Any Flat Earthers here?

Just wondering if there are any other Flat Earthers on Veeky Forums..?

The following video deals with 21 of the most commonly asked Flat Earth questions, and is a great source of information for anyone sitting on the fence. One of the best Flat Earth videos I've seen, and I recommend all Flat Earthers on here share this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

Anyone who questions the mainstream narrative and the accepted model of the world around us is insulted, ridiculed and debate on this topic is viciously opposed. I find that rather ironic. In science, we never stop questioning things. A theory only stands until a better and more likely theory comes along. The most commonly accepted reasons why the Earth must be a spinning ball are debunked in this video. It's always the same, tired questions from people ignorant about the Flat Earth model and how or why it works. I hope this video will help educate people who have been conditioned since birth to believe in a falsehood.

youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WAm2cagpsnk
youtube.com/watch?v=XzYJ61EC9XI
youtube.com/watch?v=CSM1104MHqk
youtube.com/watch?v=3yfocAJJ4gE
youtube.com/watch?v=BOKHnSJZUds
youtube.com/watch?v=9zZo1hLPM38
youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU
digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z
youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroA
youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
youtube.com/watch?v=93iwouFwejE&feature=youtu.be
youtube.com/watch?v=jYC-7Oj9SBE
youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment#The_experiment
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lmao

fuck
off
back
to

We had this exact same thread yesterday.

Kill yourself and fuck off, not necessarily in that order.

So, getting past the usual narrow-minded ad hominem comments, are there any Flat Earthers here, or just anyone open-minded enough to discuss this topic in general? Would love to talk to follow FE's on Veeky Forums

"Why are you a retarded shithead?" doesn't seem to be in the 21 questions.

what the fuck happens when you go off the edge then?

>fellow FE's on Veeky Forums
You won't find those here. You can try this, though:

You want to know why you're being ridiculed? It's because, despite overwhelming evidence against your premise, you keep to it. Don't even start about science, you ignore the evidence regardless what science puts forth, like a religious zealot who is too scared that he could be wrong and has to adjust his worldview. So sad.

In any case, here is our great friend Martymer81 who will rape all your "arguments" in his debunking series of flat idiots.

youtube.com/watch?v=WAm2cagpsnk
youtube.com/watch?v=XzYJ61EC9XI
youtube.com/watch?v=CSM1104MHqk
youtube.com/watch?v=3yfocAJJ4gE
youtube.com/watch?v=BOKHnSJZUds
youtube.com/watch?v=9zZo1hLPM38

There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.

>tfw there are people who given all the power of today's technology can't replicate a simple fucking experiment

Why don't you just watch the video? The same tired questions you cretins keep asking have been explained over and over again. The very first question in the video deals with the "edge".

Can you see why the Flat Earth topic has been skyrocketing online over the past year and a half? Because this conditioned response only makes people want to research it further. Every single flat Earther starts out trying to debunk it. And every single one of them fails, and are forced to accept reality.


"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".

>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".
Speak for yourself.

It's turtles all the way down, isn't it? I knew it!

>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".
“Irony is wasted on the stupid”

Yeah, I've seen the "Flat Out Wrong" series. It's laughable. One of his first arguments claims that ships going over the horizon are caused by the curvature of Earth. He claims that when you zoom in with a camera, a ship that has disappeared over the horizon will not be brought back into view.

But the video I've posted has several clips of people zooming into ships that have long disappeared over the horizon, proving that this phenomenon is caused by PERSPECTIVE, and not the "curvature of the Earth".

Here. Skip to 7:20 of this video, and you'll see for yourself, several clips proving it: youtube.com/watch?v=k0xClWgidZU

Stop blindly believing what people tell you without investigation.

>Why don't you just watch the video?
Not that user, but I've tried. Guy shows this: digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z and says it's suspicious that it fits onto a globe. How is it like to be so braindead you don't understand the idea of a projection?

>There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.

The problem here is that you're drawing a conclusion based on a pre-conceived notion about your own intellectual superiority, and I'm afraid that doesn't hold any weight as a counter argument. Simply claiming that someone is stupid because their arguments are "wrong", without the slightest bit of evidence as to WHY those arguments are wrong, only proves your own stupidity.

Just because you can't rationally discuss this topic without resorting to playground-level insults, doesn't mean that everyone who can is just an idiot. If you have nothing to add, just say it. Don't get all pissy about it. Ignorance is no excuse for bad manners.

I doubt you've seen it. Part 2 debunks everything claimed in your bullshit video.

Spoiler: it's not perspective.

>digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z

You haven't tried at all. The video explains that the Flat Earth map was projected onto a globe, and not the other way around. The point is that the Flat Earth map didn't "copy" the globe as is commonly claimed.

