Why does flat earth equate no space travel by man?

Your picture of the sky actually has gradient. You fired off a real rocket (props for this, btw) and it went up there.

Like the video.



With the video and my model rocket launch I explicitly posted was about 1000 feet up acting as expected.  When the camera is zoomed in on a small sample size relatively straight up there is no real gradient.  Even more so for the extreme zoom on rocket 300,000 feet plus.

 (they go through layers of sky,

A little bit of cloud and atmosphere


Viewed through lots of atmosphere.

 the entire sky doesn't just change color from light blue to royal blue to navy blue).

This picture of the real sky proves otherwise.


I got more old photos if you like.

This is probably my favorite video.  The light is crazy.



The parachute that was supposed to deploy got stuck. Was packed too tight with the packing that protects the parachute.

I take it that you entirely fleeing from all your delusional BS regarding the video means you now accept it is real, and accept that that rocket did go to space.
Skipping your useless quote full of already refuted BS:

Here's a real fun fact. All vehicles on Earth push against air and water.

Or land.
A car works by pushing against the land, and the air resists that.

Notice that the air slows it down. If you reduce the amount of air, or make the car more streamlined, it takes longer to slow down.

But so what. That doesn't mean all vehicles need to do that.

Look at a gun. It doesn't need to push against the air.
You have the bullet in the chamber, and explode the fuel-oxidiser mix behind it. This causes lots of high energy gas to form in the chamber, which propells the bullet forwards and the gun back. No need for any external air.
And you still get recoil even when firing blanks, because the gas accelerating produces recoil.

But in space, there is no air or water.

But there is gas created by the exhaust in the combustion chamber, which it can push off.
That means it does not need to be in an atmosphere.

This means that for an object to orbit, indeed to be in motion at all, it must be within an atmosphere. Kinda pokes holes in the whole distant sun and moon thing that NASA keeps telling us, huh?

Why?
Just asserting delusional BS, with no justification at all shows how desperate you are.
It doesn't poke any holes in the mainstream model at all. It just shows your desperation and dishonesty.

Your picture of the sky actually has gradient. You fired off a real rocket (props for this, btw) and it went up there.

There you go being dishonest yet again.
Try looking at a very zoomed in version.

The key thing about a gradient: If you examine a smaller portion of it, the difference is smaller.

then you realize the sky doesn't look right

No, then you desperately claim the sky doesn't look right because you are desperate for some pathetic excuse to dismiss it.

So you hit the PrintScreen button, and you get a single color when you color select. For fuck's sake my threshold was only 9.0!

No, you don't.
For starters, your threshold was not 9.0. As already shown. A threshold of 9.0 selects less.
But more importantly, that means it is NOT a single colour. If it was a single colour then your threshold would be 0.

So stop with the pathetic lies.

I also provided footage of planes, where it goes from a zoomed out show to a very zoomed in shot, and in the very zoomed in shot a threshold of 9 selects a similar area.

So no, there is NOTHING wrong with the sky.
Stop with the dishonest BS.

Even if you're going to tell me that this real shot is zoomed-in for the earlier shot, this still presents a problem. I looked at the numbers as they were tallying up the launch, and they didn't match. They did stuff at the wrong altitude.

How?

Even worse, those weren't zoomed pictures.  If they were zoomed from anywhere the angle would be wrong (kinda an 80 degree shot from underneath). Instead there appeared to be a camera keeping pace with the shot. Total bullshit.

Thanks for summarising your claim. Your claim is total bullshit.

Why should it be an 80 degree shot from underneath instantly?

There is NOTHING to indicate it was from a camera keeping pace with the rocket. You just desperately need that for more of your lies.

It appears to be taken from the ground (or close to it) by a camera, looking up. Initially not looking up much, but angling higher and higher.

You can even quite clearly see that contrary to your lie, the angle is NOT straight on.
You can see the fin on the other side of the rocket, and the base of the rocket.
That is not possible if you were viewing it straight on.

You see it gradually change color

As if it is moving through a gradient.
You really like playing dumb don't you?

The only time you see the entire sky change colour all at once is when it switches between cameras.
Otherwise, it is just following the rocket as it moves through the gradient of the sky.

Why don't you go outside, find a clear sky, zoom in as much as possible, and record going from the ground up to straight above you.
See how the real sky looks.

So still nothing to show it is fake, and instead just demonstrating your own dishoensty.

Turbo pickup a weekend shift at the Blue Oyster?  Gots to pay those bills. 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on July 30, 2023, 07:56:21 PM

Quote from: ItzZanty on July 30, 2023, 05:48:50 PM

Because if space travel were possible, you could easily disprove the flat earth. That's why.

Oh, that's why. Well, thanks for wading into this thread with such a profound insight that hasn't crossed anybody's mind who has posted here. If only the satellite which enables me to post this reply, were possible too, ay brainiac?

If only. Too bad, huh?

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

Quote

Sample Of Satellite Majority Shareholders:

United Technologies, Intel Sat, DirecTV via ATT, Loral Space and Communications, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Ball Aerospace and Technology Corp., Lockheed Martin, General Electric

Quote

Don’t forget as in Part 1 the same institutional majority shareholders of major Hollywood companies and subsidiaries such as Disney, Comcast, MGM, Time Warner, Dreamworks, Sony Entertaiment are Khazarian owned. Again, go to invest.morningstar.com and look-up these companies. Look for Vanguard Group, Fidelity, BlackRock LLC and State Street Corp. as majority shareholders, and thus Hollywood and The Controlled Major Mass Media become defacto propaganda machines for NASA. With the aquisition of Pixar by Disney in 2006 and Disney as a proven co-conspirator, we already have been subject to Pixar fakery as well.

That cannot be!

That's not true! It's impossible!

(Other cliched lines)

Quote

If there are no satellites than how does GPS, Global Communications and other supposed space-based platforms really work?

