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.
Navigation: Anyone can go to the south pole. Just go. You don't have to go by airplane.
Wrong. It is illegal because of international treaties to travel below the 60th parallel without special permissions or on guided tours.
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.
Also not possible to go within 5 degrees of the true north pole, if attempted a military will stop you.
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.
Yes, that's the story, I'm well aware. Remember, until a few months ago I was making the exact same arguments (add in refraction, light bending in fluids, and other arguments that you haven't yet raised). What kicked that in the teeth was a set of emergency landings where, on the globe map meant a greater diversion than completing the flight, but on the flat map was near a straight line... there are dozens of examples.
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.
Newtonian gravity is describing the effect and makes no attempt to determine a cause.
Relativity was used to explain gravity at the interstellar scale, it has failed to produce accurate predictions 95% of the time. So, to "fix" the theory that should have been reconsidered or scrapped altogether, they created the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, so, you're correct that they are conjectures. EVERY CLAIM involving space DEPENDS ON relativity as a cause for the motions.
The earths magnetic field works just as well with a north pole surrounded by a southern pole, and produces fewer artifacts when viewed as the UN logo, especially when focused on the antarctic region.
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.)
I know they are an untrustworthy source because of how much fake shit they put out as fact. ISS where the astronauts are clearly in a green screen (or chromakey) wearing harnesses. I was also talking specifically about the nazis traded during operation paperclip. Von Braun, THE expert in rocketry decided to have a biblical reference explicitly referencing Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Also, every single astronaut that went to the moon was a high level mason.
Why that's important is that the masonic view of the earth IS the flat earth model.
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.
I keep raising electrostatics as a better explanation because electrostatics are 10^19 stronger than gravity even claims to be, and gravity on the experiential level is simply downward acceleration and at the quantum level DOES NOT EXIST.
As for gas laws, it's not a calculation required, it's the concept. If you have a high pressure tank and pop it open, the overall pressure will equalize. If you put a low pressure tank in atmosphere and open it the air will fill the tank. The law, which you haven't attempted to rebut, absolutely precludes "pockets" of gas density surrounded by ~0 density, where a tank of propane will be more dense at the bottom and have a minimum density at the top.
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.
It's not that I'm taking the insults to heart, if I was I would just avoid the discussion, rather, I'm pointing out that the reaction to go for insults is a statement on its own. Keep in mind, I've allowed you to make the points to defend the globe model, I've barely raised any of the issues that suggest otherwise, mainly because you're not willing to acknowledge an alternative.
Keep in mind, I've allowed myself to remain on the defensive position, I've not really raised any of the issues that are created with the globe model.
So, take a guided tour. You expect to fly with your own wings? I really doubt that anyone can stop you from going to the North Pole. There have been attempts to do so that were not stopped for that reason (they expected absence of ice but were surprised by it still being there). Plenty of aircraft overflights. The only problem is that gyrocompasses fail to operate at the pole due to Earth rotation, so sue them for keeping you safe. Anything you need to see can be seen within 5 degrees of it.
Something other than a Great Circle was the shortest distance? Prove it with the coordinates of the end points and the distance traveled.
Newtonian gravity is no worse off than electrostatic attraction and repulsion: the effect is described and no one knows the cause. In the case of gravity, it is mass. In the case of electrostatics, it is charge. We don't know why. But it works, which is the important thing. What happens in other galaxies is unknown, but what happens in our solar system is known. Don't get too obsessed over relativity. It claims to explain---but does so by invoking things that are even harder to explain, so its status as an explanation is precarious.
Magnetic fields require poles. Unless you want to throw out Maxwell's equations. Which you don't get to do, because you have no basis for doing so, since there is a south magnetic pole and its migration has been tracked. It is a bit displaced from passing through the Earth's center.
Lots of claims about NASA "fakery." Whenever I can see the basis for a claim, it turns out the claimant doesn't know what they are looking at. The Germans and the Masons: instead of "thank you," you treat them with unjustified suspicion. Just bigotry. The Masons are not a scientific institution, and any world they refer to is for mythological purposes for ceremony. You are taking their pagentry as being real. They know it is only pagentry.
Your lack of physical knowledge and innumeracy is pathetic. The force of gravity is entirely capable of compressing the atmosphere. Just because you can't work it out does not mean it is untrue. There is about a ton of air in a column extending to space for every square foot. What else is it supposed to weigh? Get acquainted with the facts before you spout nonsense. You don't know that it doesn't exist at the quantum level. It is exceedingly minor to be true, but it never goes away.
Your remark about gas laws doesn't connect with anything previously discussed. If I admit a dense gas into a bucket on a centrifuge, at high rpm (multiple g's), it will be dense at the bottom and less dense at the top. (A dense gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, makes the effect easier to demonstrate. An atmospheric gas would be more difficult.) The atmosphere is dense at the bottom and less dense at the top, as you go higher and higher. These happen to be facts.
I'm not insulting you, by which I mean I am not calling you names or denigrating your appearance. But pointing out the facts of your intellectual limitations is just being unpleasantly candid. You really don't know much of what you think you know. And you don't seem to understand that an alternate theory is not maintained by "questions" of the prevailing theory. That is just a cover for the embarrassment of ignorance. An alternate theory is maintained by an independent basis of explanation, better than the prevailing theory. Flat Earth has never gotten beyond questions---that are always answered.
You also have the problem that lots of people have flown around the world, confirming its geometry by distance traveled, that astronomers have observed a star field that extends in all directions (not just the northern hemisphere), and that we have experience and evidence from space flight. There are only several responses open to you. (1) You can ignore all this, which is the coward's denial. (2) You can claim it is all a massive conspiratorial lie, which is paranoid delusion, a form of psychosis. (3) You can wash your head in the sink, and start over from 500 years ago and make your way up to the present.
