FE is powerless

Science can predict eclipses, heat waves, build anything from power supply to computers

What can FE do other than talk? Absolutely nothing.

Let's not fool ourselves, the only reason why a Flat Earther will never attempt to predict something is because they would have no idea where to start and their predictions would turn out to be wrong, and everyone would know FE is a failure.

Likewise they won't attempt to build anything because their technology wouldn't be more advanced than stone age tech (I mean literally, not figuratively), and everyone would know FE is a failure.

FE is all about powerless chatter and rambling, it can not accomplish anything.

FE is waste of time generated by waste of space.

That Mark Sargent with his bowling ball head is the biggest waste of space going.

Science can predict eclipses, heat waves, build anything from power supply to computers

What can FE do other than talk? Absolutely nothing.

Let's not fool ourselves, the only reason why a Flat Earther will never attempt to predict something is because they would have no idea where to start and their predictions would turn out to be wrong, and everyone would know FE is a failure.

Likewise they won't attempt to build anything because their technology wouldn't be more advanced than stone age tech (I mean literally, not figuratively), and everyone would know FE is a failure.

FE is all about powerless chatter and rambling, it can not accomplish anything.

Never say never.

If the toxicity we see manifest on social media and elsewhere keeps growing (although it might have started its downturn by now) FE might become a proud representative in an anti-reality dystopia, a carve-out, if you will.

Up is down. Black is white. The Earth is flat. The genders are legion. Money is infinite. War is peace. Words are violence. Free Palestine.

All of the above is what you can expect from the same class of toxic people, namely the Cluster Bs. They might yet take over ultimate power in the world, and if they do we will all be forced to moisten the FE feet with our nostrils.

FE is the bottom of the conspiracy rabbit hole.

The first maps of the entire Earth were flat earth maps, no ball earth bs maps existed.

At that time, we were predicting eclipses, above the flat earth they’d mapped in detail.

All ball earth mapd are perverted revisions of flat earth maps they took and tried and tried to wrap into a ball shape.

They stole the center point of earth for their ‘north pole’, or by miraculous coincidence the very same point of earths center was ransomly picked as their North Pole too!

Only the ridiculous ball earth story claims all stars are the same, in same positions for countless millennia, yet they are all speeding through space in all directions just like Earth is too!

The magic glue force binds all things as a static everlasting group stretching out trillions of miles away, to each star another trillion miles away, and every other star trillions of miles away from other stars, because it is our amazing super duper all powerful except for insects and birds which are more powerful than this great made up to solve all problems force

Just think of how caring and just this force really is.

What other force would adjust its strength to each objects mass, in one proportion, because it doesn’t want any object to feel weaker by getting pulled down faster than bigger objects? This force really CARES for all objects it pulls down and holds down, because that’s about the best explanation for it. And it’s way cooler than all other explanations too!

Gravity - the Caring Force.

All hail the great force that loves all objects equally!

The first maps of the entire Earth were flat earth maps, no ball earth bs maps existed.

And as time marched on, maps became more accurate and eventually that accuracy was improved by understanding the earth is a globe. 

One thing that kills flat earth is east / west and the equinox.

Flat earth maps require the sun to have to travel north south for large areas.  Understanding the globe and the heliocentric model, the accurate prediction of the the sun rising due east and setting due west on the equinox is easily made. 

At that time, we were predicting eclipses,

Like maps from the past.  With what accuracy for date, time, and path of the shadow caused by totality.  Predicts made more accurate by understanding the earth is a globe.  Where FE has no working model for lunar eclipses. 

Another flat earther baffled by the fact that birds and insects have wings.

What other force would adjust its strength to each objects mass,

What if you had a magnetic as big as the earth.  Would there be  noticeable differences in attraction from a small bar of iron to a bar of iron the size of a buss.  And why does a mouse weigh less than an elephant. 

What this proves already, is that the vast majority of all air, is clear, proven clear in countless images and videos and eyewitnesses.

And the atmosphere makes the video of the moon “dance and shimmer” from the atmosphere stirring about.  Like heat coming off pavement. 

The first maps of the entire Earth were flat earth maps

Yet you can't provide a single example of such a map.

At that time, we were predicting eclipses

And what time would that be?
When they had a map?
Or when they still had a FE model which has more in common with the RE model of today than the FE garbage of today?

