No. Weight has everything to do with gravity.
Weight is caused by mass.
No mass, no weight.
F[ucked ]t[hat ]f[or ]y[ou]
Stop bastardising my posts.
You aren't fixing anything, you are just changing my post to suit your own purposes.
Don't try "fixing" it. Explain what is wrong with or don't bother with it.
If you can't explain what is wrong, you have no place trying to fix it.
Weight is cased by gravity and mass.
No gravity, no weight. No mass, no weight.
It is not simply mass. If that was the case, things would have the same weight everywhere, but they don't.
You can try going down the path of we don't know what causes gravity, but saying it doesn't exist shows you don't give a damn about the truth.
No, it means we don't know that it really exists.
No. All it means is we don't know what causes it or fully understand it. It doesn't mean we don't know it exists.
I am a lying, dishonest piece of shit that is completely incapable of rationally and honestly responding to anything which goes against my views.
Ftfy.

And like wrote earlier, this does nothing to prove water sticking to a spinning sphere under the conditions of what you label gravity.
And it makes no attempt to, until we get an experiment set up like that.
All it is doing is to show your pathetic argument is pure bullshit.
You wouldn't expect water to stick to the a sphere that is right next to a much more massive sphere because of gravity. Gravity would pull the water and the small sphere to the massive sphere.
It is off topic so that is not ridiculing. Topic is water on a globe, as evidenced by OP.
No. It isn't off topic, as it is explaining something you either don't understand or don't want to admit the truth about.
You changed the topic to testing if objects can stick to something due to a force when there is a much larger force already there.
And no, that wasn't the ridiculing part.
The ridiculing part came before that, were people explained that in order to observe water falling to a sphere due to gravity, you would need to either have the sphere and water experiencing the same forces, i.e. be in a 0g environment.
We have that as Earth and water on Earth, but you wont accept that. Instead you wish to have us demonstrate it with a sphere suspended above Earth, while the water is free to fall to Earth, and that simply doesn't work as the sphere has an extra force on it (the force suspending it).
Rather than understand that or accept it, you ridicule it. Rather than accepting any of the explanations, you dismiss them as off topic.
Again, yes there is.
An honest representation accepts that in order to show a force doing something, you need to remove more significant contributors.
As such, you would not expect to be able to show water falling to a sphere due to gravity when there is a sphere much more massive right beside it.
As such, an honest representation would accept that you need to place the water and sphere in a "0g" environment to show it falling.
Again , no there is not. You admitted the experiment was useless for purposes described.
Your comment makes no sense.
No there is not what?
I admitted that surface tension doesn't show that water is held by gravity.
I admitted that what you want is extremely dishonest.
For you to claim "globe," does not equal "spinning sphere," plainly demonstrates what an utter liar you are.
No. Globe doesn't equal spinning sphere.
But that is beside the point.
The OP was entirely about water allegedly being flat and thus Earth couldn't be round (no mention of it spinning) because water would be flat.
The OP was refuting that pile of crap.
It had nothing to do with Earth spinning.
So no, it wasn't in the OP.
Yeah...you do...you are really demented. If you believe in a water sticking to a spinning globe, by default you believe in upside down water. You are now cemented as a disingenuous liar. I for one do not believe water can stick to the underside of anything due to any mystical force.
Not demented, just not accepting your crap.
Water sticking to a spinning globe is not upside down. This is because you are trying to appeal a Cartesian coordinate system to something which is more honestly and accurately described in polar co-ordinates. Any Cartesian coordinates you apply are inherently and entirely arbitrary, a compete opposite one is equally valid which would mean the top side and the underside would be in the same spot with 2 different coordinate systems.
This is also based upon the direction of gravity. In reality, gravity points to the centre of Earth, not some hypothetical, magical, -z direction.
No water is sticking at a negative r. That is because a negative r doesn't exist.
In all cases you have a surface at some r, and then water above it at a greater r. As such, the water is on top (yes there are some exceptions, due to air pressure, but that is another topic).
With this sphere there is no top and bottom. That requires the sphere to be placed in another coordinate system (such as a sphere sitting on Earth).
If you would like to disagree, tell me where the underside of Earth (the real, globe one, not your fake FE BS) is, and why. You can't, because it is described by polar coordinates, not Cartesian ones.
So no, I don't believe in upside down water, water isn't sticking to the underside of anything, and no mystical force is involved.
I quoted the original topic. I have stuck with the original topic. I have posted nothing but quotes of each and everyone of your RE-tard back pedaling and contradictory BS here for everyone to see.
No. You have not stuck to the original topic. You have changed the topic to try and pedal FE bullshit. You are yet to demonstrate any RE back pedalling. You are yet to show any contradictory BS from the RE.
But there is plenty of bullshit from you.