" there are, without exception, some parts of the theory that simply DO NOT FIT REALITY."
LOL.
" there are, without exception, some parts of the theory that simply DO NOT FIT REALITY."
You know what doesn't fit reality? 100% of the flat earth argument.
No working model.
No map.
No sense.
So no, I don't want to refute your points. MOst of your points are nonsense, and joshuatucker and kerri already refuted adequately.
You don't understand the gravity model (or anything else related) if you think somebody could/should be able to supply a picture of something orbiting around a mountain because gravity would equal something orbiting a mountain. I got a good laugh out of that one.
Try not to drool all over yourself while laughing.
The Earth is 81x more massive than the moon, so they say. So get a 1 gram ball and roll it across a table next to a 81 gram (or a 8,100,000 gram) ball.. it didnt do anything did it? It didnt change its course even slightly, did it?
That is called physics.
Try not to laugh all over your shirt explaining that one to me.
But I guess you REALLY do need someone to explain it to you.
Your 1g ball and your 81g ball are on a table on EARTH the planet that is (using your data) 81x more massive than the moon.
Rolling the 1g across the table from the 81g doesn't affect the trajectory of the 1g because they're both A. in the MUCH larger gravitational pull of the planet and B. do not have enough mass or velocity to break free from the planet's gravitational pull nor to to affect the 1g or 81g ball because they'd have to have more horizontal pull than the planet has vertical pull.
Your 'that is called physics' is laughable because you have to apply physics to call something physics, and you didn't, not even a little, in so many different ways.
Ah so by your logic the earth should not have a gravitational pull on the moon, because the sun 's gravity is so much stronger (even though we cant detect that, either).
And, physics is the study of the mechanisms of the physical world, not the study of hypothetical theories in outer space...
-and yes what I am saying is that GRAVITY is not at ALL as the equation that explains it.
Please show ONE example of gravity working as described in the equation (besides a continuous downwards pull), as the excuse you give( ie downwards gravity cancels out lateral gravity) is NOWHERE in the gravitational theory.. So really you are just making ideas up at this point.
The FACT is that gravity does NOT work as advertised in ANY context except... down. Proof otherwise? Why don't you have a seat and actually THINK about these things. Then read the equations, then compare. Then THINK! You can do it.
Can you understand any of this?
Lol, no that's not 'by my logic'. Not by a long shot. Not by a tiny bit.
YOu can't compare sun/earth/moon to 1gmarble/table/earth. YET YOU ARE and thinking that disproves gravity.
LOL. Really?
"as the excuse you give( ie downwards gravity cancels out lateral gravity) is NOWHERE in the gravitational theory.. "
I never said that, so....
"Please show ONE example of gravity working as described in the equation (besides a continuous downwards pull)"
Sun pulls on all planets (that is straight down). Planets pull on moons (straight down) WHILE said planets and moon get pulled towards their sun (also straight down, but obviously 'down' is all directions.
Easy peasy.
"The FACT is that gravity does NOT work as advertised in ANY context except....DOWN"
That's exactly how it's advertised, and it's true. Because 'DOWN' is relative to the attractive force.
IF a leaf did orbit a mountain, the leaf would be being pulled DOWN towards the mass of the mountain. Which would be lateral only in relation to the downward pull of the earth.
Because, again, 'down' is relative to what it's being pulled to.
Lol. That's not physics. That's not even close to 'physics'.
At best that's toddler level thinking.