Catch up on astronomy and the fact that the field of stars is uniform in spherical coordinates. We can see them all. Not possible with a flat earth. Catch up with Magellan's circumnavigation (hands-on demonstration of spherical shape). Catch up with the fact that we cannot reconcile flat maps over large distances; they all must be projections of an underlying spherical surface. Not to mention aerial circumnavigation and orbital circumnavigation. There are plenty of photographs, but you don't need photographs when circumnavigation is a fact.
You have a strange statement about the "globe model." The Earth spins around its north pole-south pole axis. That axis is inclined 23.4 degrees from the plane of its ecliptic. All the speeds are correct.
You cannot circumnavigate in the flat earth model, because that would involve seeing a completely different field of stars in the southern hemisphere, compared to the northern hemisphere. Possible only if the Earth is a sphere. Moreover, the disk model would require southern-hemisphere distances to be large (Rio de Janiero to Cape Town) when in reality they are much smaller (spherical great circle). This has been known since the days of circumnavigation. In other words, the flat earth cannot and does not work in matters of navigation.
You don't know anything about rocket propulsion. It is frequently necessary to maintain cryogenic propellants at their boiling points to assure they do not overpressurize the tank. Helium pressurant is easy to control without risking the entire volume of the tank, and it will not condense in the presence of cryogenic propellants. And some systems use other kinds of propellants that still need to be pressurized. The ISS doesn't use fisheye lenses or greenscreen. You just don't know what you are looking at, as is frequently the case with claims that photos are fake. The photos taken during the Apollo flights were single frames. Photos since that time have to be assembled from photographic strips taken by low altitude satellites. No other way to do it. It would be like taking a photo of your own car---but you can only take pictures from an inch away. The recent Artemis I mission has taken photos of the whole Earth.
This all comes down to you not being very knowledgeable, and therefore very gullible.
I remember that level of antagonism, what you are feeling is called "cognitive dissonance". You've been trained, as I was, the position on the globe, that the globe travels around the sun, etc. Yes, 90 - 23.4 = 66.6 degrees from the equator, like I mentioned, and wiki rounds to 66000 mph (or 67000), but the number is 66600 mph in text books. The globe and solar centric model is exactly that, it is a model of reality, not necessarily reality.
Now, you've raised a few significant points, circumnavigation, propulsion, fisheye lenses and green screen. (Even though you completely ignored what was raised, I'll address even repeating if required)
Circumnavigation, east-west is absolutely possible regardless if the earth was flat or a sphere. The distinction is that one means travelling an ellipse vs travelling in a circle, though the only circumnavigation route possible is south of America and the tip of Africa, the route Magellan took was nowhere near an "ideal" route.
What is the force of gravity? Your initial response will be 9.8 m/s^2, BUT, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph which means that it needs to be 9.8 + the centrifugal force but varies on latitude. Further, relativity and discussions of gravity as a force ONLY accommodates about 5% of universal motion measurements, meaning that the relativity required for the globe model is at best inadequate or inaccurate, which is why there was the need to create "dark matter' (matter that does not interact with the rest of the universe) and "dark energy" (energy that does not interact with the EM spectrum).
Finally, with the "added pressure" of helium for propulsion, a gas form of a liquid is many times more than the liquid, so when the hydrogen becomes a gas, if there's anything needed would be to LIMIT the volume of gases being burned rather than adding pressure to the container (except maybe the last 5-10%).
Which also raises a different point, space is a vacuum, right? Gas laws are that two pressure systems will equalize without a container, so, the earth has an atmospheric pressure adjacent to an infinite vacuum. That is a physical impossibility without a container (and no, gravity does not suffice as it is a force that is 10^-40 smaller than required)
It's all real. You are the one who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Travel is the basic investigative approach; there is no way to cross the globe and result with travel math that matches a flat Earth. There are such things as Great Circles and they are used all the time in navigation, to obtain the shortest routes. This has been known for 500 years---but not to you, apparently. (It is not a question of east to west, as you deliberately misdirect.) The fact that we can stand on the south pole should give you something to think about.
Did you ever compute the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth? I don't think so, or you would know that it is so small we cannot feel it. Meanwhile, at larger scale, we have the fact of the geoid, which is the surface along which the net forces are constant. This defines the shape of the surface of the oceans. And, as would be expected, they bulge at the equator by a matter of miles. You don't know anything about "dark matter"---because NO ONE knows anything about "dark matter" (which is only a conjecture)---and that does not pertain to this discussion.