LORAN tower station on Sand-Johnston
Island, 1963


APN-4 installed in a Royal Canadian
Air Force Canso (PBY) aircraft

The first is Land-based technologies. Land-based communications have been around along time and are still used today. Loran (long range navigation) was developed during World War Two with a range up to 1,500 miles. Towers like these were positioned to provide relatively seamless coverage for navigation. Towers positioned on islands would provide the necessary contact points for propagation at sea. The signal bounces off the ionosphere and creates a “Sky Wave” which in turn   creates the “Skip Distance” to the next tower. Remember, this technology is about 70 years old and incremental improvements in power, range and efficiency have been made since.
Sky Wave & Skip Distance

Thiis is a simple video on land-based communications and the capabilities of microwave transmission. Global Positioning Systems are based on cel-tower triangulation as Google kindly explains here and this accompanying video explains how it’s done.

(Video unavailable. Hmmmm, almost like it was removed...)

Underwater High-Speed Cables

The next mode of propagating data is through undersea cable. As you can see on the map below, cables connect all the continents with redundancy. There’s an excellent website here that explains how undersea cable is laid and it also lists the advantages of cable versus satellites below.

Why don’t we use satellite communication instead:

1. Satellites aren’t used because they can’t carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line.

2. The bandwidth available using a single fiber optic cable and a laser beam is much much greater than you can get from a single satellite radio channel. This is due to the higher frequency and shorter wavelength of light compared to microwaves. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth.

3. An undersea cable is a bundle many fiber optic cables. Consider each fiber cable as a channel. You can have more channels, each with a higher capacity, than you can build radio channels into a satellite.

4. The uplinks and downlinks cost  and putting the satellite in space is a huge huge ask and far more risky.

5.  The delay for satellite communications would be around 255ms both uplink and downlink. For continuous traffic this not to a bad price to pay. But for burst traffic (like voice) you pay for the delay at each pause. The Rule of Thumb is 10MS per 1000 miles so Rule of Thumb to Europe on say TAT-8 would be about 75MS vs 510MS for satellite.

6. Finally, you can fix a broken cable. Once you launch the satellite you don’t get a chance to fix it if it gets broke.

More Nails In “The Satellites Exist” Coffin

Besides land-based technologies, the real pig-in-the-poke that creates the illusion of Satellite utility are Light-Than-Air-Vehicles (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP).

This updated concept of a proven technology takes lighter-than-air vehicles into a realm that gives users capabilities on par with satellites at a fraction of the cost (1 to 2 orders of magnitude less). The HAA will also integrate reconfigurable, multi-mission payload suites. HAA is significantly less costly to deploy and operate than other airborne platforms, and supports critical missions for defense, homeland security, and other civil applications. Its operational persistence eliminates the need for in-theater logistic support. In position, an airship would survey a 600-mile diameter area and millions of cubic miles of airspace.

-Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin has built more than 8,000 lighter-than-air platforms which is a pretty significant number for that fact alone. They also have a nifty brochure about LTA’s. Lighter Than Air Brochure

(Also deleted. But I saw it earlier. Someone's covering their tracks. Nevermind, here's a brochure)

Here's a real fun fact. All vehicles on Earth push against air and water. But in space, there is no air or water. This means that for an object to orbit, indeed to be in motion at all, it must be within an atmosphere. Kinda pokes holes in the whole distant sun and moon thing that NASA keeps telling us, huh? No atmosphere, things aren't "zero G", they fall like stones.

So, without further ado, extraterrestrial travel is possible in a flat Earth, but only if we understand two methods:
1. Wormholes
2. Rainbow bridges

You can teleport to Earth from another world. Or you can maybe find an atmospheric bridge connecting Earth to some other world. Without air or water, all motion is basically doomed.

Who wrote the article, on "A planet ruth" that, "Satellites don't exist"?

I think that entire article is satire. Only a complete moron would think it's serious.

Who wrote the article, on "A planet ruth" that, "Satellites don't exist"?

I think that entire article is satire. Only a complete moron would think it's serious.

Especially, since the moon is literally a satellite of the earth?  With Jupiter clearly having its own satellite moons.  And the named planets of our solar system orbit the sun.

Now again, care to provide evidence of your magical dome?

They've removed most of the video evidence, which shows a rocket hitting it, then veering off sideways, creating ripples in the waters within it while bouncing along it's walls.

That's why they veer off rockets at low altitudes and over the ocean, out of all view, where they crash down soon afterwards.

The sky is not blue, the waters of the Firmament are blue. That's why the Sun, moon, stars, and all other things, BLOCK IT OUT. If they were HIGHER than the blue, then the blue would be BELOW them, and not be blocked out by them. If anything, the objects would be harder to see THROUGH the blue skies, which is actually CLEAR, because it is AIR, and air IS clear, in perfect conditions. That's why we don't see any blue BELOW us, in planes at high altitude. The sky is CLEAR, not blue.

We see it is blue ABOVE us, in planes, at any altitude.

Of course, we can prove if it's there or not by flying rockets straight up, and see what happens to them when they get high enough, right?

Either they keep flying up and up, and we see them as a tiny speck, before they go out of sight, proving you are right....or they hit into a barrier, when high enough, and bounce along it's walls, creating ripples in the water, or perhaps they spiral down to Earth afterwards.

We launch many rockets straight upward, after the first, to confirm our findings are correct, and the debate ends right there, forever afterwards.

If you believe there's no firmament, why wouldn't you want to prove it forever?

I'd love to see this test done, to prove who is right, who is wrong, and I don't fear the results of it, I ENCOURAGE THESE TESTS BE DONE!

You just say there's no proof, but when we CAN prove it, without any more doubt, you make up excuses for them NOT doing it!   Any reason you don't want to PROVE, conclusively, that there's no firmament? hmm

They've removed most of the video evidence, which shows a rocket hitting it, then veering off sideways, creating ripples in the waters within it while bouncing along it's walls.

Why would a rocket hitting an impenetrable dome just bounce off and veer off sideways?
Why wouldn't it look more like this:


What you have is a hollow claim, which was made by a bunch of dishonest people, which died out after it was refuted.

There is no footage of a rocket hitting a dome. Just lies by FEers and other conspiracy nuts claiming there is.

