What are you talking about? When did I say it did?
You implied that any experiment conducted by a scientist that believed the Earth was round must be rejected by the flat Earth community.
Indeed some people do.
Who?
Explain how.
An orange is round, whereas a banana is not. A Porsche can be millions of dollars, whereas I can by a crappy Nissan for a couple ten thousand. Does that mean that the latter of both examples do not exist or that they cannot be classified similarly? No.
No I don't, when did I say that?
Unless you can convince me that you can prove HOW gravity works, I'm forced to believe you're conceding to that point.
I'm not saying it has to be, I'm saying it is.
How do you know?
Gravity pulls you towards the point of 0 gravity, which in our case is the center of the earth, since you are obviously not in the center of the earth I'd say there's something stopping you. And if you want to disrupt it, then all you have to do is increase the distance between the 2 objects, but I don't see why the force should ever disapear. Magnetism does the same thing, erecting barriers will not stop the force from being there, the attractive effect will always be there, putting up barrier will not change that. As long as the force is strong enough, the attraction will take place, there's nothing magical about that.
Magnetism does NOT do the same thing. The force can be disrupted by obstacles AS WELL as distance. The force doesn't dissipate immediately when barriers are placed in front of it, but it gets weaker. For gravity, the same cannot be said.
Observable phenomenons have nothing to do with board games. If you think they do, then you are stupid.
I'll make a mental note that humor is no longer acceptable in this forum.
I don't need to assume it, that's what happens. Those aren't MY assumptions, it's what observable in our universe. And you're not really demonstrating that it isn't.
By the solid logical fact that I can't disprove something's existence, and yet you are not proving that it does exist, it should then be validly assumed that it doesn't exist until you prove that it does. Simple logic there, buddy.
What bowl are you talking about, and how would you know how big it is?
The Earth disc is basically shaped like a bowl (flat bottom, but it's got the ice wall around the edges), and we know it's really big, because it would have to be in order for it to work, and seeing as we're here, we know that it does work if the Flat Earth Theory is correct.
How and why are not the same word and are not synonyms.
In this matter, however, they're asking the same question, and you're simply avoiding the point.
Gravity CAN be explained, it already has been. Now, as for knowing, WHY gravity exists and does what it does, what would we gain from knowing that?
And this I have answered. If you don't know why gravity works, then how can you claim that you know that it does? If gravity has no explanation, and yet acceleration obviously does, then wouldn't it appease the scientific method to take the theory with the least assumptions (gravity being a very large one at that)?
That's because any smart person can figure it out. It does it by being there. THAT'S how it does it. When mass isn't there, it doesn't bend space.
That wasn't really the question. Why does it bend space?
The explanation of how gravity works has been given already many times, you are just denying that explanation. What causes of gravity is mass. You are asking about the cause of that cause, which is no longer how gravity works but "how the thing that causes gravity" works.
And YOU are just avoiding he question at hand by overcomplicating things that you can't explain. You absolutely must concede on this point: You don't know how or why gravity works. You only pretend to know that mass attracts other mass, though I see no proof of this, nor why this should ever happen.
Honestly, gravity is just a massive assumption (best pun ever).
~D-DRaw