sure 🤷🏻‍♀️

You can't appeal to classical mechanics and relativity. Classical mechanics relies on fixed points in space.

Your model is incoherent.

And yet it is perfectly fine for building bridges

@♡ sonia ♡ Love is good

Models being 'incoherent' only makes sense if the claim is that the model is universal

ok then?

That's called pragmatism. You're admitting that your model is false, but useful.

No one these days claims the universality of classical mechanics

They say 'for X situation classical mechanics works'

Right, but the Cavendish experiment relies on classical mechanics.

So it's incomplete.

Er... not necessarily

The proof is insufficient.

That's the case Aaron is making.

The errors between the gravitation from Newton's law of gravity and relativity are going to be extraordinarly small when you are applying it to the cavendish experiment

globe

These errors work for most of the planets behaviors too

Only some funky behavior of the orbit of mercy is noticably affected

And we are talking about BIG masses here

where as the cavendish experiment is what

50 lb lead balls?

idk

wait

is the earth only flat

I mean, is there a different proof that we go off of for gravity?

or every planet

its flat and stationary

planets are lights

moon too

not solid objects

I'm responding to Aaron.

so

Lol

is mars

a light

yes

them moon is a light

If I had to guess Aaron might be right. But hes still a cunt. Theres better ways to debate without coming across as an insufferable autist

Moon is light

yes