If you wish to claim there is footage, then provide it.

That's why they veer off rockets at low altitudes and over the ocean

You have no basis for either of those claims, and one have been proven to be a lie.

The sky is not blue, the waters of the Firmament are blue.

Your wilful rejection of reality will not save you.
Footage like this shows the sky is blue, not some magic water above it:

That's why the Sun, moon, stars, and all other things, BLOCK IT OUT. If they were HIGHER than the blue, then the blue would be BELOW them, and not be blocked out by them.

That just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why it appears blue.
It is blue because the light is scattered.
Short wavelengths are scattered more.
This means at angles removed from the sun it will be blue, but close to the sun it can be red, like during sunset.
So looking directly at a light source will remove blue.

But the moon will vary depending on if it is during the day, seen through the blue from the light from the sun scattering off the atmosphere, where it has a bluish tinge, or if it is during the night, where you don't have the blue.

We see it is blue ABOVE us, in planes, at any altitude.

Not at any altitude. At a limited range of altitudes.
Have you flown in a plane at an altitude of 100 km?

Of course, we can prove if it's there or not by flying rockets straight up, and see what happens to them when they get high enough, right?

Like the above footage, which you just reject as fake because it doesn't fit your fantasy?
Or like the blue origin footage, which you also reject as fake because it doesn't fit your fantasy?

Either they keep flying up and up, and we see them as a tiny speck, before they go out of sight, proving you are right....or they hit into a barrier

And they go up, shrinking to a tiny speck. They don't hit any magical barrier.

We launch many rockets straight upward, after the first, to confirm our findings are correct, and the debate ends right there, forever afterwards.

In that case, the debate should have ended. There have been countless launches straight up without any collision of a dome.

If you believe there's no firmament, why wouldn't you want to prove it forever?

As above, it has been proven beyond any sane doubt that your BS firmament doesn't exist.
But that does nothing, because you don't give a damn about the evidence.
Dishonest people like you will never accept it. So it doesn't matter how much is done, you will just reject it and still claim there is a magical dome.
So launching a rocket straight up will do nothing.
So why would anyone bother wasting their time to prove it to dishonest people like you that will just dismiss it as fake?

I'd love to see this test done, to prove who is right, who is wrong, and I don't fear the results of it, I ENCOURAGE THESE TESTS BE DONE!

No, you don't. That is just another lie.
If what you said was true you would have accepted the results of the launches which have already happened.
So no, you don't fear the results, because you already know they show you are wrong. You just dismiss them as fake.

You just say there's no proof, but when we CAN prove it, without any more doubt, you make up excuses for them NOT doing it!   Any reason you don't want to PROVE, conclusively, that there's no firmament? hmm

I don't make up excuses. I have stated quite clearly that the mountains of evidence exist that show there is no dome. It has been disproven beyond any sane doubt.
But you dismiss it all as lies or fake.
No evidence will ever convince you. So why should anyway waste their time or resources on producing more evidence for you to dismiss lies/fake?

Notice how I'm not saying there is no reason to not prove it. I'm saying you have already been proven wrong, you just refuse to admit it.

Why would a rocket hitting an impenetrable dome just bounce off and veer off sideways?
Why wouldn't it look more like this:

Do you think they would crush into dust if they flew upward into the Firmament's walls, where no air even exists, or almost none, unlike those objects shown crashing into walls on the surface, where most air exists, which is already a significant difference between them.

Your comparing objects on Earth, that vary in material, and speeds, and what they hit, and if they are on tracks, fixed during impact, like your video, being this plane is propelled along a track, and hits a wall, at high speed, which is ANOTHER difference with them, since we know the rockets are NOT on a track, they freely move upward in air, when they hit the Firmament,

That is one of the most important differences here. An object which is propelled over the surface, like cars in crash tests, or the plane in your video, are FIXED on a track, or held in place from above them, with wires or lines, for flying effects on stages, or when they faked moon walks for Apollo, etc.

Those are just a few of the very significant differences between them, you cannot look at your video of a plane fixed to a track, and slamming into a wall, on the surface, and try to transpose it into a rocket flying freely upward in air, hitting a wall which is concaved, not flat, yet another difference in the two, and then, claim this video shows what would happen, if they DID hit a barrier somewhere in air.

If you've ever flown something up toward a ceiling, what usually happens to it? Of course, it usually will bounce off the ceiling, into another direction, like partly sideways, and downward, or whatever. But if you shoot them over a track, on the ground, into a wall, there is much more directed, concentrated force used, and friction, on the surface and the track it's on, which make them hit a wall with much more force than if they hit a wall in air, going upward, freely moving.

Anyway, those are some of the reasons why your analogy fails miserably.

Do you think they would crush into dust if they flew upward into the Firmament's walls

Not necessarily dust.
But if they were travelling at a high velocity, and crashing into an impenetrable wall, they would be destroyed.

Air is entirely irrelevant to that, unless you want to appeal to air slowing it down and cushioning it.

Your comparing objects on Earth, that vary in material, and speeds, and what they hit, and if they are on tracks, fixed during impact, like your video, being this plane is propelled along a track, and hits a wall, at high speed, which is ANOTHER difference with them, since we know the rockets are NOT on a track, they freely move upward in air, when they hit the Firmament

Being on a track is not going to make much difference.
By the time it is colliding with the wall, it is off the track.

But there are plenty of examples of crashes off tracks, like these:
https://www.9news.com.au/world/federal-authorities--2-aircraft-collide-at-dallas-air-show/2a1796c4-347a-42be-b86a-3a5f1b5a4e0c
https://abc7chicago.com/plane-crash-in-greece-fires-crashes-live-tv-evia-island/13545903/

These planes don't just bounce.
Why would you expect a rocket to?

If you've ever flown something up toward a ceiling, what usually happens to it?

Depends how fast it is going and how strong it is.
If it is a small ball, it bounces, just like if I throw it at the ground. But if it is delicate enough and going fast enough, it breaks.

The issue is the strength of the structure and what kind of forces are involved.
A rocket flying at speed, hitting an impenetrable dome, would break and likely explode.

