Atmospheric matter is not a physical force preventing itself from being removed from an area. You are still giving no reason why a vacuum could not be created on earth, or that matter could exist inside a perfect vacuum, given that the earth, in short, matter, does.
If matter existed inside a perfect vacuum, it would not be a perfect vacuum. Why can't you understand this?
Which are made from sturdier things than latex or mylar. Once again, SCUBA tank. Low pressure room. Notice lack of reaction.
Show me a full scuba tank in a low pressure room. Low pressure can be half atmospheric pressure. It means nothing.
We won't get into this but and example is the silly aluminium thin skinned lunar modules that supposedly landed on the moon, in a vacuum. Enough said about the garbage we are fed.
It wouldn't have to get to thinner atmosphere. This is, in large part, my point.
If you go horizontally, you eventually come to an atmosphere that becomes colder and denser, until your rocket simply freezes, long before you hit the nitrogen dome at absolute zero.
Either way, you're rendered useless, vertically or horizontally.
Given that this is all your fevered imaginings, we cannot say one was or the other until we try.
Though, to assuage my curiosity, what causes the temperature at the edge of the dome near earth to be so cold. Indeed, why is there even a dome at lower altitudes at all? Geothermal convection would cause the hyrdogen ice to melt.
It does melt as the suns reflection hits that part.
Unmanipulated video, repeated scientific experiments, photographs, and physics all verify the round, rotating, revolving earth.
Please don't project the shortcomings of your nonsense onto reality. Thank you.
Well don't come up with this repeated experiment nonsense to prove your case, when all you are going on, is what you are told to believe, which is what I'm arguing against.
But again you are changing your tune. Previously, you said everything was sorted according to its density. Now you say it is sorted according to hardness. Yet we find gold, a dense yet malleable element at lower depths than we do harder, lighter materials such as stone.
The density of metals and rock vary, naturally. They are all the same thing though, in terms of in variations of states of their matter.
For instance:
Up on earth's crust we have a water molecule that breaks down into a Russian doll type molecule, all the way up and becoming different states the higher into the atmosphere they go.
The same happens down below, as in lighter elements to full on super dense elements that become denser, then molten, then harder, etc.
It's a change basically like hydrogen and helium, etc, changes due to pressure and temperature.
What we find scattered about under ground, is due to the fissures created from the centralised heat source, known as the reflected sun that create pressure in earth's crust that open up fissures and create seams of gold deposits as well as diamonds etc. These are just the scraps of the on going process of earth's layered sandwich.
What is at the bottom of the dome in it's full on hardness, I can only guess at.
That's a nice story, except that my rocket is not a human body, isn't travelling through water, and won't need all that many moving parts.
It doesn't matter what it is. It will become useless quite quickly.
So, do you hold that the distance between North pole and Ice rim is larger the same as what the arc-distance between north and south poles is on a round earth?
I believe the north pole is much, much bigger than we are told. All we see is another ice rim and can only go so far in before it becomes too cold.
No planes can fly directly over it, because it's centre holds what we see as the reflected sun, which is a big magnetic force that renders any man made object useless to go anywhere near.
We don't see any of this effect, because the earth is much bigger than we are told. We can only go to the outer rim and that's it.
Many, many thousands of miles into that rim, is the beating heart of the earth, what keeps us alive, along with the ice dome that reflects all of that energy back to us.
Light is not sound. Light is not a vibration. Light is a wave/particle that does not produce any sound audible to humans or any creature known with standard senses.
Frequency is not a material, it is a measure of wavelength. Many things can have wavelength. The ripples of water can have wavelength.
Light is super agitation of molecules. A microwave energy. It's sound/vibration and frequency. That's light and the heat we see and feel.
In a vacuum or near vacuum, sound propagates entirely differently, if at all, whereas light propagates unchanged. The two are not the same thing.
In a vacuum, sound does not propagate at all, no sound or light works in a vacuum.The two are a different variation of exactly the same thing.
If you cut the cable, the light will be visible out of the point you cut the cable. You keep making analogies that make no sense. Fiber optic cable has a reflective material on the inside, allowing the light to travel down the cable without being absorbed by the sheathe. Ice is nowhere near as reflective as the mirrored material of a fiber optic cable, and is actually rather translucent and unreflective under most circumstances.
Also, a difference in temperature actually serves to agitate air more.
Correct. If you cut the cable, the light stops at that point and the rest of the cable does not receive any further light from it.
Now put that to the ice dome. The reflected sun, hits the ice dome and cannot go any further, so reflects around and back to us. Space outside of that dome is the severed cable.