So

Even atop mt everest.

Yes you can.

Through a microscope.

Unless its NASA one

@🎃Oakheart🎃 downward acceleration

Shoot

Yes but the difference is that spaceships = fake.

Well actually

It would be much harder to fake microscopes considering people made them long ago and there's no reason to fake them.

Not real.

ISS = on the ground.

CGI?

*Partially quoting Einstein*
Einstein said there is no such thing as a gravitational force. Mass is not attracting mass over a distance. Instead, it’s curving spacetime. If there is no force, then how do you explain acceleration due to gravity? Objects should accelerate only when acted upon by a force; otherwise they should maintain a constant velocity.

Ever heard of CGI.

Lmao

I'm guessing everyone just brushed over my question

CGI can do this

So explain to me why CGI can't make one globe planet?

That looks pretty realistic right there.

And NASA has **Billions**

You underestimate their fakery.

So about things falling

Why at different rates

Based on location?

Buoyancy.

Farther from the sea and higher up.

Even in a vacuum?

Fake NASA vaccuum.

No

Ok so you expect objects to float in a vaccuum?

Nope

But they should fall, right?

you just trust everything they tell you

If they falls as an irreducible quirk of the universe

It should be a constant rate, right?

9.8 m/s^2

I'm talking from the perspective of someone who has done acceleration measurements

<@657953077655240704> nice

@🎃Oakheart🎃 so why do they fall in a near vacuum?