There is absolutely no reason to think the rocket would be able to survive such a collision.

But again, the important part is that you have absolutely no evidence that there is a dome, nor that rockets aren't going to space; where there is plenty of evidence that rockets do go to space.

And this includes footage comparable to your demands. So your demands are empty, and you will never accept the evidence.

And they go up, shrinking to a tiny speck. They don't hit any magical barrier.

This shows how you believe what you see, is all in your mind, as a blind man who wishes so much he could see things, he starts to believe he DOES see things..

You're correct about us seeing rockets flying away until we see them as a tiny speck, that's absolutely true.

But you're completely wrong to claim they fly UPWARD, when we see them as a tiny speck, that is completely false, it's a rare exception, and they remove them soon afterwards, anyway, as I've told you before.

These rockets we have seen on videos, or in person, and specifically with all DAYTIME launches, which they only have done to impress us, as being something so powerful, and massive in size, which spews out clouds of smoke and fire before 'rising upward' from the Earth, and nobody even notices how SLOW and SLUGGISH they move upward from the surface, or the first minute or so, it's strange, but true. Nobody thought about it, we saw a great show, a historical event, and who cared about anything else, like how slow it goes upward into the air, when it was spewing tons of fuel towards the ground below it, since everyone will be impressed by it, and look powerful, and can fly to the moon and back to Earth again, which worked to perfection, of course, or mostly so.

Anyway, we have NEVER seen any rocket flying UPWARD until it is a speck, which I've told you many, many times already.

Why do you still think we have seen rockets flying UPWARD into the sky, until they are seen as a tiny speck above us, because that's what they have NEVER done, and I've told you WHY they never have, never WILL, fly them upward above us, until we see them as a tiny speck, and then vanish from sight - THAT WOULD BE THE TESTS I'VE MENTIONED, that would conclusively prove what we've been debating here, all this time, is it not?

We've been debating WHY they don't launch rockets straight upward....remember that we've discussed WHY they don't do it, not that they ARE, or HAVE been doing it??

Every one of them, is flying out into the distance, just like planes do, when seen as a tiny speck in the sky, if high enough and a clear sightline, of course. They don't fly upward towards a supposed 'space', and never will, either!

These rockets we have seen on videos, or in person, and specifically with all DAYTIME launches, which they only have done to impress us, as being something so powerful, and massive in size, which spews out clouds of smoke and fire before 'rising upward' from the Earth, and nobody even notices how SLOW and SLUGGISH they move upward from the surface, or the first minute or so, it's strange, but true. Nobody thought about it, we saw a great show, a historical event, and who cared about anything else, like how slow it goes upward into the air, when it was spewing tons of fuel towards the ground below it, since everyone will be impressed by it, and look powerful, and can fly to the moon and back to Earth again, which worked to perfection, of course, or mostly so.

There is nothing strange about the slowness of a massive rocket  during the initial phase of a launch. That's when the downward attraction due to gravity is the strongest and also when the rocket is the most massive. Further up it goes the weaker the gravity pull to overcome and the lesser the amount of mass to push up while the thrust remains constant and so the rocket  accelerates faster and faster.

Of course for you it is strange because when you throw up a small stone it moves up faster than this rocket does initially or something like that.

If that made up magical 'pulling down' force DID exist, as you believe, and claim it is stronger near the surface, then objects would fall at various rates of speed, being 'pulled down' faster when closer to the surface, and slower when high above the surface.

All objects fall at the SAME rate, at ALL altitudes above the surface, which proves it is all made up BS.

If it DID exist, it WOULD be stronger near the surface, which is it's source. But it's all BS, made up to support their ball Earth lie. Same as the rest is.

If that made up magical 'pulling down' force DID exist, as you believe, and claim it is stronger near the surface, then objects would fall at various rates of speed, being 'pulled down' faster when closer to the surface, and slower when high above the surface.

All objects fall at the SAME rate, at ALL altitudes above the surface, which proves it is all made up BS.

If it DID exist, it WOULD be stronger near the surface, which is it's source. But it's all BS, made up to support their ball Earth lie. Same as the rest is.

Objects are accelerated so the longer they fall the faster they do (not counting in air resistance). The rate of fall is not constant, it is constantly increasing and that should be near identical for any object. Near identical because actually the more massive an object is, the more acceleration there will be between this object and the earth. The object does not fall on the earth but rather the object and the earth fall towards each other. As the object is usually infinitesimally small compared to the earth, its mass and how much it attracts earth is generally treated as a negligeable quantity however. And yes the more distant objects are from each other, the weaker the acceleration there is between them if I am not mistaken.

You may not believe in gravity but then what is it that pulls mass down? You may not feel it when lifting small objects but what about lifting 50 kg above your head or walking around with 50kg in a backpack? Is there not a force strongly pulling you down there?

This shows how you believe what you see, is all in your mind

No, this shows how you need to ignore context yet again, and lie about what is said.

Did I say we see all rockets do that? No.
I said we do see rockets do that.
Like those from blue origin, where you have had the footage provided.

Yes, it is rare. That is because most rockets are trying to go to orbit, so going straight up is counter productive.

But some, like blue origin, is just going up to space for a joy ride.
For that purpose, going straight up is better.

So no, I'm not completely wrong.

nobody even notices how SLOW and SLUGGISH they move upward from the surface, or the first minute or so, it's strange, but true.

What you don't realise is the scale.
Rockets are quite large. So when viewed with them entirely in frame, they appear to move quite slowly. But that is primarily due to scale.

Anyway, we have NEVER seen any rocket flying UPWARD until it is a speck, which I've told you many, many times already.

Except in the cases we have, which you dismiss without any honest justification.
Like plenty from blue origin.

Why do you still think we have seen rockets flying UPWARD into the sky, until they are seen as a tiny speck above us

I assume you mean that to say haven't?
The reason we don't normally is above, because they aren't going to orbit.

But we have seen rockets go straight up.
That means the test you demand has been done and it has demonstrated you are wrong.
So by your own standard, you have been conclusively proven to be wrong.
Because of this you lie and say it hasn't been done and never will.

