Too much to go through. Pick something.
And more pathetic deflection.
If you don't want too much to go through, stop spamming loads of different BS.
Pick a topic and stick to it, not deflecting from it until it is done. Until then:
Come back when you calm down.
You sure do love your pathetic dismissal.
I get it, you can't refute me, and know that, and are upset at just how often you have been refuted; so you make up pathetic excuses to avoid addressing simple issues and answering simple questions.
Perhaps you should leave, and come back if you grow up and are willing to honestly engage?
But then again there's no proof your sun is a near 1 million mile diameter, 93 million mile distant nuclear fusion reactor but you swallow it because the schooling teaches that and that's all you know of the story as your reality. Proving it is impossible and you're well aware of that.
There is plenty.
You not liking it doesn't magically make all that evidence disappear.
You reject it, because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
The projector is in the centre. Nobody is operating it. It's a natural energy fed by Earth itself. A sealed unit of finite energy of a cell until the cell dies.
Sure, no one is operating it, but it magically produces exactly what is expected for a RE.
I don't believe in any god.
The problem is that your world is quite clearly not natural.
You have no natural explanation for what would cause a magical snow globe Earth to form, with a magical projector in the centre.
Can you not step back and see your spinning globe as the monstrosity is really is?
What monstrosity?
I can step back, and examine and see how well it matches reality.
I can step back and see how it is explained with a few simple laws.
I can step back and see how the arguments against it so often rely upon blatant misrepresentation.
I will never turn my back on my ideas unless I find better ideas.
You have already demonstrated that is not the case.
You discard ideas you don't like and cling to others which are vastly inferior.
The reason you see that is because the moon is the direct reflection of the sun on the dome. It's why you see moon down sun up or vice versa, from your vantage point.
The problem is that only matches reality for a narrow window of time.
The phase of the moon, and its associated separation from the sun varies over time.
If the moon was merely a reflection of the sun's projection on the dome we would expect it to match the sun.
Yet we can observe the sun with a solar filter in fairly good detail, even seeing things like sunspots. Things which don't occur on the moon.
But more importantly, we should expect it to always be related the same way, we should always have a full moon, with the moon being 180 degrees from the sun.
Instead, we observe the phase and angular separation vary. We do have full moons, but only for a small period of the month. At other times, the moon is off at a different angle, and we can see the sun and moon in the sky at the same time, with the moon not a fully illuminated circle.
We also observe a new moon when the sun and moon are quite close.
But the biggest issue are the eclipses.
If the moon is just a reflection of the sun, what causes a lunar eclipse?
More significantly what causes the solar eclipse, which clearly appears to be the moon going in front of the sun.
Even if we dismiss all the evidence from multiple space agencies as fake, the evidence still shows your idea doesn't work.
You're using a mirror in atmosphere.
The dome doesn't work like that.
Why?
In your model the dome keeps the atmosphere trapped.
And it is reflective.
So that certainly sounds like it is a mirror in an atmosphere.
What is on the other side of the mirror shouldn't matter.
A better way to define it is to stand in a well lit room with a window looking out into a dark night with no visible street lights and you'll get a better idea.
What you would need for that is 2 windows, so you can see the reflections off each, including the reflection off one window through the other.
As I respect those who have their own mindset whether I agree with it or not.
No you don't.
If their mindset doesn't agree with yours, and they actually think and explain why your claims are BS, then you don't respect them, and throw all sorts of insults at them.
100% you'll never sway me back to a global spinning Earth and all the stuff associated with it. I agree.
And that is because you have decided to value your fantasy over reality.
If you were honest and actually cared about the truth, then you would never say such a thing.
Everything being attached makes perfect sense.
Except it entirely fails to explain how gasses work.
The wavelengths direct from the sun answer that question.
Which doesn't make sense when you claim nothing is direct from the sun and instead we just have a reflection.
If you don't have a barrier to those ejected burning gases you do not get any reaction. It's as simple as that.
No, it is far simpler. If you have those gases burning and expanding, they push outwards in all direction, including pushing the rocket.
They don't need something to push off to push the rocket.
If you really want to pretend they do, then they have the expanding gas.
You may think you've covered it extensively but you haven't offered any reality to what you say.
We have, repeatedly, with you just dismissing it all costs, being entirely incapable of justifying your BS.
Can you tell me exactly where in a rocket the expelled burning gases would be creating the reaction to the thrust?
The exhaust gas going out the rocket.
The rocket is accelerated in one direction, and the gas is accelerated in the other.
Again, perhaps you can address this simple question.
You have a container with one end open, with high pressure gas inside, in a vacuum.
What happens?
Does the gas magically stay inside, contained by pure magic.
Or, does the gas leave?
If the gas leaves, that means it is accelerating. That means you need an action (to accelerate the gas) and a reaction (to accelerate something else).
What is the reaction in this case and what it is accelerating?
Those who accept reality can explain it quite simply, the action is accelerating the gas and the reaction accelerating the rocket, i.e. the chamber.