And do you notice something that doesn't go into that prediction at all? The shape of Earth.
Because at that point they were predicting using patterns in occurances.

All ball earth mapd are perverted revisions of flat earth maps

Then why do they work so well?
So much so that there is only 1 RE globe?

They stole the center point of earth for their ‘north pole’, or by miraculous coincidence the very same point of earths center was ransomly picked as their North Pole too!

You have that wrong way around.
FEers desperately pretended the north pole was the centre. That was taking the exiting RE maps, specifically an azimuthal, equidistant projection, and pretending it was a FE map.

Only the ridiculous ball earth story claims all stars are the same, in same positions for countless millennia

No, that would be the FEers.
The REers accept that the stars move, that they have changed location relative to each other, and relative to Earth's north celestial pole.
Some stars have even appeared and others have disappeared.

But not FEers.
They instead claim, with absolutely no evidence at all, that all the stars have magically been in the exact same position for thousands of years.

Just think of how caring and just this force really is.
What other force would adjust its strength to each objects mass

You mean your strawman you have refuted countless times in the other thread?

Another flat earther baffled by the fact that birds and insects have wings.

No, baffled by those who believe there’s a most powerful force of all that in inside a ball Earth, holds down all things to the surface, but is powerless to hold down a tiny insect just because it has tiny little wings on it, and it flies freely up into air without ANY resistance to hold it down by the made up force.

Actual forces offer resistance to things which oppose their forces. It is yet another feature all forces have, but not the made up force, as usual.

A little thread attached to a birds leg or to an insect will hold them down to the surface, but not the greatest most powerful force of the whole universe can pin an insect to the surface. It has wings, and a thread beats their wings hands down too.

All of these flaws prove the force doesn’t exist, it’s all just made up bs and doesn’t even work like all other forces do. It’s a joke.

No, baffled by those who believe there’s a most powerful force of all that in inside a ball Earth,

Gravity has been done to death where you still need a force to accelerate a mass.  Density isn’t a force.  Where you need to explain why a mouse has less weight than an elephant and thus less downforce.  And you ignore things have to generate lift to overcome gravity.  Where you have no explanation why the center of gravity usually has to be head of the center of pressure in aircraft design for stable flight.

Where you are trying to change the subject from your lies concerning maps, solar eclipses, and lunar eclipses.  Where you ignore for FE the sun would have to travel north south for large areas where the sun rises due east and sets due west on the equinox. 

All of these flaws prove the force doesn’t exist, it’s all just made up bs and doesn’t even work like all other forces do. It’s a joke.

Then jump off a cliff and see which way your mass accelerates.

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 17, 2025, 01:37:04 AM

Another flat earther baffled by the fact that birds and insects have wings.

No, baffled by those who believe there’s a most powerful force of all that in inside a ball Earth, holds down all things to the surface, but is powerless to hold down a tiny insect just because it has tiny little wings on it

i.e. a flat Earther baffled by the fact that birds and insects have wings.

Actual forces offer resistance to things which oppose their forces.

Yes, just like gravity, and why they need wings to fly.

All of these flaws prove the force doesn’t exist, it’s all just made up bs and doesn’t even work like all other forces do. It’s a joke.

You mean all that pathetic BS from you shows how utterly pathetic you are?
Where you need to repeatedly lie about gravity because you can't show a fault with it?

Yes, just like gravity, and why they need wings to fly. ... Where you need to repeatedly lie about gravity because you can't show a fault with it?

Look at the Logical Inconsistency, Jack. You claim Gravity is an all-powerful, omnipresent force that dictates the motion of planets and sticks oceans to a spinning ball, yet it suddenly becomes "negotiable" the moment a tiny insect flaps its wings. You call it "resistance," but in a real physical system, a force that can hold an ocean shouldn't be countered by the displaced air of a gnat.

The "fault" isn't a lie, Jack; it's Density and Buoyancy. A bird flies not because it "defies" a magical pulling force, but because it manipulates the medium it is in. It’s the same reason a balloon rises and a rock falls. You don't need a 9.8 m/s² downward pull; you only need the Relative Density of the object vs. the medium. You’ve replaced a simple, observable physical law with a "magical force" that has to be both infinitely strong and conveniently weak at the same time just to make your globe model function.

