Water is level, which means it curves around Earth.......................
You're not really going to get anywhere with that mindset
Other than accepting reality.
If you want to show that level water is magically flat water, go ahead and substantiate that claim.
Because so far, it is just your baseless assertion, contradicted by plentiful evidence.
Or, why don't you stop with that and deal with the questions actually related to this thread which also show your claims are pure BS?
Again, by what magic does your magical air magically maintain a magical pressure gradient?
By what magic does this magical air of yours magically make the pressure gradient proportional to weight of the fluid?
By what magic does this magical air magically stop the magical high pressure region from decompressing and pushing up the low pressure region above?
By what magic does the magical low pressure air above magically push down an object into a much greater force/resistance of the magical high pressure below?
By what magic does this magical air then magically decide to magically push up some objects instead of magically pushing them down?
Get this into your head.
Atmospheric resistance is going to slow mass by different rates for different masses.
Get this into your head:
This shows your claims about the air magically pushing things down is pure BS.
How can you account for the air apparently accelerating all objects of any significant mass basically the same initially, but then magically slowing them down at different rates, depending on their area?
The simple reality is YOU CAN'T.
This is because in situations like that there are 2 forces involved. There is gravity pulling the object down, and the air pushing the object up.
Again, mainstream science can explain it just fine.
Your nonsense can't.
Take it how you like but this is the reality of the gravity you go with. Something that's not proved and has not been done as any experiment to show what this force is.
No, that is your denp nonsense.
Gravity has been proven beyond any sane doubt.
No, it hasn't.
<snip>
Why? Because you say so? It is a stone-cold fact that there are literally tens of millions of pages of peer reviewed data that has never been refuted. Your inability to comprehend it doesn't make it fake.
Mike
Name one.
I could provide you a dozen if you'd like. I start with just a few.
This first one is titled "Experimental Tests of Gravitational Theory". It provides a description of each experiment, the analytical solution, and citations to the peer reviewed, published source. All the equipment, methodologies, test procedures, results, and conclusions are there for your review and verification.
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
Any chance you can explain this nice and simple for me, so it gives me no argument against your knowing on it as fact?
Or at least tell me how a few peers managed to accept it as fact that said to you, 'yep, it's fact.'
No I won't. You asked for peer reviewed published data and I gave it to you. It is up to you to refute it.
This is data produce using the scientific method. The results were reviewed, published, and verified over and over again.
These papers have not only passed peer review; they've also been accepted by the peers in the applicable disciplines.
It doesn't get any more authoritative than this. To then say I need to have interviewed and gotten concurrence from the authors/reviewers is disingenuous. You are moving the goal posts...literally an Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
You asked for the data and I provided it. The ball is in your court to debunk it.
Mike
I don't need to refute it.
Yes, you do.
You claimed there was no evidence, but there is, there is plenty.
Or you can just admit your prior claim was just another blatant lie of yours.