If you're going to watch the video, watch the video. Don't simply turn off at the first thing you dislike, just because your ego can't take it. I don't mean that in a condescending way. You don't have to agree with every single point. There are 21 main points. You'll find some more reasonable than others, I'm sure.

I have seen it. It just uses the same tired old attempts that everyone else uses, and that have been debunked and explained so many times, in so many videos.

I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year. I've heard every argument, and I'm afraid that video was nothing new. Every attempt to debunk this fails. I know because I started out trying, just like everyone else who gets into this.

It is indeed perspective. The only people who argue otherwise are people who don't understand how perspective works. And that's understandable - it's not something we were taught growing up. We were all taught that ships going over the horizon is caused by the Earth's curvature, but as the video I posted proves, this is bullshit. Like I said, go to 7:20 of my video and you'll see those same ships coming back into view when zoomed in with a camera. Several clips, of several ships.

Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane.

You know how the ground appears to be going up, the farther away it is? Like it's touching the sky? Well the same is true of the opposite. If the ground comes up to meet the sky, then why doesn't the sky come down to meet the ground?

Use your head. This stuff isn't hard. It's really, really simply.

*really, really simple.

Oh boy, I provided you with evidence, 6 videos filled with counter arguments to be exact. Your argument about perspective is simply retarded if you knew anything about high-school geometry.

>Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane.
Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect. Seriously, high-school level geometry here, just triangles.

>I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year.
Did someone from church recommend this to you?

Hey buddy, why can't you see England from France then?

>inb4 fog
Can't even reach it with strong laser.

I made it through the flimed "incoming" sun (nevermind sun doesn't actually look like that irl, that's a fucking camera glare), the guy claiming that the core of the Earth is a speculation or a lie (seismological data, for fuck's sake) but apparently secret underground bases aren't, calling out NASA for photoshopping while showing a radar map of Venus (no shit it doesn't look like this in visible light) or obvious CGI Saturn, calling satellites a hoax (how does he think satellite TV or phones work?), and I finally gave up on GPS operating from cell phone towers. I'd say you owe me 15 minutes of my life, but then I remembered I'm on Veeky Forums.

>I have seen it.
Apart from you having seen it, have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong.

Source: youtube.com/watch?v=rvDqoxMUroA

People laugh at you because you are a bunch of conspiratards.

>Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect

Once again, if you would actually bother to watch the video, you would see how wrong you are. You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted claiming that in ALL the clips used by Flat Earther's to show that a ship reappears when zoomed in, simply aren't far enough away. But if you watch the video I posted, you will see SEVERAL clips in which ALL the boats are far BEYOND the horizon, and only re-appear back into view when zoomed into with a decent camera.

Stop trying to debate this using confirmation bias. Watch the video I posted. Specifically go to 7:20 of the video, and see the effect for yourself.

Unless you're saying that the horizon is only the horizon when you say it's the horizon. Like when a ship goes beyond a camera's zoom capacity.

>Did someone from church recommend this to you?

I don't go to church and I think Christian fundamentalists are morons. "God" is simply the Source of all that is, not some guy that sits on a cloud judging people. If you tell them this, they accuse you of "New Age Witchcraft". And yes, I know many Flat Earthers are Christians. They plague every moment they can get their claws into, I'm afraid.

Useless video. They're using a GoPro fish-eye lens, which makes straight lines look curved. Another tired attempt to debunk the Flat Earth that we've seen hundreds of times now.

it doesn't matter how high you go. The horizon is ALWAYS flat. Not only flat, but LEVEL. This is not consistent with a globe, and ONLY consistent with a flat plane. See for yourself:

youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

121,000 feet, and not one bit of curvature. Same with rocket videos from over 200,000 feet. Yet people claim the curvature is visible on Concorde, which only had an operating ceiling of 60,000 feet.

The math also adds up on a flat plane, using various experiments, assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter. Sunspots on clouds are solid evidence of a close Sun.

You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.

>You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted
Funny how you're parroting all your nonsense from your video. But hey, I don't have to parrot anything, maths doesn't lie after all.

Speaking of maths:
>have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong.
Show your work.

Show your work.

>assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter.
Alright mods, time to throw this trash thread away.

>You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.

I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera, I assumed you were referring to the fish-eye lens.

I've seen similar videos where you will see a convex curvature, and people say: "Hey look! See? The Earth is round!"... but when you keep watching the video, you also see a concave curvature, proving that the camera lens is what's causing this effect.

Everyday with this shit.

Except it doesn't, these are the functions that describe the sun's angular elevation during the northern summer solstice as a function of distance from the equator for both models. They only match in three points.

>shit cgi to start the video off
>starts talking about picture""""s"""" of earth when NASA doesn't even claim to own more than 1 photo
every other image of earth is photoshop as admitted by them and they don't even match up to each other....
>talks about gravity
doesn't exist
>flat earthers think that the earth is rising constantly
no

The fucking eggs on all your stupid goy faces soon

>I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera
The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to where you belong.

