifting it on me to prove to you that it doesn't?

The concept of gravity is a simple solution. It explains a whole lot of stuff without jumping through hoops. It’s simple and clean and makes a whole lot of sense. The flat earth model that believes gravity doesn’t exist on the other hand has some acrobatic logic making twists and turns trying to explain every little thing with every little workaround possible.

Im just saying you can't expect people to prove the existance of something according to a model build around the premise that it doesn't exist

so balls floating in space that move on their own that are super large and distant all based on zero scientific evidence makes more sense?

False conclusion, things falls down therefore water stick on a sphere?

They just did? They proved it multiple times and yet you refute it because "fallacy lol"

Water is mass like everything else

You know that right?

Give me an irrefutable sound and valid premise with a conclusion or a scientific method article that explains it. Not that hard

Newton

Not an argument

If a sphere as big as earth sticks together then the water naturally would have stick to it as well?

I’m sure you follow that train of thought

Water is *part* of the sphere

Newton introduced the idea of gravity

it is mass

And also

https://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/users/gabor/black_holes/slide3.html

problems with newtons gravity

You're not giving me an explanation of why gravity would work. You're just assuming gravity already exists

Let me read that I'll go back to you

k

Nothing productive of this came, globe earthers just burden proof all the time or appeal to authority like '' NEWTON GRAVITY ''

Yeah so then we can agree that general relativity is accurate then

I’m afraid you’re pulling your “burden of proof” shenanigans

You’re the one demanding scholarly articles at your beck and call

Newton gravity has problems that is pretty well known now

All you’ve done is ask for proof while providing nothing of your own

Not just no proof

You’ve not even made any points really

General relativity makes little to no sense

@Arachidamia Except the fact you were first proving me that gravity exist then told me why would it not exist? Congratulations, you have successfully derailed the convo. Why can't you prove it with the scientific method if it's that simple?

How so

I never said it was simple

:^)