And you don't know anything about rocketry. No one wants to have a hydrogen tank that vents; hydrogen is extremely flammable. And you don't want to lose any significant part of it. In any case, there are other propellants used in space systems that are NOT liquid hydrogen, and they also need pressurization for delivery when the vehicle is in free fall. The supply of helium is small (it evaporates out of the atmosphere) and the only other use is party balloons.
Earth's atmospheric "container" is called gravity. It pulls the upper atmosphere down onto the lower atmosphere. We have approximately one ton of atmosphere pressing on every square foot of surface from gravitational weight. The higher you go, the less it is. The space near the Earth is not a "complete" vacuum; it is exceedingly thin, but it will still cause satellites to eventually spiral inward. Farther out (the Moon) it is so thin, it makes no difference. But there is a solar wind. You don't know anything about astronomy or space travel, do you? Or anything about the atmosphere. In fact, there seems to be no limit to what you don't know.
You illustrate my point. You are simply an ignoramus, who does not know what he ventures to talk about. Your attempts to justify the ridiculous flat Earth idea are based on sheer ignorance of the points you bring up. Since you don't know much of anything, you are a total sucker for someone who also doesn't know anything, but packages it as unanswerable questions. Since I have been educated to understand these things, and practiced with these facts for 40 years of application, I don't have any respect for your ignorant, pompous attitude that you need to tutor me on things.
Meanwhile, we have an international, global-wide community that relies on navigation over a round Earth, complete with communication systems and overhead surveillance from satellites going AROUND the Earth. We have the passage of the sun over the opposite side of the Earth. We have a spherical distribution of stars---ALL of which we can see (but not all from one side). And, as I have said before, flat maps will not reconcile to what we find over long distances. Our cartograpics make sense only on a round Earth.
You really like to lay the insults on thick, I remember doing the exact same thing when anyone wanted to discuss the topic, that was until I was challenged to actually hear out the arguments and saw each point I would have made fall apart with clear demonstrations that are repeatable.
Your main argument rests on travel and circumnavigation, because of perspective a person that went on the trip would have no perceptible difference to say that they had travelled a lap around a globe or a circular path around a circular plane. The reason why east-west / west-east travel makes no difference for a globe or planar earth is because the compass points north, so you can travel east and adjust latitude to avoid objects and will eventually circumnavigate. North-South circumnavigation would present a problem on a plane because when you crossed the south pole, say in the atlantic ocean, you should cross the other side on the pacific (approximately), but the singular route that was by a Rothschild, he went to the North Pole, traveled to the south pole and returned the way he came (Not circumnavigated). That's no longer an option as there are treaties that make it illegal to travel below the 60th parallel, except for through special permissions and can only go where guided.
Which version of gravity are you using? Newtonian gravity (g) is just the downward acceleration of objects, or gravity in relativity (G) that tries to explain that mass bends space-time, but the theory failed to explain 95% of the observed motion in the universe. So, in order for you to accept relativity you MUST accept dark matter and dark energy, it is a requirement for the globe model as you are defending it. You do correctly note that these are simply conjectures in order to sustain the theory, saying that there's mass and energy that cannot be observed that are modifying things so that it fills the gaps in relativity theory. There is no gravity at the quantum scale, at that scale it's electrostatics only. Interestingly, density, buoyancy and electrostatics completely explains the effect of gravity.
You misunderstood my point about venting, the fuel tank of the rocket is a pressure vessel with the opening at the bottom that is ignited. The thermal expansion from liquid to gas is more than sufficient to sustain the ignition, and would be served better with a regulator (like you'll have on a propane tank) instead of a gas to increase the pressure output of the hydrogen. All this falls into appeals to NASA, which was started through operation paperclip and is full to the brim with masons. They are not a trustworthy source.
Gravity is too weak to produce that effect, a better answer would be the electrostatic gradient of 100V/m all the way up to the ionosphere, the problem goes back to a container because that kind of capacitance is only possible if there's a secondary material with the gap to hold the opposite charge.
Is your next argument going to be that I need to "trust the science"? Because I know a thing or two about physics that I learned in engineering.
Navigation: Anyone can go to the south pole. Just go. You don't have to go by airplane. You can watch the sun orbit a fixed point in the sky at summertime. Only also happens at the north pole, and you can go there, too. But you are not paying attention to the distance traveled between points. Great Circle routes are the shortest distance between two points, proven over and over again. Not possible with a flat Earth, and this has been known for 500 years or more.