Every one of them, is flying out into the distance, just like planes do, when seen as a tiny speck in the sky, if high enough and a clear sightline, of course. They don't fly upward towards a supposed 'space', and never will, either!

Entirely wrong.
Again, MOST fly outwards, to go into orbit. But SOME do just go up. They come back down shortly thereafter, because they haven't gone into orbit.
But they all fly upwards.
And again, all the evidence shows they do go to space.
You have nothing to challenge that except wilful ignorance.

If that made up magical 'pulling down' force DID exist, as you believe, and claim it is stronger near the surface, then objects would fall at various rates of speed, being 'pulled down' faster when closer to the surface, and slower when high above the surface.

All objects fall at the SAME rate, at ALL altitudes above the surface, which proves it is all made up BS.

If it DID exist, it WOULD be stronger near the surface, which is it's source. But it's all BS, made up to support their ball Earth lie. Same as the rest is.

No, your argument is made up BS.
Stronger near the surface is quite dishonest. It is stronger near all the mass of Earth, so you want to measure the distance from the centre.
So that means you are starting with a radius of 6371 km. Going up a few m isn't going to change that by any significant amount.
You would need to get quite high to be able to see it just from casually dropping things.

But as already pointed out, the value g does vary across Earth. For example, it is lower at the equator than at the poles. Due in part due to the rotation pushing things out, and in part due to the greater distance.

So you are basically doing exactly what you are accusing others of. You are lying, boldly claiming that objects fall at the same rate, even though there is plenty of evidence demonstrating the opposite is true.

There is nothing strange about the slowness of a massive rocket  during the initial phase of a launch. That's when the downward attraction due to gravity is the strongest and also when the rocket is the most massive. Further up it goes the weaker the gravity pull to overcome and the lesser the amount of mass to push up while the thrust remains constant and so the rocket  accelerates faster and faster.

The change in gravitational acceleration is negligible.
Treating the Earth as a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km, then 100 km up (the edge of space) is 6471 km, or 1.016 times the radius of the ground. That means the gravitational acceleration on the ground will be roughly 1.03 times that at 100 km up, or conversely the gravitational acceleration at 100 km altitude will be 0.97 times that of the surface. That is a change of roughly 3%.

No force is needed. All things were created to be on Earth's surface, except for those above the Earth. Air is above the Earth, and has little mass and density, while all things on the surface have more mass and density than the air.

Our relative mass makes us stay on the surface, need a force to lift us from the surface, into air, and our mass makes us fall through the air to the surface again. No force pulls us down from the air, our mass makes us fall through the air, to the surface. That's why we don't feel ourselves being 'pulled down' from below, we aren't pulled down, we simply fall through the air, due to our greater mass and density than that of air.


There you have it.

No force is needed. All things were created to be on Earth's surface, except for those above the Earth.

Entirely baseless assertions, and demonstrably doesn't work.
Water can boil and go into the air, and then condense and fall back down.
And objects when moved left or right don't magically back the other way.
So the origin has NOTHING to do with it.

Our relative mass makes us stay on the surface, need a force to lift us from the surface, into air, and our mass makes us fall through the air to the surface again.

Why?
What magic causes dense objects to need a force to lift up?
What is this force resisting?
Why should mass make things fall through the air?
How does this accelerate an object without any force involved.
If an object accelerates, it needs a force.

That's why we don't feel ourselves being 'pulled down' from below

No, that's because you have the force acting throughout your body, and are used to it.
Try hanging from your pinky, and then tell us it doesn't feel like you are being pulled down from below.

we simply fall through the air, due to our greater mass and density than that of air.

Except greater mass density provides no directionality or rate for something to fall at at all.

So no, we don't have it.
We have the same deflection and non-answer you have provided before.

No force is needed. All things were created to be on Earth's surface, except for those above the Earth. Air is above the Earth, and has little mass and density, while all things on the surface have more mass and density than the air.

Our relative mass makes us stay on the surface, need a force to lift us from the surface, into air, and our mass makes us fall through the air to the surface again. No force pulls us down from the air, our mass makes us fall through the air, to the surface. That's why we don't feel ourselves being 'pulled down' from below, we aren't pulled down, we simply fall through the air, due to our greater mass and density than that of air.


There you have it.

Yes, there we have a near perfect description of the workings of gravity! The exception being the author hilariously refusing to admit that falling down is the same as being pulled down. So, we don't feel ourselves being pulled down, yet feel ourselves falling down - got it!

Our relative mass makes us stay on Earth's surface because of gravity. Our mass makes us fall down through the air because of gravity.

Gravity is the reason we have rain from the clouds, and thanks for reinforcing that! So good to see you are finally on the path to full mental recovery.

What magic causes dense objects to need a force to lift up?
What is this force resisting?
Why should mass make things fall through the air?
How does this accelerate an object without any force involved.
If an object accelerates, it needs a force.

It's not magic, the object has more mass and density than the air, so a force must be used on it, in order to lift it up off the ground, or throw it up into air.

Why would objects of mass, MAGICALLY RISE UP INTO A MEDIUM OF LITTLE MASS AND DENSITY? That makes no sense at all.

What proves it is due to relative density, is that all objects, heavy or light, all fall through the air at the same rate, accounting for air resistance, etc.

But if there WERE a force, it would pull them down at different rates, and at different heights, since the SOURCE of any force weakens with more distance from it. That means things would be pulled more and more quickly when closer to the SOURCE of that force, not at the very SAME rate, when far away OR near that source!   

Insects will fly above Earth easily, that's your great force, which can't hold down tiny insects to Earth? We have much greater force than an insect, but we cannot fly into air.

Even if we attach wings on our arms, and flap up and down like a bird, we cannot fly up. We use much more force flapping our 'wings' than birds use, so why can't we fly up into air like a bird?

Because we have far more mass and density than birds do, that's why we can't fly up into the less dense air like birds can. It is due to relative mass and density, once again.

A magnet pulls in a small nail faster than a large nail, right? A wind blows a small object further than a heavy object, right?

