>>5531434
>You didn't explain why gravity isn't sufficient, you just explained how density could be sufficient w/o gravity
In order to be sufficient, the theory must match observable reality always. Both newtonian gravity pull and einsteinian gravity push wrongly predicts the mass of a helium balloon to move towards Earth surface.That's the opposite to observable reality.

>I'm not really familiar with how Copernicus explained it, could you elaborate? Does it actually explain the mechanism by which density causes stuff to rise or fall, or is density itself the reason?
Neither am I. Just searched for "copernicus without gravity" on google and here the first result was:

http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G5_GravityNotAForce.htm

You can reapeat the experiment in webm related and see for yourself.

>But mass attraction and the solar system model explains lots of different phenomena, whereas flat earth explanations often only explain one thing at a time, if they explain anything at all. Like, you can say that density is sufficient to explain why stuff falls w/o gravity, but what about tides, planetary motion, the motion of our moon, the motion of planets' moons, the motion of comets, etc.? Gravity explains a lot of things, which is why I find it nicer and easier to believe in.
It explains lots, but it also contradicts lots of observations. An explanation that contraditcs observable reality is better know as "lie". The flat earth model won't have all the answer, but there are no contradictions.

>tides
There are no observable tides on lakes, rivers, pools, not even my glass of water. If gravity was the cause for tides, it would be observable on every single body of water.

>planetary motion, the motion of our moon, the motion of planets' moons, the motion of comets, etc
The flat earth model does no explain the motion of celestial bodies. As i mentioned before, the flat earth don't have all the answers.

1/2

Back | Go to board

Board:

/wsg/

Thread:

Flat Earth Thread - science is gay edition