Space flight. The FAQ doesn't make sense.

Hi,

Ignoring the debate about a flat vs a round Earth, and using logic alone, can you clarify the following?

The FAQ has these questions and answers:

Exhibit A:

Q: "Isn't this version of gravity flawed? Wouldn't planes/helicopters/paragliders crash into the Earth as the Earth rises up to them?"

A: No. By the same argument, we could ask why planes/helicopters/paragliders don't crash into the Earth as they accelerate down towards them.  The reason that planes do not crash is that their wings produce lift, which, when the rate of acceleration upwards equals that of gravity's pull downwards, causes them to remain at a constant altitude.

The same thing happens if the Earth is moving up. The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth, which means the distance between them does not change. Therefore, the plane stays at the same height and does not crash.

Exhibit B:

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Exhibit C:

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth.  The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites.

If airborne flight is possible, doesn't that mean by extension that space flight should also be possible?

How thick is the atmosphere from your point of view?

I'm asking about the atmosphere thickness because you may say that this is the limit of airborne flight. But you can still push above it, to some degree, using chemical rockets (which you say NASA never sent into space). And since the moon, sun, and stars exercise gravitational pull, that means you'd also have less of a hard time staying above the Earth's atmosphere while your rocket fuel supply lasts (after which the Earth will catch you up, and you'll "fall" back in).

Since the moon, sun, and stars exhibit gravitational pull, there should be a stability point somewhere where you wouldn't need to use propulsion systems to keep yourself above the Earth, as the gravitational pull will make up for the acceleration you need to keep yourself above, acting as the Round Earth's orbit. Did anyone attempt to determine the space location where this balance is achieved?

You say the Ice Wall is about 150ft tall. Since the atmosphere is gaseous, it would disperse itself into space fairly quickly above this altitude, the same way as a liquid would when it goes over the edge of a cup. This would happen because the Flat Earth doesn't have gravity to keep any extra air around, and the only way air can stay around is through a cup-like effect, where the Ice Wall acts as the cup's margins. Yet planes fly a lot higher than that, 10000ft being quite normal. How is this explained by the Flat Earth Theory?

And on a different note, a question that should be added to the FAQ: How come the curvature of the Earth is visible when flying a jet plane? Is that an optical illusion? And if it is, how do you explain it?

I'm not planning to read any book on the Flat Earth Theory any time soon, and I'm sure most of your visitors would like the short version too, so please be thorough, yet concise. To me, Flat Earth vs. Round Earth is a lot like Classical (Newtonian) Physics vs. Relativistic Physics: the first one, although wrong in absolute terms, is quite applicable in day to day life, as the second one would be overkill, and the results wouldn't be visibly different. Not all of us need quantum physics to go to work and have a beer every day.

Thanks,
    Radu C

PS. If you read the above using a patronizing tone, please read it again, using a gentle tone, as you'd read a story to a child, because that's the way it sounds in my head right now, not as a bash at Flat Earth Theorists. I'm really curious about filling in the holes, as this theory can still be useful in a Round Earth context (the same way a Round Earth can make equations simpler in the Flat Earth context - so, in the end, it would be just a matter of personal perspective).

PS.2. If anyone quotes scripture as proof, please refrain yourself from doing so, as I'm not interested.

tl;dr

lurk more

tl;dr

lurk more

So far I've seen two of your posts. None of them useful. Is there a chance that I'd stumble upon one that is? Seriously. And I've been on this site for only 5 minutes.

And I've been on this site for only 5 minutes.

We can tell.

Well, I'm lurking. I even used the search function (can you believe it? I'm capable of that! Yey!). Yet all the results seem to be on the same note as the reply I just got.

Oh, and I have to apologize if I offended you by using the word 'atmosphere'. I only found out that it's an 'atmolayer' if the Earth is flat.

How do you define lurking?

Well, I'm lurking. I even used the search function (can you believe it? I'm capable of that! Yey!). Yet all the results seem to be on the same note as the reply I just got.

Oh, and I have to apologize if I offended you by using the word 'atmosphere'. I only found out that it's an 'atmolayer' if the Earth is flat.

No, it's an "atmoplane". Technically, it's not a plane, nor is the hypothetical atmosphere a sphere, but it's close enough.

I'm getting lost in the forums. Each time I think I have something, there's another argument that prolongs my quest. And as far as I can tell, it's not going to end, regardless of how hard I try. There are no equations to define exact behavior to begin with. I mean, physics should be proof enough for everyone. Somehow, physics works for the Round Earth idea, yet I fail to even start seeing the physics of the Flat Earth, and that's what started the questions.

In the mean time, the XPrize competition came to mind. I wonder what those idiots are doing if space flight is unattainable.

And I also wonder how Google Earth manages to keep the illusion of a round earth considering that they also add pictures to the representation, and those places would definitely have a different amount of space to occupy on a flat earth. On a round earth, space increases towards the Equator, but reduces as you head for the poles. On a flat earth, space would keep increasing as you went south. Oh, wait. As I was writing this, I remembered that the continents of the flat earth are especially designed to fit the land mass. But that only means your flat earth has more water than the round earth.

How do distance measurements work out for you between land masses? You have a bunch of islands between continents. Is there a place where I can see detailed geographical maps of the flat earth? I want to see mountains, lakes, islands, and topological readings that confirm those maps. Somehow, the round earth conspiracy has all that, while the flat earth truth can't even prove itself without appealing to belief.

As the "X Files" tag line says: I want to believe. But when I attempt to do that, it turns into a religion. I'm not very good friends with religion as an organized institution so far.

As I said, I didn't find the answers to my questions using the "search" function, so please enlighten me.