That's what actual forces do, they act more or less on objects, based on their mass and density,  and so forth.

We FEEL any force acting on us, we feel a nail we hold being PULLED IN by a magnet, a wind hitting us from any direction, and so on.

There's nothing felt pulling us down when in air, from below us. We can dangle our leg into air off a ledge, and no pull on our leg is ever felt from a force below us.

Attach a string to our dangling leg, and pull on it from below, and we DO feel a pull from a force below us, right?

Your force is made up BS, proven so easily, so conclusively, it takes a string, or a magnet, and you are blind to such obvious proof it's made up BS, you cannot see it!

Insects will fly above Earth easily, that's your great force, which can't hold down tiny insects to Earth?

Gravity is considered a weak force.  Proportional to mass.  A little fly produces enough lift to overcome gravity.  We are talking about lift in the realm of mere ounces or faction of ounces.  Versus a jet that is more massive, has more mutual attraction with the earth.  And requires generating thousands of pounds of lift to fly.

What’s 50 to 100 feet above an earth that is over 7000 miles in diameter.  How much weaker should gravity be 100 feet above earth?

Where it’s been cited to you gravity of earth does get weaker with distance from earth. 

No.  I can push my jeep wrangle around the garage.  But cannot push it up hill.  Why can I push the wrangler around all day on level ground.  It can roll down hill from a standstill with no energy input.  But can’t be pushed up hill by my own strength.  Why is “up” away from earth different.

And of course.  Why can I throw a ball straight up to have it slow down faster than what is accounted for by air resistance.  Not only does a force cause the ball to slow down. It causes it to stop.  Change travel of direction 180 degrees without the ball making a curved trajectory.   And changes travel of direction to down.  And not only down, but the force causes the ball to accelerate back to earth.

How would the ball accelerate back to earth if there is no force applied to it? 

It's not magic, the object has more mass and density than the air, so a force must be used on it, in order to lift it up off the ground, or throw it up into air.

Without a force to do so, it is magic.

Yes, the object is more dense than air. So what?
Why should that mean it falls down?

Why would objects of mass, MAGICALLY RISE UP INTO A MEDIUM OF LITTLE MASS AND DENSITY? That makes no sense at all.

Why should objects magically fall, for no reason at all, with no force acting? That makes no sense at all.

What proves it is due to relative density, is that all objects, heavy or light, all fall through the air at the same rate, accounting for air resistance, etc.

Just how does that prove it is due to relative density?
If anything, it proves the exact opposite.
If it was relative density you would expect it to change depending upon the density, so as the density of the object increases, as this means the difference increases, the acceleration would increase as well. But it doesn't.
Likewise, changing the density of the fluid would also change it.

Conversely, a force based upon mass would mean basically the same acceleration for everything once the buoyant force becomes negligible.

But if there WERE a force, it would pull them down at different rates

Why?
Stop just asserting BS and try explaining why.
If it is a force based upon mass, then F=k*m.
And a=F/m, so a=k*m/m = k.
i.e. it would be constant, regardless of mass.

and at different heights, since the SOURCE of any force weakens with more distance from it

And it does.
The rate of acceleration varies around Earth, and with altitude.
But you need to use the distance honestly. That means using the distance from the centre of Earth, not the surface.

Insects will fly above Earth easily, that's your great force, which can't hold down tiny insects to Earth?

Take their wings off and see how great they can fly.
They have a small mass, so the force is small, so they can easily overcome it with wings.

We have much greater force than an insect, but we cannot fly into air.

We have a much greater mass, meaning we need to apply more force.
But notice that we can still fly, such as by building a plane and using engines to propel it forwards.

Even if we attach wings on our arms, and flap up and down like a bird, we cannot fly up. We use much more force flapping our 'wings' than birds use, so why can't we fly up into air like a bird?

As above, we have a far greater mass, so there is a greater force, because the force is proportional to mass.

Because we have far more mass and density than birds do, that's why we can't fly up into the less dense air like birds can. It is due to relative mass and density, once again.

Pure BS.
And trivial to refute.
Go get a few large balloons and strap them to you to lower your density. Feel free to drop it all the way to below birds, while still significantly above that of the air.
Then try attaching some wings and flapping to fly.

A magnet pulls in a small nail faster than a large nail, right?

No. It depends upon many things.

A wind blows a small object further than a heavy object, right?

No, it depends upon the area to mass ratio.
If you keep the ratio the same, the acceleration is the same.

That's what actual forces do, they act more or less on objects, based on their mass and density,  and so forth.

And gravity acts based upon their mass, which results in an acceleration that doesn't depend upon mass.

We FEEL any force acting on us

Acting on US, or on an object we are holding?

What we feel are forces being transferred through us.

we feel a nail we hold being PULLED IN by a magnet

And we feel a heavy object being pulled towards Earth.

There's nothing felt pulling us down when in air, from below us.

And if you were magnetic, you wouldn't feel a magnet pulling you in, because it acts all over you and doesn't need a force to be transferred.

We can dangle our leg into air off a ledge, and no pull on our leg is ever felt from a force below us.

You are just used to it.
If you would like a better example, hold your arm out straight.

Attach a string to our dangling leg, and pull on it from below, and we DO feel a pull from a force below us, right?

This depends on how much you pull.
If you pull with a small enough force, you don't really feel it.
Notice that to feel that pull, you can just dangle a weight. But if you just dangle a string, you don't feel it.
And unsurprisingly, that depends on the MASS of the object, not its density.
As if there is a force acting based upon mass.

Your force is made up BS, proven so easily, so conclusively, it takes a string, or a magnet, and you are blind to such obvious proof it's made up BS, you cannot see it!

Yet you are entirely incapable of proving it is BS.
Instead, you just need to repeat the same pathetic lies that have already been refuted.

Conversely you STILL can't explain why things fall down.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 13, 2023, 05:50:16 AM

What magic causes dense objects to need a force to lift up?
What is this force resisting?
Why should mass make things fall through the air?
How does this accelerate an object without any force involved.
If an object accelerates, it needs a force.