Newtonian gravity explains nearly everything we observe in our own solar system. What happens farther away is conjecture. In any case, it is quite adequate to explain the near-Earth environment. Neither you nor anyone know anything about "dark matter" and "dark energy," even whether they exist or not (they are conjectures), so I don't have to accept them at all. Buoyancy depends on gravity---which means you don't understand it. Density means very little; mass means everything. A pound of fluff and a pound of lead have different densities, but the same gravitational attraction (a pound of force). You are just blathering. The fact is that Earth has a spherical gravity field, as we know from plenty of experience (especially orbital mechanics) and measurement.
You misunderstand rocketry. By no means is a fuel tank ever ignited. There is something called the engine where the combustion takes place, but I think you need to read the encyclopedia article on "rockets" or "rocketry" and learn the basics. You are trying to describe a self-pressurizing, self-feeding rocket system, which is possible, but subject to decreasing chamber pressure as the propellants are consumed, which is inefficient. For a number of very good reasons, the tanks are pressurized by something that does not involve the thermal state of the propellant, to a level that allows them to be efficiently introduced to the turbopumps to be pumped into the combustion chamber at the combustion pressure desired. But why are you bothering with this topic? The only other use for helium is for party balloons. Or for scientific laboratory experiments. NASA uses a lot of helium for perfectly reasonable purposes, along with Space X and anyone else who launches liquid-propellant rockets.
You don't know that NASA is not a trustworthy source when it comes to space information. Bigotry against Germans and Masons is not an argument. (I am a quarter German and I have observed casual bigotry against Germans most of my life. But without them, Americans would not have reached the Moon, so your slur is really quite ungrateful.)
Gravity compresses the atmosphere the same way it compresses the ocean waters, or the rocks of the Earth. Or holds you to the ground. You have no way of saying it doesn't or that it is "too weak." You can't produce a calculation to save your life.
So far, I doubt that you know anything. You don't know enough to avoid making foolish and ignorant statements. You think this is insulting, but that only shows your arrogance. If you took these injunctions to heart, you would be embarrassed and ashamed.
Catch up on astronomy and the fact that the field of stars is uniform in spherical coordinates. We can see them all. Not possible with a flat earth. Catch up with Magellan's circumnavigation (hands-on demonstration of spherical shape). Catch up with the fact that we cannot reconcile flat maps over large distances; they all must be projections of an underlying spherical surface. Not to mention aerial circumnavigation and orbital circumnavigation. There are plenty of photographs, but you don't need photographs when circumnavigation is a fact.
You have a strange statement about the "globe model." The Earth spins around its north pole-south pole axis. That axis is inclined 23.4 degrees from the plane of its ecliptic. All the speeds are correct.
You cannot circumnavigate in the flat earth model, because that would involve seeing a completely different field of stars in the southern hemisphere, compared to the northern hemisphere. Possible only if the Earth is a sphere. Moreover, the disk model would require southern-hemisphere distances to be large (Rio de Janiero to Cape Town) when in reality they are much smaller (spherical great circle). This has been known since the days of circumnavigation. In other words, the flat earth cannot and does not work in matters of navigation.
You don't know anything about rocket propulsion. It is frequently necessary to maintain cryogenic propellants at their boiling points to assure they do not overpressurize the tank. Helium pressurant is easy to control without risking the entire volume of the tank, and it will not condense in the presence of cryogenic propellants. And some systems use other kinds of propellants that still need to be pressurized. The ISS doesn't use fisheye lenses or greenscreen. You just don't know what you are looking at, as is frequently the case with claims that photos are fake. The photos taken during the Apollo flights were single frames. Photos since that time have to be assembled from photographic strips taken by low altitude satellites. No other way to do it. It would be like taking a photo of your own car---but you can only take pictures from an inch away. The recent Artemis I mission has taken photos of the whole Earth.
This all comes down to you not being very knowledgeable, and therefore very gullible.
I remember that level of antagonism, what you are feeling is called "cognitive dissonance". You've been trained, as I was, the position on the globe, that the globe travels around the sun, etc. Yes, 90 - 23.4 = 66.6 degrees from the equator, like I mentioned, and wiki rounds to 66000 mph (or 67000), but the number is 66600 mph in text books. The globe and solar centric model is exactly that, it is a model of reality, not necessarily reality.