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.
Wrong. It is illegal because of international treaties to travel below the 60th parallel without special permissions or on guided tours.
Also not possible to go within 5 degrees of the true north pole, if attempted a military will stop you.
Yes, that's the story, I'm well aware. Remember, until a few months ago I was making the exact same arguments (add in refraction, light bending in fluids, and other arguments that you haven't yet raised). What kicked that in the teeth was a set of emergency landings where, on the globe map meant a greater diversion than completing the flight, but on the flat map was near a straight line... there are dozens of examples.
Newtonian gravity is describing the effect and makes no attempt to determine a cause.
Relativity was used to explain gravity at the interstellar scale, it has failed to produce accurate predictions 95% of the time. So, to "fix" the theory that should have been reconsidered or scrapped altogether, they created the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, so, you're correct that they are conjectures. EVERY CLAIM involving space DEPENDS ON relativity as a cause for the motions.
The earths magnetic field works just as well with a north pole surrounded by a southern pole, and produces fewer artifacts when viewed as the UN logo, especially when focused on the antarctic region.
I know they are an untrustworthy source because of how much fake shit they put out as fact. ISS where the astronauts are clearly in a green screen (or chromakey) wearing harnesses. I was also talking specifically about the nazis traded during operation paperclip. Von Braun, THE expert in rocketry decided to have a biblical reference explicitly referencing Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Also, every single astronaut that went to the moon was a high level mason.
Why that's important is that the masonic view of the earth IS the flat earth model.
I keep raising electrostatics as a better explanation because electrostatics are 10^19 stronger than gravity even claims to be, and gravity on the experiential level is simply downward acceleration and at the quantum level DOES NOT EXIST.
As for gas laws, it's not a calculation required, it's the concept. If you have a high pressure tank and pop it open, the overall pressure will equalize. If you put a low pressure tank in atmosphere and open it the air will fill the tank. The law, which you haven't attempted to rebut, absolutely precludes "pockets" of gas density surrounded by ~0 density, where a tank of propane will be more dense at the bottom and have a minimum density at the top.
It's not that I'm taking the insults to heart, if I was I would just avoid the discussion, rather, I'm pointing out that the reaction to go for insults is a statement on its own. Keep in mind, I've allowed you to make the points to defend the globe model, I've barely raised any of the issues that suggest otherwise, mainly because you're not willing to acknowledge an alternative.
Keep in mind, I've allowed myself to remain on the defensive position, I've not really raised any of the issues that are created with the globe model.
So, take a guided tour. You expect to fly with your own wings? I really doubt that anyone can stop you from going to the North Pole. There have been attempts to do so that were not stopped for that reason (they expected absence of ice but were surprised by it still being there). Plenty of aircraft overflights. The only problem is that gyrocompasses fail to operate at the pole due to Earth rotation, so sue them for keeping you safe. Anything you need to see can be seen within 5 degrees of it.
Something other than a Great Circle was the shortest distance? Prove it with the coordinates of the end points and the distance traveled.
Newtonian gravity is no worse off than electrostatic attraction and repulsion: the effect is described and no one knows the cause. In the case of gravity, it is mass. In the case of electrostatics, it is charge. We don't know why. But it works, which is the important thing. What happens in other galaxies is unknown, but what happens in our solar system is known. Don't get too obsessed over relativity. It claims to explain---but does so by invoking things that are even harder to explain, so its status as an explanation is precarious.
Magnetic fields require poles. Unless you want to throw out Maxwell's equations. Which you don't get to do, because you have no basis for doing so, since there is a south magnetic pole and its migration has been tracked. It is a bit displaced from passing through the Earth's center.
Lots of claims about NASA "fakery." Whenever I can see the basis for a claim, it turns out the claimant doesn't know what they are looking at. The Germans and the Masons: instead of "thank you," you treat them with unjustified suspicion. Just bigotry. The Masons are not a scientific institution, and any world they refer to is for mythological purposes for ceremony. You are taking their pagentry as being real. They know it is only pagentry.
Your lack of physical knowledge and innumeracy is pathetic. The force of gravity is entirely capable of compressing the atmosphere. Just because you can't work it out does not mean it is untrue. There is about a ton of air in a column extending to space for every square foot. What else is it supposed to weigh? Get acquainted with the facts before you spout nonsense. You don't know that it doesn't exist at the quantum level. It is exceedingly minor to be true, but it never goes away.
Your remark about gas laws doesn't connect with anything previously discussed. If I admit a dense gas into a bucket on a centrifuge, at high rpm (multiple g's), it will be dense at the bottom and less dense at the top. (A dense gas, like sulfur hexafluoride, makes the effect easier to demonstrate. An atmospheric gas would be more difficult.) The atmosphere is dense at the bottom and less dense at the top, as you go higher and higher. These happen to be facts.
I'm not insulting you, by which I mean I am not calling you names or denigrating your appearance. But pointing out the facts of your intellectual limitations is just being unpleasantly candid. You really don't know much of what you think you know. And you don't seem to understand that an alternate theory is not maintained by "questions" of the prevailing theory. That is just a cover for the embarrassment of ignorance. An alternate theory is maintained by an independent basis of explanation, better than the prevailing theory. Flat Earth has never gotten beyond questions---that are always answered.
You also have the problem that lots of people have flown around the world, confirming its geometry by distance traveled, that astronomers have observed a star field that extends in all directions (not just the northern hemisphere), and that we have experience and evidence from space flight. There are only several responses open to you. (1) You can ignore all this, which is the coward's denial. (2) You can claim it is all a massive conspiratorial lie, which is paranoid delusion, a form of psychosis. (3) You can wash your head in the sink, and start over from 500 years ago and make your way up to the present.