>muh graphs

>there was no curvature seen on the normal camera
Did you even look at the pic I posted? Go ahead and find concave curvature for the first camera.

1/10 for making me smile

>talks about gravity
Nigger, take your bait back to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>math also adds up
>complain when people use graphs to discuss the topic
Yeah no.

the best part of all this is that you're gonna find out how much of an absolute retard you were and you won't even have anyone to blame but yourself

Is there any thing anybody could say to you to make it more plausible that they actually believe in FET than they're either being trolls or taking devil's advocate just a little too far?

The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to where you belong.

I just did explain it. If you actually WATCH the video, you can see no curvature. Similar videos purporting to show the curvature of the Earth also reveal a concave (as well as convex) curvature, and it varies depending on the angle and rotation of the camera. Proving that a distorted image causes any curvature seen through a camera, whether it's convex or concave.

Watch the video I posted from 121,000 feet - no curvature is seen, because the camera's view is normal and no distortion of any kind is seen.

See for yourself, again: youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

>little piggy cam
And moments ago you where whining about gopro cameras, you're a fucking joke.

Oh, by the way, here's the landing of Little Piggy, clearly shows the curvature of the urf, lol
youtube.com/watch?v=93iwouFwejE&feature=youtu.be

Ya fucking dingus.

...

I didn't say there was a concave curvature in the first camera shot, I said there are other examples of similar videos showing this phenomenon.

There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere.

This must be you.

The curvature can't be detected from such a low altitude. Does nobody on here understand that images will be distorted depending on the camera lens?

Once again, watch this video, of a camera that has no distortion, and tell me if you can see the curvature: youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

>There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere.
So you are saying the screenshot I took is shopped? Pause the video at that exact moment and do the same thing I did in paint, then tell me there is no curvature.

It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from , that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.

Case dismissed.

Oh, you still haven't shown your maths about those claims earlier. Remember to show you work, buddy.

How come the surface of the earth is curved whenever I look down while in a plane? Why does having an alternate explanation automatically mean that alternate explanation is correct?

Debunk that I'm fucking a unicorn right now you fucking faggot

>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator
>gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it
>i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely
>no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force
>even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe"""""
>mass attracts mass
>a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance
>a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed
>helium balloons rise up even though they have mass
>b-but it's less dense
>I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't?

You know understand that things rise and fall because of density

how small do you think the earth is you mongoloid?

>one video with shitty quality
Fuck off, have ever been on a plane?

It was obviously meant to discredit the piggy cam as anything can be claimed from that footage, you fucking dumbass.

heh, my bad

The same thing could be said about you, retard. All you do is come with completely unrelated explanations for each and every phenomenon caused by a the earth being a globe each with that phenomenon being the only evidence for it. The evidence pointing to the earth being a globe is far more substantial than that of each individual property you claim is actually reponsible for these things.

Don't give us your "it just doesn't add up" hand-wavey bullshit. Give us the math. Or do you even know enough about physics to do that?

Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?

Serious question:

How do flat earthers explain Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere?

>It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from , that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.

Once again - here is what the surface of the Earth looks like, from 121,000 feet in a high altitude balloon, without any distortion of the image due to the camera, ie. no convex or concave curvature changing in rapid succession, like in other videos. Nobody has addressed this video yet, but keep parading other videos as "proof". Confirmation bias at its finest.

: youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

You see the way horizon stays level, and doesn't distort? That's what your eyes would see from that altitude.

You clearly have no concept of how centripetal forces work beyond "mass on string fly away when i let go". Neither are you familiar with buoyancy. Go calculate the difference in centripetal force between r and r+2 in meters where r is the earth radius. Bonus points: calculate their ratio and determine whether or not it is noticeable effect. Having graduated redneck high, you should be able to do this. And remember: show your work!

by the way for any flat earthers in the thread what we're the main reasons for you getting in to flat earth?

This one was from about a year before I realised the earth was flat and to be honest didn't lead me to realise the earth was flat, it just made sense after

But on youtube there was that video of the ISS going around earth and it looked so fucking retarded and fake like ps4 graphics, and all the comments saying how cool it looked and how great NASA was and I was about to tell them it's CGI but I looked on the video description and the uploader was actually claiming it to be video capture, I couldn't fucking beleive it

I had no idea why they would need to upload fake videos

Then a year later it made total sense

>>It's like listening to a broken record.
Yes, it truly is. Also see where that video is addressed and footage of the same camera is linked when it is landing, discrediting your video.

They are probably just borderline retarded.

Mods, please escort this gentleman to . Thank you!