Now, you've raised a few significant points, circumnavigation, propulsion, fisheye lenses and green screen. (Even though you completely ignored what was raised, I'll address even repeating if required)
Circumnavigation, east-west is absolutely possible regardless if the earth was flat or a sphere. The distinction is that one means travelling an ellipse vs travelling in a circle, though the only circumnavigation route possible is south of America and the tip of Africa, the route Magellan took was nowhere near an "ideal" route.
What is the force of gravity? Your initial response will be 9.8 m/s^2, BUT, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph which means that it needs to be 9.8 + the centrifugal force but varies on latitude. Further, relativity and discussions of gravity as a force ONLY accommodates about 5% of universal motion measurements, meaning that the relativity required for the globe model is at best inadequate or inaccurate, which is why there was the need to create "dark matter' (matter that does not interact with the rest of the universe) and "dark energy" (energy that does not interact with the EM spectrum).
Finally, with the "added pressure" of helium for propulsion, a gas form of a liquid is many times more than the liquid, so when the hydrogen becomes a gas, if there's anything needed would be to LIMIT the volume of gases being burned rather than adding pressure to the container (except maybe the last 5-10%).
Which also raises a different point, space is a vacuum, right? Gas laws are that two pressure systems will equalize without a container, so, the earth has an atmospheric pressure adjacent to an infinite vacuum. That is a physical impossibility without a container (and no, gravity does not suffice as it is a force that is 10^-40 smaller than required)
It's all real. You are the one who is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Travel is the basic investigative approach; there is no way to cross the globe and result with travel math that matches a flat Earth. There are such things as Great Circles and they are used all the time in navigation, to obtain the shortest routes. This has been known for 500 years---but not to you, apparently. (It is not a question of east to west, as you deliberately misdirect.) The fact that we can stand on the south pole should give you something to think about.
Did you ever compute the centrifugal acceleration of the Earth? I don't think so, or you would know that it is so small we cannot feel it. Meanwhile, at larger scale, we have the fact of the geoid, which is the surface along which the net forces are constant. This defines the shape of the surface of the oceans. And, as would be expected, they bulge at the equator by a matter of miles. You don't know anything about "dark matter"---because NO ONE knows anything about "dark matter" (which is only a conjecture)---and that does not pertain to this discussion.
And you don't know anything about rocketry. No one wants to have a hydrogen tank that vents; hydrogen is extremely flammable. And you don't want to lose any significant part of it. In any case, there are other propellants used in space systems that are NOT liquid hydrogen, and they also need pressurization for delivery when the vehicle is in free fall. The supply of helium is small (it evaporates out of the atmosphere) and the only other use is party balloons.
Earth's atmospheric "container" is called gravity. It pulls the upper atmosphere down onto the lower atmosphere. We have approximately one ton of atmosphere pressing on every square foot of surface from gravitational weight. The higher you go, the less it is. The space near the Earth is not a "complete" vacuum; it is exceedingly thin, but it will still cause satellites to eventually spiral inward. Farther out (the Moon) it is so thin, it makes no difference. But there is a solar wind. You don't know anything about astronomy or space travel, do you? Or anything about the atmosphere. In fact, there seems to be no limit to what you don't know.
You illustrate my point. You are simply an ignoramus, who does not know what he ventures to talk about. Your attempts to justify the ridiculous flat Earth idea are based on sheer ignorance of the points you bring up. Since you don't know much of anything, you are a total sucker for someone who also doesn't know anything, but packages it as unanswerable questions. Since I have been educated to understand these things, and practiced with these facts for 40 years of application, I don't have any respect for your ignorant, pompous attitude that you need to tutor me on things.
Meanwhile, we have an international, global-wide community that relies on navigation over a round Earth, complete with communication systems and overhead surveillance from satellites going AROUND the Earth. We have the passage of the sun over the opposite side of the Earth. We have a spherical distribution of stars---ALL of which we can see (but not all from one side). And, as I have said before, flat maps will not reconcile to what we find over long distances. Our cartograpics make sense only on a round Earth.
You really like to lay the insults on thick, I remember doing the exact same thing when anyone wanted to discuss the topic, that was until I was challenged to actually hear out the arguments and saw each point I would have made fall apart with clear demonstrations that are repeatable.
