The dome theory would solve this.
Is that the fe position? Plane surrounded by a dome isolating us from space? Guess no space. What's on the other side of the dome? What attaches the dome to the plane? Doesn't this imply something about dome builders?
I could ask you why the atmosphere isn't stripped away by the vacuum of space?
It is. But gravity and natural replacement rates outpace the loss. Enter atomic weights, ionosphere, magnetosphere, and so on. Which in turn also explains weather, wind, and even many climate factors.
Do they?
Yes. Nasa is not required for any of this. At this point there are enough amateurs and civilian groups that this fact is confirmed. In fact, high end shooting computers now take direction into account for this very reason. The physics is solid and endlessly confirmed without nasa. Btw, shooting computers also account for precession and locations relative to the equator (confirming a spinning globe).
As for twists, I'm just curious as to the thinking behind the fe. One would think there are basic questions which address significant factors of each. Yet no one seems to be able to support the fe theory with anything more than superficial, "can't use x as source, therefore it must be valid."
Not that i'm throwing stones your way. Simply explaining your statement appears programmed.
I have no idea if a dome is certified flat earth. Like I said I don't carry the card. But yes, a dome would demand a dome builder and this is a "leap of faith" (in quotes because there is plenty of evidence for a creator so calling it faith seems a little silly but I digress) that causes many people to get off the bus at this point.
Then we both exchange evidence and eventually reach another leap of faith when you say "But that would require a bunch of people participating in the lie!" And again more people get off the bus. You're either willing to believe it or you aren't and nobody can do anything to change that for you.
I'm not sure why doubting an agency that has a billion dollar incentive to lie seems "programmed" to you. I'm now doubting that this conversation is going anywhere fruitful. You seem too eager to brush the whole thing aside. I would challenge you with more robust arguments of flat earth but I don't want to come off as being overly committed to that model so I'll just recommend that you hit up bitchute and do your own research. Good luck
Thank you for a well reasoned reply.
The problem is, I honestly have attempted to research some of these and apparently there are no answers to be found. Maybe I did a poor job. Regardless, everytime I ask I'm basically told to f-off. Which seems to confirm the preachers don't know anything either. Worse, they seem to know little about physics or science in general. Sadly, OP has failed like everyone before him.
It's honestly difficult to take them seriously when no one seems to be able to answer the most basic of questions. Where's on the flip side, I'm able to provide substantial depth of answers without the naughty nasa.
Here's the thing, nothing wrong with thought experiments. As such, i'm happy to entertain the notion of a dome or whatever. But this means the dome (edges anyways) would have to be visible in all directions. And, it means winds would be terrible all the time near this boundary (up the dome and drops back down [assuming gravity is allowed], amplifying itself).
This is but one inconsistencies.
If dome builders, what's on the outside? Wouldn't this theoretically be space? Or are we supposed to be in someone's aquarium?
Surely you can see these are basic questions in earnest?
maybe rockets require less of this mysterious energy eastward because the distance is an illusion. since we assume that the earth is flat and stationary, but it appears like if it was a spinning globe from relative observation, i assume there is a force that creates the illusion of the rotation, the same force makes the same observer believe that the rocket is flying east when it actually isnt.
independent amateur and civilian groups who shoot rockets, you made that up. nasa is shit and the equator confirms nothing. everything confirms the illusion only because you refuse to think ouside of the "box"
Are you even aware there are amateur high power rocketry groups? Are you aware of all the commercial rocketry groups? They can accurately calculate the required fuel (input energy) based on launch orientation. Eastward requires least fuel. Polar requires middle. Westward require the same additional delta-v as calculated for the earth's rotation at the given relative position to the equator.
Btw, rockets are not required. It's simply easiest to observe because the numbers are so big. Any large ballistic trajectory can confirm this (e.g. artillery). It's just that the confirmation uses smaller numbers.
There's nothing mysterious about kinetic energy. It's well understood and a hallmark of physics.
Care to try again?
well their measurements are flawed, if the earth is flat, then all their GPS equipment is based on a lie.
(post is archived)