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.
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
Of course, but you've been more interested in debunking than in figuring out the counter argument.
NASA fakery.
I could probably find an hour of video examples, people's hands going through objects, items dropped going full g, when it's low g, air bubbles coming out in space walks, stuff like that.
masons pageantry
Like the pageantry for the public to justify the 50 million per day for their continued existence.
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.
It connects because a) gases fill their container, b) in gravity the pressure will have a density gradient within that container, and c) 2 pressure systems cannot exist without a barrier between them. On the planetary scale, the atmospheric pressure is greatest at sea level and starts dropping off with altitude. The globe model has that atmosphere next to vacuum, contained by G... which is relativity, the theory that fails in 95% of predictions and does not exist at the quantum level.
You're right, I've made very few positive claims (gas laws and the electrostatic gradient of the earth, both of which are well established and both come with the implications requiring containment). Your primary point rests on appeals to NASA (a closed source, not repeatable and rests on faith of honesty) and on travel which is not a problem on a flat earth model either, look at the UN logo, the north pole at the center.
Magnetic fields require poles and there is no counter-argument. It is a natural consequence of Maxwell's equations and the necessary presence of an electric current. The Earth's field is hard to explain at all, but the geophysicists like to think the core is a magnetic transformer of the Sun's field. The alternative explanation is the Earth is a homopolar generator, developing a magnetic field by virtue of the rotation of a charged body (the Earth). But this is all part of the Earth being round, so it is nothing but a distraction from the main point.
NASA fakery? Bring it on. Air bubbles? Those are water condensation droplets from the suit environmental control system. Air bubbles don't behave by traveling in a straight line. No water tank exercise is as optically clear as a spacewalk. You are straining at gnats.
You've run out of slurs against Masons. I have my criticisms of NASA, but I don't need bigotry to power them.
The atmosphere fades away into lower and lower pressure. Look it up. There is no hard barrier to zero pressure. In fact there is no zero pressure. It just gets very small. There is the near-Earth medium. There is the cislunar medium. There is the interplanetary medium. There is the extra-solar-system medium. And there is the interstellar medium. And probably the intergalactic medium. The particle density just keeps going smaller and smaller.
None of my points rest on authority. Magellan was around before NASA. Astronomers were around before NASA. Cartographers were around before NASA. All that NASA provided was manned space flight and photos from orbital altitude. You don't like NASA? Try Russia. They publish their scientific findings. Try airlines and shipping lines. They go all over the globe---and know it is a globe. People have visited and can still visit the South Pole. All this information existed before NASA, so give up that comfort blanket.
You show an interesting and essentially mysterious electrical circuit for the electric field of the Earth. So what? It doesn't prove the Earth is flat. And a charged Earth is consistent with what we know. You have no positive case for your claim of a flat Earth. Just questions originating from your ignorance.
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.
Of course, but you've been more interested in debunking than in figuring out the counter argument.
I could probably find an hour of video examples, people's hands going through objects, items dropped going full g, when it's low g, air bubbles coming out in space walks, stuff like that.
Like the pageantry for the public to justify the 50 million per day for their continued existence.
It connects because a) gases fill their container, b) in gravity the pressure will have a density gradient within that container, and c) 2 pressure systems cannot exist without a barrier between them. On the planetary scale, the atmospheric pressure is greatest at sea level and starts dropping off with altitude. The globe model has that atmosphere next to vacuum, contained by G... which is relativity, the theory that fails in 95% of predictions and does not exist at the quantum level.
You're right, I've made very few positive claims (gas laws and the electrostatic gradient of the earth, both of which are well established and both come with the implications requiring containment). Your primary point rests on appeals to NASA (a closed source, not repeatable and rests on faith of honesty) and on travel which is not a problem on a flat earth model either, look at the UN logo, the north pole at the center.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Diagram-showing-a-schematic-equivalent-circuit-for-global-electric-circuits-credit-28_fig1_258381209
Magnetic fields require poles and there is no counter-argument. It is a natural consequence of Maxwell's equations and the necessary presence of an electric current. The Earth's field is hard to explain at all, but the geophysicists like to think the core is a magnetic transformer of the Sun's field. The alternative explanation is the Earth is a homopolar generator, developing a magnetic field by virtue of the rotation of a charged body (the Earth). But this is all part of the Earth being round, so it is nothing but a distraction from the main point.
NASA fakery? Bring it on. Air bubbles? Those are water condensation droplets from the suit environmental control system. Air bubbles don't behave by traveling in a straight line. No water tank exercise is as optically clear as a spacewalk. You are straining at gnats.
You've run out of slurs against Masons. I have my criticisms of NASA, but I don't need bigotry to power them.
The atmosphere fades away into lower and lower pressure. Look it up. There is no hard barrier to zero pressure. In fact there is no zero pressure. It just gets very small. There is the near-Earth medium. There is the cislunar medium. There is the interplanetary medium. There is the extra-solar-system medium. And there is the interstellar medium. And probably the intergalactic medium. The particle density just keeps going smaller and smaller.
None of my points rest on authority. Magellan was around before NASA. Astronomers were around before NASA. Cartographers were around before NASA. All that NASA provided was manned space flight and photos from orbital altitude. You don't like NASA? Try Russia. They publish their scientific findings. Try airlines and shipping lines. They go all over the globe---and know it is a globe. People have visited and can still visit the South Pole. All this information existed before NASA, so give up that comfort blanket.
You show an interesting and essentially mysterious electrical circuit for the electric field of the Earth. So what? It doesn't prove the Earth is flat. And a charged Earth is consistent with what we know. You have no positive case for your claim of a flat Earth. Just questions originating from your ignorance.