You claim Gravity is an all-powerful, omnipresent force

No, that is a pathetic lie, lying scum like you need to invent to pretend gravity doesn't work.
I accept gravity is a not all powerful force.
And like all non-all powerful forces, it can be overcome with a sufficient force in the opposite direction.

The "fault" isn't a lie

Then why did you need to lie to everyone by claiming gravity is meant to be all powerful?

I accept gravity is a not all powerful force. And like all non-all powerful forces, it can be overcome with a sufficient force in the opposite direction.

Jack, your "not all-powerful" defense is a Logical Trainwreck. You can't have it both ways. You claim Gravity is strong enough to hold the entire world's oceans to a spinning ball against a 1,000 mph centrifugal force and prevent them from flying off into a vacuum—yet you say it’s "weak" enough to be overcome by a child blowing a bubble or a fly flapping its wings. Stop the Dishonesty.

• The Selective Force Fallacy: If Gravity is a constant based on mass ($G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$), it doesn't get to "choose" when to be strong and when to be weak. To hold an atmosphere against the infinite suction of a vacuum ($10^{-17}$ torr), it would need to be an Absolute Power. Yet, a simple helium balloon defies your entire "planet-sized" mass-attraction with ease. This isn't "overcoming" a force; it's Density and Buoyancy operating in a medium, which you desperately try to re-label as "Gravity." Dishonesty: Exposed.

• The Vacuum Contradiction: You say it can be "overcome with sufficient force." What force is the atmosphere using to stay attached to your ball while being pulled by the vacuum of space? Gas doesn't have "muscles," Jack. Without a Physical Container, gas expands to fill the available volume. Your "weak" gravity wouldn't stand a chance against the instantaneous entropy of a vacuum. You are invoking a "magic variable" that is exactly as strong as your script needs it to be at any given moment. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Then why did you need to lie to everyone by claiming gravity is meant to be all powerful?

• The Mirror of Fraud: No one is lying but you. I am pointing out the Inconsistency of your god-force. You call it "weak" when you can't explain why it doesn't crush a blade of grass, and you call it "all-powerful" when you need to explain why the oceans don't fly off a spinning tilt-a-whirl. It’s a convenient ghost, Jack. Real physics, like Relative Density Equilibrium, works consistently without needing to change its "strength" to fit a narrative. Stop the Fraud.

• Final Question: If Gravity is so easily "overcome," why hasn't the atmosphere—which is a fluid gas—already been "overcome" by the vacuum of space? You have no answer because your model is a sinking ship held together by semantic tape. Grow up.

Jack, you are retreating into the "weak force" argument because the Physical Reality of a stationary plane makes your mass-attraction fairy tale impossible. Gravity is just the name you give to your ignorance of Dielectric Acceleration. Stop the Spam and address the Thermodynamics of a container-less atmosphere.

Jack, your "not all-powerful" defense is a Logical Trainwreck.

Why?
Because it means you can't set up a pahtetic strawman?

a 1,000 mph centrifugal force

Again, if you want to appeal to such a force, show the actual force.

If Gravity is a constant based on mass ($G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}$), it doesn't get to "choose" when to be strong and when to be weak.

And it doesn't.
Instead, it provides a force proportional to mass.
No need to be all powerful.
If you have a force greater than that, you can lift an object.

If you have a force greater than that, you can lift an object.

Jack, your explanation is a Theatrical Performance, not science. You claim gravity is strong enough to hold trillions of tons of water against the bottom of a spinning ball—fighting a 1,000 mph centrifugal spin—yet a tiny butterfly or a pocket of helium can "overpower" it? This isn't a "force"; it's a Variable Excuse. The reality is much simpler: Relative Density and Buoyancy. An object rises or falls based on its density relative to the medium surrounding it. No "magic attractive force" required. Face the facts and stop the deflection.

• The Centrifugal Conundrum: You keep asking me to "show the force." I already have: it's the Equatorial Bulge your own scientists claim exists! If the Earth is spinning fast enough to deform the very shape of the planet, it is spinning fast enough to throw water off a surface. You can't have it both ways, Jack. Either the spin is powerful enough to warp the Earth, or it's "too weak to feel." You're caught in a Contradiction Loop. Wake up to the real world.

• The Mass Attraction Myth: If gravity is a constant based on mass, explain why we never see two lead balls in a vacuum attract each other in a repeatable, non-Cavendish laboratory setting. Cavendish used a torsion balance so sensitive it could be influenced by a person's breathing in the next room. That isn't "proof"; it's Data Manipulation. In the real world, things fall because they are heavier than air. Period. Leave the FVEY script behind.

