@raspberry if you're going to cite gravity then it's as a theory.

still waiting for your argument that you have written an essay building up to

if gravityis a downward force... why does a Helium balloon rise?

sure, i'm fine with either, it's just that people have used both and confuse them in the past @Shadow✓

My argument is that your claim is wrong because your idea of gravity is wrong. Not that hard to see.

The helium balloon displaces an amount of air (just like the empty bottle displaces an amount of water). As long as the weight of the helium plus the balloon fabric is lighter than the air it displaces, the balloon will float in the air. It turns out that helium is a lot lighter than air.

Basically, gravity pulls harder on the denser object, so the lighter one “floats”.

@raspberry if you call gravity the actual phenomena of objects falling that's rather incorrect. Since usually gravity is described as the explanation and cause for the observation.

i thought that that gravity was a DOWNWARD FORCE? why doesnt the helium go down then?

:/

relative density and buoyancy are consequences of things falling imo

here, since you’ve completely missed the socratic challenge i have presented and have chosen instead to focus on my comment which should be irrelevant to the discussion, let me help you. “Gravity cannot work on anything but a sphere because...”

its because gravity isnt real at all DENSITY is the effect you are looking at

@Shadow✓ i usually use it the way you do too. other globers tho have mixed it up, and this caused a huge debate on another server

@raspberry I honestly think that's ignorance more than anything. In physics at least gravity is usually reffering to the cause.

@A Search for Roche's Rifle things can fall without a need for gravity

ofc they can

even a downwards force doesn't mean there has to be gravity

“Gravity cannot work on anything but a sphere because...”

gravity still IS ONLY a theory folks

@Morning Dew I was pointing out that your conclusion was derived from ignorance. But if your ad homs were calling for me to explain then Alright.

“Things can only go down on a sphere because...”

@Shadow✓ i pretty much agree with you here xp. i could give you their arguments, "theories use the word 'gravity' even when the theory changes," but, yeah, it's still talking about the theory

Gravity will cause anything of sufficient mass to collapse into a sphere

Gravity on a flat earth would cause it to collapse into a globe

oboy shadow you need help

THERE WE GO. was that so hard? was your essay before that really necessary?

collaspe into a globe? thats just nutts

i hope you at least climaxed

@raspberry well newtonian gravity never really gave a cause for it

@Morning Dew do you have a pic of a laser curving upwards? @A Search for Roche's Rifle

@A Search for Roche's Rifle it's not, since that's what gravity in the globe model does

@Shadow✓ yeah

or maybe, and roll with me on this one, gravity, as explained by the globe model could only work on a globe, but the existence of a similar phenomenon could work on a flat earth given the idea that the flat earth had properties which made it impossible to “break into a sphere,” such as, idk, a God holding it together. as you say, you have a phenomenon, and you explain it with a math problem, but that is not the only explanation for that phenomenon. there is more than one way to add up to 9

yes

you presuppose that only a round ball with a 25k circumference could create the 9.8 figure, to which I would say, there could be potentially infinite explanations for that phenomenon, you just HAPPEN to have found one of them. this is a common fallacy i see from your types

its as Tesla said, your math could or could not be related to reality

👌

theoretically, if the ice wall and stuff is infinite, then gravity would work on a flat earth, as all forces will cancel out apart from down

or a spagetti monster happens to create the phenomenon with trillions of invisible omnipresent noodle arms

that can be the only rational explanation