You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Take that very same statement and apply it to up and down instead of east and west.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
Then maybe you'll see why this "density" argument is stupid.
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
Can you please take a minute to explain how your idea of "weight" is different from the average flat earther's concept of "density"?
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".
It is the interplay/relationship of that weight, and the weight of the media that it displaces - aka archemides principle. If (and only if) the weight of the object is heavier than the media it displaces, then it falls. Otherwise it floats or ascends.
Look as politely as i can say this... You don't understand physics
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
and your entire argument is built on sophistry.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
I dont plan on ever convincing you.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
So can i just change the subject for a sec to WHY...
Sure, if you wish.
WHY is the earth flat?
Who said the earth was flat?
Why is it being covered up? Who stands to gain? And what fo they stand to gain?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
How was the planet created if not from gravity?
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
And are all celestial bodies flat?
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?
You completely misunderstand. You are operating under the false impression that in order to have a differing view to yours, you must think yourself some sort of "genius". Nothing could be further from the truth.
Being wrong and/or misunderstanding what i'm saying does not make you dumb or me some sort of genius by comparison.
Yes, as i said - if there was no force then there would be no down - at all. It just so happens that there IS a force, and in the direction we arbitrarily named down, which we call weight. Weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter. It is not imbued by magical "fields". If you still don't understand - please ask questions! If you disagree, please try to do so using specifics and - even better - examples!
I'm not making a density argument. In many ways I'm explaining it, and why your "debunk" is nonsensical - but what i'm really doing is sharing my view, and my conclusions from a lot of research on the subject.
If you truly wish to learn about my perspective, it will take time - but i assure you that we will get there eventually. You only need to be earnest and continue the conversation! Ask questions!
Sure! And please feel free to ask any other questions you may have.
First, i should clarify that there aren't really any flat earthers (average or otherwise) - just agents and products of a heavily advertised (i.e. heavily funded) psyop.
Second, i should clarify that "weight" is not my idea either. In terms of normal/colloquial meaning and use (going back millennia) my definition for weight is identical. In terms of the use of the word in physics, i use two phrases :
effective weight - The normal weight we all know and love. It is the weight of the objects measured on a scale, and includes the buoyant force.
intrinsic weight - The weight of the object without the buoyant force. The intrinsic weight of an object is directly related to the amount of matter in it, and generally does not change. Ex. a floating dirigible which weighs nothing on a standard scale still has the same intrinsic weight it did when it was in pieces waiting to be assembled.
Many i have encountered say things like : gravity is just density. Although generally true, I think the biggest problem with that statement is the frequent lack of further explanation. A more accurate phrasing is that "gravity, the phenomenon of falling, is just what happens when an object weighs more than the media it displaces".
Sort of.
It is the interplay/relationship of that weight, and the weight of the media that it displaces - aka archemides principle. If (and only if) the weight of the object is heavier than the media it displaces, then it falls. Otherwise it floats or ascends.
Believe me, the feeling is mutual. But it is not just knowledge of physics that you lack, but knowledge of its history. You can't hope to really understand the teachings now unless you have knowledge of where they came from, and how they were derived.
No. It's built on physics, and it isn't an argument - just my perspective.
Good! We should never seek to convince [aka manipulate], we should seek to learn and share what we learn.
Sure, if you wish.
Who said the earth was flat?
What are you talking about? Who in the world are you talking to? As i said before, while discussing with me - try to ignore the other voices and focus on mine instead ;)
If you want to know/understand my perspective, simply ask - but don't foolishly assume you already know because you spoke to someone else!
In general, if the world is flat then nothing is being covered up. Humanity requires no help in order to be consistently stupid and wrong as it historically always is.
However, if there were some sort of "conspiracy" to hide the true shape of the world i'm sure you could imagine plenty of reasons (things to gain) to do so if you set your mind to it.
Gravitation, not gravity. Gravity doesn't create; it is just the phenomenon of falling.
Gravitation cannot explain the creation of the planets or stars, it is a major problem for the standard cosmological model.
In general, recognizing your views (that we were conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood) are merely mythology/religion misrepresented as science doesn't automatically replace them with the correct answers (although that would be nice!). The planet was created, of that we can be assured. Did it, or life, create itself spontaneously the way our foolish ancestors believed and taught in a world demonstrably tending towards entropy? No, of course not.
They certainly appear that way from out vantage (as discs), but they are too far away to determine that scientifically. They are almost certainly not bodies, however - they are luminaries. What shape is a light (not the lightbulb)?