Your main argument rests on travel and circumnavigation, because of perspective a person that went on the trip would have no perceptible difference to say that they had travelled a lap around a globe or a circular path around a circular plane. The reason why east-west / west-east travel makes no difference for a globe or planar earth is because the compass points north, so you can travel east and adjust latitude to avoid objects and will eventually circumnavigate. North-South circumnavigation would present a problem on a plane because when you crossed the south pole, say in the atlantic ocean, you should cross the other side on the pacific (approximately), but the singular route that was by a Rothschild, he went to the North Pole, traveled to the south pole and returned the way he came (Not circumnavigated). That's no longer an option as there are treaties that make it illegal to travel below the 60th parallel, except for through special permissions and can only go where guided.
Which version of gravity are you using? Newtonian gravity (g) is just the downward acceleration of objects, or gravity in relativity (G) that tries to explain that mass bends space-time, but the theory failed to explain 95% of the observed motion in the universe. So, in order for you to accept relativity you MUST accept dark matter and dark energy, it is a requirement for the globe model as you are defending it. You do correctly note that these are simply conjectures in order to sustain the theory, saying that there's mass and energy that cannot be observed that are modifying things so that it fills the gaps in relativity theory. There is no gravity at the quantum scale, at that scale it's electrostatics only. Interestingly, density, buoyancy and electrostatics completely explains the effect of gravity.
You misunderstood my point about venting, the fuel tank of the rocket is a pressure vessel with the opening at the bottom that is ignited. The thermal expansion from liquid to gas is more than sufficient to sustain the ignition, and would be served better with a regulator (like you'll have on a propane tank) instead of a gas to increase the pressure output of the hydrogen. All this falls into appeals to NASA, which was started through operation paperclip and is full to the brim with masons. They are not a trustworthy source.
Gravity is too weak to produce that effect, a better answer would be the electrostatic gradient of 100V/m all the way up to the ionosphere, the problem goes back to a container because that kind of capacitance is only possible if there's a secondary material with the gap to hold the opposite charge.
Is your next argument going to be that I need to "trust the science"? Because I know a thing or two about physics that I learned in engineering.
I can only help ignorance by tutoring.
Navigation: Anyone can go to the south pole. Just go. You don't have to go by airplane. You can watch the sun orbit a fixed point in the sky at summertime. Only also happens at the north pole, and you can go there, too. But you are not paying attention to the distance traveled between points. Great Circle routes are the shortest distance between two points, proven over and over again. Not possible with a flat Earth, and this has been known for 500 years or more.
Newtonian gravity explains nearly everything we observe in our own solar system. What happens farther away is conjecture. In any case, it is quite adequate to explain the near-Earth environment. Neither you nor anyone know anything about "dark matter" and "dark energy," even whether they exist or not (they are conjectures), so I don't have to accept them at all. Buoyancy depends on gravity---which means you don't understand it. Density means very little; mass means everything. A pound of fluff and a pound of lead have different densities, but the same gravitational attraction (a pound of force). You are just blathering. The fact is that Earth has a spherical gravity field, as we know from plenty of experience (especially orbital mechanics) and measurement.
You misunderstand rocketry. By no means is a fuel tank ever ignited. There is something called the engine where the combustion takes place, but I think you need to read the encyclopedia article on "rockets" or "rocketry" and learn the basics. You are trying to describe a self-pressurizing, self-feeding rocket system, which is possible, but subject to decreasing chamber pressure as the propellants are consumed, which is inefficient. For a number of very good reasons, the tanks are pressurized by something that does not involve the thermal state of the propellant, to a level that allows them to be efficiently introduced to the turbopumps to be pumped into the combustion chamber at the combustion pressure desired. But why are you bothering with this topic? The only other use for helium is for party balloons. Or for scientific laboratory experiments. NASA uses a lot of helium for perfectly reasonable purposes, along with Space X and anyone else who launches liquid-propellant rockets.
You don't know that NASA is not a trustworthy source when it comes to space information. Bigotry against Germans and Masons is not an argument. (I am a quarter German and I have observed casual bigotry against Germans most of my life. But without them, Americans would not have reached the Moon, so your slur is really quite ungrateful.)
Gravity compresses the atmosphere the same way it compresses the ocean waters, or the rocks of the Earth. Or holds you to the ground. You have no way of saying it doesn't or that it is "too weak." You can't produce a calculation to save your life.
So far, I doubt that you know anything. You don't know enough to avoid making foolish and ignorant statements. You think this is insulting, but that only shows your arrogance. If you took these injunctions to heart, you would be embarrassed and ashamed.