Instead, it provides a force proportional to mass. No need to be all powerful.

• The Selective Strength Problem: This is where your "not all-powerful" defense fails. If gravity can hold the Moon in orbit from 238,000 miles away, it should be crushing a helium balloon to the ground with ease. You use math ($G$) to balance your equations, but you can't balance the Physical Reality. Your "force" only exists where your model needs a band-aid. Stop spreading BS.

• The Vacuum vs. Gravity: Again, you fled from the biggest problem. If gravity is "proportional to mass," it is still infinitely weaker than the suction of an infinite vacuum. A vacuum chamber on Earth can easily overpower "gravity" to lift objects or expand gases. Yet, you believe the vacuum of space doesn't strip the atmosphere right off your ball. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Jack, you are a "weasel" using $G$ as a magic wand to hide the fact that Density Displace is the only law we actually observe. You are defending a world where water curves but doesn't fly off, and air stays but doesn't fill the void. Return to the truth: Water is flat, and your "force" is just a story for children.

your explanation

Is honest and scientific, and you are unable to show a fault with it and instead need to resort to pathetic BS, appealing to large numbers and contrasting them with small numbers, without any logical connection between them.
As a reminder, the force is proportional to mass.
So the force on the trillions of tons of water is massive, while the force on a tiny butterfly is very small.

If the Earth is spinning fast enough to deform the very shape of the planet, it is spinning fast enough to throw water off a surface.

Pure BS.
Any spin, no matter how small, is enough to deform the shape of a something which has a shape dictated by hydrostatic equilibrium.
The fact it only deforms it, instead of blowing it apart, shows it is NOT spinning fast enough.
So there you go wilfully lying to everyone yet agian.

Now once more, CALCULATE THE FORCE.
Don't spout a bunch of pathetic BS, actually calculate the force.
The fact you don't is very telling.
It shows you know you are spouting pure BS or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

it should be crushing a helium balloon to the ground with ease.

Only if that was the only force acting. It isn't.

it is still infinitely weaker than the suction of an infinite vacuum

So you have no idea how vacuum's work?

Firstly, vacuums don't really suck, instead the pressure pushes.
It doesn't matter how big your vacuum is.
What matters is the fluid around it pushing into it.

As a reminder, the force is proportional to mass. So the force on the trillions of tons of water is massive, while the house on a tiny butterfly is very small.

Jack, your "proportional to mass" argument is a Circular Logic Trap. If Gravity scales perfectly with mass, then the Centrifugal Force ($\frac{mv^2}{r}$) also scales perfectly with mass. If your magical gravity is pulling the water down, your spinning globe's inertia is trying to throw it out with the exact same mass-proportional intensity. You claim it only "deforms" the rock but somehow perfectly "holds" the fluid water without a single drop being displaced. You are describing a physical impossibility where the same force is strong enough to bulge the Earth's crust by 21km, yet weak enough to let a butterfly defy it. Logical Collapse: Confirmed.

Now once more, CALCULATE THE FORCE.

• The Calculation Audit: You want numbers? Let's use your own "Equatorial Bulge." To displace the solid, crystalline structure of the Earth's crust by 21,000 meters at the equator, the rotational energy must be catastrophic. Yet, you want us to believe that this same rotation doesn't cause a single millimeter of "slosh" or "spin-off" in the world's oceans? The math says your globe is an unstable centrifuge. You don't want a calculation; you want a Distraction from the fact that Surface Tension and Density explain why water stays in a bowl, while your "Gravity" is a magical glue with an adjustable dial. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

Only if that was the only force acting [on a helium balloon]. It isn't.

• The Buoyancy Dodge: Exactly, Jack. The force acting is Relative Density and Buoyancy. A helium balloon rises because it is less dense than the nitrogen/oxygen medium, not because it’s fighting a 10^24 kg ball. If "Gravity" can hold trillions of tons of water to the underside of a spinning sphere, no amount of helium should be able to overcome that "massive" force. You have to invent "Buoyancy" as a separate force just to explain why your Primary Force (Gravity) is so easily defeated by a party toy. Inquiry Failure: Exposed.

