this is actually a debate that seems to cause issues

whether the word "gravity" refers to theories like einstein's and newtons, or if it refers to the observed fact that things fall

But... it can't?

You continually claim I'm missing the point but you're the one whose using ignorant of what gravity is described as in the globe model. This ignorance is leading to a false claim.

I’m sure you’ll get to the point eventually

I'm just stating that your description of gravity is inaccurate if you believe it to be compatible with the flat earth, which you've claimed.

you pseuds do love your self-satisfying buildup

look at him stroke that e-peen

what's wrong with constant downwards acceleration?

let him twist his nipples a little more first

Ah yes, you've got no real argument so you turn to ad homs. Should've expected that.

@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