It's not magic, the object has more mass and density than the air, so a force must be used on it, in order to lift it up off the ground, or throw it up into air.

Why would objects of mass, MAGICALLY RISE UP INTO A MEDIUM OF LITTLE MASS AND DENSITY? That makes no sense at all.

What proves it is due to relative density, is that all objects, heavy or light, all fall through the air at the same rate, accounting for air resistance, etc.

But if there WERE a force, it would pull them down at different rates, and at different heights, since the SOURCE of any force weakens with more distance from it. That means things would be pulled more and more quickly when closer to the SOURCE of that force, not at the very SAME rate, when far away OR near that source!   

Insects will fly above Earth easily, that's your great force, which can't hold down tiny insects to Earth? We have much greater force than an insect, but we cannot fly into air.

Even if we attach wings on our arms, and flap up and down like a bird, we cannot fly up. We use much more force flapping our 'wings' than birds use, so why can't we fly up into air like a bird?

Because we have far more mass and density than birds do, that's why we can't fly up into the less dense air like birds can. It is due to relative mass and density, once again.

A magnet pulls in a small nail faster than a large nail, right? A wind blows a small object further than a heavy object, right?

That's what actual forces do, they act more or less on objects, based on their mass and density,  and so forth.

We FEEL any force acting on us, we feel a nail we hold being PULLED IN by a magnet, a wind hitting us from any direction, and so on.

There's nothing felt pulling us down when in air, from below us. We can dangle our leg into air off a ledge, and no pull on our leg is ever felt from a force below us.

Attach a string to our dangling leg, and pull on it from below, and we DO feel a pull from a force below us, right?

Your force is made up BS, proven so easily, so conclusively, it takes a string, or a magnet, and you are blind to such obvious proof it's made up BS, you cannot see it!

You want to talk density? Ok, let's talk density. Let's talk in your face density.

How the hell can you not see you are describing gravity and constantly contradicting yourself? Does a feather and bowling ball fall through air at the same rate does it? Even you in your heightened state of delusion must see that is total bullshit??

Your dangling leg? Your dangling fucking leg is proof against gravity? Your dangling fucking leg which is dangling towards the ground not the sky, which can experience blood pooling in your feet from gravity if left dangling for too long?? How do your legs go when you dangle them directly up at the sky as in performing a handstand? All the blood rushes down to your head doesn't it? Because of gravity. Gravity! It is next level insanity that any person should have to point this out to you.

You still refuse to address why all things fall towards the ground, like you have been lobotomised.

Without a force to do so, it is magic.

Yes, the object is more dense than air. So what?
Why should that mean it falls down?

Why should objects magically fall, for no reason at all, with no force acting? That makes no sense at all.


And it does.
The rate of acceleration varies around Earth, and with altitude.
But you need to use the distance honestly. That means using the distance from the centre of Earth, not the surface.

No, the surface is our reference point of your made up force, that is the NEAREST point of distance FROM the source, in your ball Earth's 'core'. 

The SURFACE is our reference point, of your magical force's strength, which we CAN measure, if it existed. Also, what we are measuring is within air, not within the ground TO the supposed source in the ball Earth core, right? They are two entirely dfferent mediums, one is much more dense than the other one, and one cannot be known or measured, only the OTHER one can be, which is the AIR, above the surface.

We're not pulled down through the ground, to the core, right? Not a valid argument to say that we must measure the distance from a core, you don't know even exists, or have any PROOF for it existing, let alone being stronger when closer to it, boring a hole through Earth, to the 'core'.

Your argument is BS, in other words. As usual.

Objects fall at the same rate, which proves there IS no force, that has a source within a ball Earth core. The surface must be used as our reference point of it's strength, whatever distance you claim to the ball Earth core, doesn't matter, it's not used, even if it DID exist.

Tricks like that don't work, but nice try anyway. Remove the BS argument, and see that it is a made up nonsensical excuse for the ball Earth lie, as they all are created for. And all will crumble with it, one fine day. Not that it hasn't already, it's just not widely known yet, but it will be, eventually,

How would we know the strength of a magnet, on a nail, can start from a distance away from the source, the magnet itself, right? We can use ANY distance from or right ON the source, as our reference, or starting point.

It's all BS, made up and sold to the world, sadly.

 Remove the BS argument,

Now Turbs, you didn’t answer the question.  How does anything accelerate if there is no force applied.  So why would anything accelerate down towards earth if there is no force? 

No, the surface is our reference point of your made up force, that is the NEAREST point of distance FROM the source, in your ball Earth's 'core'.

Blatantly lying about it just shows your dishonesty.

Regardless of which honest approach someone takes, they will end up with a number quite close to using the centre of Earth as the reference point.

Trying to pick a single point on the surface means you are entirely ignoring the rest of Earth.
It isn't just that tiny point which is attracting you. It is ALL the mass of Earth.

It really is quite simple. Lets say you have a test mass 1 m above the surface of Earth, taken to be a perfect sphere with a radius of 6371 km.

Now, this ball is 1 m from the surface.
It is also 12 742 001 m from the opposite surface.

You now move it to 2 m above the surface.
This means it is now 2 m from the surface, and 12 742 002 m from the opposite surface.

Why should we focus on the change from 1 to 2 m rather than the 12 742 001 to 12 742 002 m?
One is a change of 100%. The other is a change of 0.0000078%

And you can do the same for the distance to every other point on the surface.

We're not pulled down through the ground, to the core, right?

You are pulled to the ground, but the ground being solid pushes back, which is why you stay above the ground.

Not a valid argument to say that we must measure the distance from a core

What isn't valid is to ignore the entire mass of Earth and dishonestly pretend we should only focus on a single point.

you don't know even exists

I don't need to know it exists.
That is because it doesn't actually matter if Earth is a hollow shell or a solid ball. The same argument applies, and you need to use the centre.

Your argument is BS, in other words. As usual.

Quite the opposite.
Your argument is pure BS. A blatant lie to pretend gravity isn't real, because you can't actually refute it.
And because you can't put up a rational defence you need to lie again to claim my argument is BS.