I've been in a plane and I can tell you that's not true

>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator
Yes.
>gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it
Yes, do the math.
>i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely
You have evolved to be able to do that, in the moon you can jump really high, in the sun you would be squashed against a solid surface.
>no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force
What is a Foucault pendulum? It's that small.
>even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe"""""
Not when you compared to gravity.
>mass attracts mass
Yes.
>a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance
>a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed
G is tiny, do the math.
>helium balloons rise up even though they have mass
>b-but it's less dense
>I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't?
Exactly, gravity is not strong enough for that, what's problematic about it?

Also, why don't you point out what's wrong with Cavendish's experiment? (No, lead is not magnetic)

3/10 bait, made me get a calculator to see what's the centripetal force at the Earth surface.

This board is absolute garbage

Maths

1000mph is more than 0

If you stand somewhere where the earth is """"spinning""" at 100mph and you stand somewhere where the earth is """spinning""" at 1000mph you won't feel any difference

>inb4 someone measured it in a lab somewhere but you forgot their name and no one else can do the experiment because we aren't "certified scientists tm"

Keep trying to invoke a circular argument, lol. Instead of trying to debunk me, you want to focus on this one detail, because you know that whatever I say, it doesn't prove the Earth is either a globe or flat. As I explained, it's pointless, because the math adds up on both models, depending on the assumptions made previously. If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine. But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter.

You can try and keep the topic constrained to this one detail all you like, but my explanation is perfectly valid, and you know it as well as I do.

Was that hand-wavey enough for you?

I doubt there are mods here nowadays... makes me feel a bit sad inside.

>Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?

There's no such thing as "Big Globe", that's a term that VSauce made up.

Once again, watch the video. It answers this question, and all the most frequently asked questions on this topic.

Is it that people just don't have the attention span to watch a full video, or are they just stupid? Genuinely curious.

I'm willing to bet that ~95% of flat earthers never flew in a moderate-high altitude plane or sailed on an ocean. And that 5% that did; denied their own experience.
:^)

>he thinks he can physically measure the spinning from Earth

if you could do that you wouldn't have to shill on Veeky Forums

If the earth is flat, then why doesn't gravity's net effect pull stuff sideways when you're away from the center of your so called disc?

>inb4 gravity doesn't exist

>And that 5% that did; denied their own experience.
They're probably scared to fly so they take a seat away from the window :')

>But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter.
No it doesn't, see:

>Keep trying to invoke a circular argument
What?

All you have to do is show us all the math that confirms everything you have claimed. But instead you keep avoiding the point because you can't do the math, don't have the math, or know that the math actually shows that earth is a sphere. Instead of showing us your work, you just tell us "the math just works out, maaaan."

Show us your work.

>what far away are stars and galaxies

>centrifugal forces that anyone can measure on objects of any size are weaker than """""gravity""""" that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon

>If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine.
And if you reflect the whole universe around a point, then you could make the Earth hollow with the universe inside. That probably would require a little more mental masturbation with a flat Earth, but I think a spherical projection would do.

because it can't pull down a helium balloon when I can, but magically it can hold down all the water of earth...

Because density and buoyancy are responsible for objects falling, not gravity.

Also, stop watching VSauce. His video was bullshit.

...

>far away

Flown dozens of times. Not even NASA would claim that the Earth's curve can be detected from 35,000 feet. You can't see the curve from a plane.

Here, see for yourself: youtube.com/watch?v=jYC-7Oj9SBE

>the suns light takes 8 minutes to reach us and it looks smallish in the sky
>if it took 32 minutes it would be a quater of the size
>an hour tiny
>a week?
>a year?

You wouldn't see anything that far

>that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon
Clearly you have never fallen down, where is that force coming from genius?

The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity.

Why do we allow this shit to spread. The earth is not flat for fucks sake

>The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity.
Please don't use retarded explanations even when you're right. That's not the reason at all why a helium balloon rises, it's pulled by the Earth's gravity just fine.

Sounds like a nigger, opinion discarded

>not gravity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
called it!

? Galaxies that are far away can be regarded as being in a fixed position for all intents and purposes. We can use those just fine as anchor point for measuring the rotational velocity of the earth.

So now stars don't exist, amirite? I guess they're just painted on a ceiling, amirite? Let me laugh even harder!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

1. Density genius

If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass"

2. Helium rises because it is less dense than air, anything more dense than air can't rise without another force acting on it

Two possiblities:
>I have no idea how gravity works
or
>I'm just trolling you gais :^)

In any case:
youtube.com/watch?v=G91IU8cFJ7o

I'm not saying it's not pulled by gravity, just that gravity can't keep it in the atmosphere and it becomes lost in space.

>If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass"
For fuck's sake, already posted in this thread: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment#The_experiment

You're enjoying this, aren't you?