Firstly, vacuums don't really suck, instead the pressure pushes.

• The Atmospheric Containment Lie: This is your most desperate "Semantic Trap" yet. Whether you call it "suction" or "pressure pushing," you are describing a Pressure Gradient. In any laboratory on Earth, if you have a high-pressure zone next to a high-vacuum zone without a physical barrier, they Equalize Instantly. You claim the Earth’s atmosphere exists next to the Infinite Vacuum of Space with no container, and your only excuse is "Gravity did it." Gravity is not a wall, Jack. It cannot prevent gas from expanding to fill a void. Your model violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Hardware Audit: Failed.

Jack, you are hiding in a room made of equations, but the door is locked from the outside. You say the spin "only deforms" the shape, but you can't explain why it doesn't deform the Level of the Sea.Actually, it’s quite simple: if the vacuum were there, we’d be gone. Since we’re still breathing, your "Infinite Space" is the only thing that's "Pure BS."Stop the Semantic Shell Game and explain why 1,000 mph spin doesn't create a 1,000 mph wind at the equator, Jack.

Jack, your "proportional to mass" argument

Is a logical conclusion based upon the evidence.
All the evidence shows that objects accelerate following the law:
F=ma.
So if the acceleration is the same for the objects, the force must be proportional to mass.
This is further verified with objects placed on a scale pushing down on the scale with a force proportional to their mass.
And with the Cavendish experiment and countless others getting the same results to a high degree of accuracy.

But because you are desperate to lie and attack gravity because it doesn't fit in your pathetic fantasy, you need to come up with this pathetic BS.

You claim it only "deforms" the rock but somehow perfectly "holds" the fluid water without a single drop being displaced.

No, I don't.
That is yet another worthless strawman by you.
The water is distorted with the rock, so Earth is roughly an oblate spheroid, with the mean sea level at the equator further from the centre of Earth than at the poles.

So no, YOU are describing a physical impossibility because you are desperate to reject reality.

the same force is strong enough to bulge the Earth's crust by 21km, yet weak enough to let a butterfly defy it.

And yet you can't demonstrate a single fault with that.
But equally important, that is yet again pure BS.
Gravity is what is holding Earth together, it is the rotation that causes that bulge.
The rotation that is causing the bulge, without gravity to go against it, would make everything fly off into space.

You want numbers?

Yes. I want numbers, because they show you are wilfully lying to everyone.
And specifically the numbers for what you are discussing, not deflecting to other pathetic numbers.
So stop with all the pathetic BS, and calculate the force.
Not a pathetic deflection to an equatorial bulge which is incomparable to the force acting on a butterfly or the water.

The force acting is Relative Density and Buoyancy.

No, the FORCES ARE density and buoyancy.

The helium balloon rises because of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere pushing it up.

the underside of a spinning sphere

What underside?
I get it, lying scum like you are desperate to pretend that the RE model is wrong, so you need to keep repeating this pathetic BS.
But the RE doesn't have an underside.

If "Gravity" can hold trillions of tons of water to the underside of a spinning sphere, no amount of helium should be able to overcome that "massive" force.

Why?
Yet again you just assert pure BS, while ignoring the air surrounding the balloon.

Your claim is just like saying a heavy kid on a see saw going down and pushing up a light kid on the other side in the process shows gravity is wrong because gravity should hold the light kid down.
It is just showing your pathetic dishonesty.

You have to invent "Buoyancy"

No, I don't.

Firstly, from the simple level, no extra force is really needed.
We can just consider the system like a see-saw.
You have the helium filled balloon and an equal volume of air. Both are being pulled down by gravity.
They can't both go down, because that would require compressing both so they occupy half their volume.
So one goes down and the other goes up.
And that means the one with the greater weight goes down, while the one with less weight goes up.

But from the more detailed view, we don't invent anything. We just look at the logical consequences.
You have a fluid, this fluid has the top push down on the bottom.
This creates a pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient pushes everything in the fluid up.
That upwards force from the pressure gradient IS buoyancy.
No invention required, just honestly analysing.
So I guess that is above your capabilities. Both because you are too stupid to be able to analyse anything, and because you are too dishonest.

Just look at your BS here:

This is your most desperate "Semantic Trap" yet. Whether you call it "suction" or "pressure pushing," you are describing a Pressure Gradient. In any laboratory on Earth, if you have a high-pressure zone next to a high-vacuum zone without a physical barrier, they Equalize Instantly.

