>>12103599>Which is not saying anything substantive"YES"
>argument against gravityI cannot argue for something never proven to exist which is why I am accurately calling it nothing other than a description.
>while denying you're arguing about gravity.I'm not arguing about gravity, I'm arguing with you and your misconceptions. Specifically about what YOU think gravity is, not gravity itself.
>What have I said that's wrong and what evidence have you brought to show it?"mass attracts mass which is gravity". Which doesn't explain anything. It also doesn't differentiate it from magnetism. You also equated time as being measurable when it itself is a measurement.
>You're trying very hard to argue that it doesn't exist How about I meet you half way. "It exists as a description" even though I already tried to explain that using the elves analogy.
>Why?Because mass is affected by pressure. Things get sucked towards an absence, not "mass to mass" with no rhyme or reason or because they're simply described as doing so.
>I don't see how the difference between mass and charge is semantics.>I don't see how the difference between repulsion and attraction is semanticsAnd I still don't see you differentiating magnetism from gravity.
>I don't see how the difference between the inverse-square law and the inverse-cube law is semanticsOf course not. Those are more descriptions. They explain nothing.
>Which logic was that exactly? "mass attracts mass"-your description of gravity. Magnets are made of mass. So what the fuck?
>This is called a strawman. Go read your own posts you dumbshit. Sorry you're forgetting so much but that's what happens when you talk semantics about something that doesn't exist.
>I wouldn't be surprisedOf course not, because you yourself have told me 3 different things "exist" despite no fucking empirical evidence confirming it.
>if you can scientifically observe them in a controlled experiment Which has never happened for
Gravity
Space
and Time