First you have your wilful lie about a semantic trap.
As a reminder, you already claimed gravity can hold the air down.
But then you appealed to an infinite vacuum to pretend that force should be infinite, instead of the finite air with a finite pressure, which clearly shows the force is finite.

So no, it isn't just a matter of semantics.
Gravity can hold the air down against that finite force.
You appealing to an infinite vacuum is just dishonest BS.

But what makes this absolutely BS claim of yours so extra utterly pathetic, is it is a complete lie.

In any lab on Earth if you carefully and accurately measure the pressure of any fluid, you find a pressure gradient.
If your pathetic claim was true, that you can't have a pressure gradient without a physical barrier, or they equalise instantly, then there would be no pressure gradient of the atmosphere or of the ocean.
So would you care to tell divers that their method for determining depth is a lie that makes no sense?
How about pilots and their altimeters?

Again, we know pressure gradients exist, without any physical barrier to contain them.
Instead, you have a force to sustain them.
That force is often gravity.

Your lies will not change that.

Either the pressure gradient in the atmosphere that is observed is impossible, or there is no problem with it in the RE model.

You are demonstrating the only thing FEers can to to pretend the RE model doesn't work or the FE model does, is repeatedly and wilfully lie to everyone while avoiding trivial challenges which show you are wilfully lying to everyone.

All the evidence shows that objects accelerate following the law: F=ma. So if the acceleration is the same for the objects, the force must be proportional to mass. This is further verified with objects placed on a scale pushing down on the scale with a force proportional to their mass.

You are confusing a mathematical description with a physical cause. F=ma works perfectly in a lab because you are measuring the interaction of an object's mass-density within a medium. A scale doesn't measure "Gravity"; it measures the downward vector of an object's weight, which is driven by its density relative to the air and the Earth’s incoherent dielectric acceleration. You call it a "logical conclusion," but it's just circular reasoning: you assume gravity exists to explain the force, then use the force to "prove" gravity.

Gravity is what is holding Earth together, it is the rotation that causes that bulge. The rotation that is causing the bulge, without gravity to go against it, would make everything fly off into space.

This is the ultimate contradiction in your model. You claim a force strong enough to "hold everything together" against a 1,000 mph spin, yet that same force is so "weak" it can’t stop a pocket of warm air from rising. You say rotation causes the 21km bulge of solid rock, but you can’t show a single body of water on Earth that curves or bulges. Water always finds its level. You are inventing a "tug-of-war" between imaginary forces to explain why the world doesn't fly apart, when the simpler reality is that the Earth is stationary and level.

Firstly, from the simple level, no extra force is really needed. We can just consider the system like a see-saw. You have the helium filled balloon and an equal volume of air. Both are being pulled down by gravity.

A see-saw requires a physical pivot point and a mechanical link. A balloon in open air has neither. Your "see-saw" analogy is a desperate attempt to ignore the fact that density is the sorting mechanism. The balloon rises because it is less dense than the medium. Period. You don't need "Gravity" pulling down on the air to make the balloon go up; the medium simply displaces the lighter object upward. It is Relative Density Disentrainment, not a gravitational see-saw.

In any lab on Earth if you carefully and accurately measure the pressure of any fluid, you find a pressure gradient. If your pathetic claim was true, that you can't have a pressure gradient without a physical barrier, or they equalise instantly, then there would be no pressure gradient of the atmosphere or of the ocean.

You are intentionally conflating a Pressure Gradient within a container with a Pressure Gradient next to a vacuum. Divers and pilots measure pressure because they are within a pressurized system—the Earth’s container. You claim we have 10⁻¹⁷ torr (vacuum) sitting directly next to a high-pressure atmosphere without a physical barrier. No lab on Earth has ever demonstrated gas maintaining pressure next to a vacuum without a container. Gravity is not a wall, Jack. It’s a magical label you use to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But the RE doesn't have an underside.

If you are on a sphere, and someone is on the opposite side of that sphere, they are functionally on the "underside" relative to you. You can play semantic games with "down is toward the center," but it doesn't change the physical absurdity of trillions of tons of water clinging to a ball spinning in a vacuum. You call others "lying scum" because you have no physical evidence, only the indoctrinated fear of a world that doesn't fit your globe-shaped box.