Objects fall at the same rate

The rate objects fall at varies over Earth and with altitude.
So there you go lying again.

The surface must be used as our reference point of it's strength, whatever distance you claim to the ball Earth core, doesn't matter, it's not used, even if it DID exist.

WHY?
Don't just assert delusional BS, explain WHY!

Tricks like that don't work

Which is why I can so easily see through yours.
Your tick, to try to use the distance to the surface, ignoring basically the entire mass of Earth, will not work.

Remove the BS argument, and see that it is a made up nonsensical excuse for the ball Earth lie

Again, quite the opposite.
What you have is a made up nonsensical excuse for the FE lie.

How would we know the strength of a magnet, on a nail, can start from a distance away from the source, the magnet itself, right? We can use ANY distance from or right ON the source, as our reference, or starting point.

If you want to get an idea of how much it varies, you can just pick any arbitrary point.

How much should the strength of a magnet vary when you move 1 mm?
Does this change depending upon if you are 1 mm away from the magnet, or 1 km away?

It's all BS, made up and sold to the world, sadly.

That does appear to be all you have. Made up BS you are trying to sell to the world.

And notice how all you did in that post was irrational attack gravity.
You still refuse to do anything to justify your delusional BS.
You still have no reason for why an object should fall.
You have no reason for why the rate should pretty much not depend on the density of the object at all.
You have no reason for why the rate varies over Earth and with altitude.

And you entirely ignored the refutation of so much of your delusional BS, instead sticking to a single point, which you just continually asserted delusional BS with no justification.

No, we do NOT feel ourselves being 'pulled down' to the surface from below, that's complete BS, they tell us is true, so eventually, some people start to believe they feel a pull, like you do. There s NOTHING felt pulling us down from below us, on or in the Earth.

When we fall out of a plane, high in air, we go into a free fall, at first, before our parachutes, of course.

Even if you've never skydived, as I have, a high dive into water is much the same, in lesser distances, and less air resistance, etc.

We don't feel ourselves being pulled down by a force from below us, yet we DO feel air resistance, and crosswinds, while falling through air, which hit us from another direction, while we are falling straight downward, when there is no wnd, and little air resistance, of course.

And we will also FEEL the air resistance acting on us, maybe holding us up in air, or when a strong cross wind hits us, and moves us over in the air, because those ARE real forces, and we FEEL them acting on us. 

When we are ACTUALLY being pulled down by a force from below us, anywhere we are, we clearly will feel ourselves being pulled down from below,  because there is an actual force acting on us.

No, we do NOT feel ourselves

We don’t care how you feel.

Answer the question.  What causes something to change direction of travel and/or accelerate.

No, we do NOT feel ourselves being 'pulled down' to the surface from below, that's complete BS, they tell us is true, so eventually, some people start to believe they feel a pull, like you do. There s NOTHING felt pulling us down from below us, on or in the Earth.

When we fall out of a plane, high in air, we go into a free fall, at first, before our parachutes, of course.

Even if you've never skydived, as I have, a high dive into water is much the same, in lesser distances, and less air resistance, etc.

We don't feel ourselves being pulled down by a force from below us, yet we DO feel air resistance, and crosswinds, while falling through air, which hit us from another direction, while we are falling straight downward, when there is no wnd, and little air resistance, of course.

And we will also FEEL the air resistance acting on us, maybe holding us up in air, or when a strong cross wind hits us, and moves us over in the air, because those ARE real forces, and we FEEL them acting on us. 

When we are ACTUALLY being pulled down by a force from below us, anywhere we are, we clearly will feel ourselves being pulled down from below,  because there is an actual force acting on us.

DO you FEEL it when you're ACTUALLY being arrested and ACTUALLY being pulled to the ground for ACTUALLY stealing oxygen? DO you FEEL your pants being pulled down as your cell mate introduces himself as "Ben Dover" as you FEEL an actual penetrating force acting on you? 

No, we do NOT feel ourselves being 'pulled down' to the surface from below

Just like we don't feel ourselves being pulled towards a magnet.
Can you provide an example of a force, comparable to gravity, such that it acts on your entire body, which you feel, in "free fall"?
NO!
The only way you can show us feeling forces are with things like contact forces such as the wind trying to push through you, or us holding onto things which are themselves attracted by a force.

But you can feel yourself being pulled down when not in free fall.
Because then you need to transfer a force through your body to hold it up.

And that is what you really feel, a force being transferred through your body.

And we will also FEEL the air resistance acting on us, maybe holding us up in air, or when a strong cross wind hits us, and moves us over in the air, because those ARE real forces, and we FEEL them acting on us.

Pure BS. What you are feeling is the transfer of force through your body.
The wind acts on the "front" and is then transferred from that part of your body to the rest.

When we are ACTUALLY being pulled down by a force from below us, anywhere we are, we clearly will feel ourselves being pulled down from below,  because there is an actual force acting on us.

Like if someone is hanging from you?
What is pulling them down?

And again, notice how again you just ignore everything inconvenient to you, and continue with your irrational attacks against gravity while refusing to justify your delusional BS at all?

You still have no reason for why an object should fall.
You have no reason for why the rate should pretty much not depend on the density of the object at all.
You have no reason for why the rate varies over Earth and with altitude.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 19, 2023, 05:57:53 AM

Without a force to do so, it is magic.

Yes, the object is more dense than air. So what?
Why should that mean it falls down?

Why should objects magically fall, for no reason at all, with no force acting? That makes no sense at all.


And it does.
The rate of acceleration varies around Earth, and with altitude.
But you need to use the distance honestly. That means using the distance from the centre of Earth, not the surface.

No, the surface is our reference point of your made up force, that is the NEAREST point of distance FROM the source, in your ball Earth's 'core'. 

The SURFACE is our reference point, of your magical force's strength, which we CAN measure, if it existed. Also, what we are measuring is within air, not within the ground TO the supposed source in the ball Earth core, right? They are two entirely dfferent mediums, one is much more dense than the other one, and one cannot be known or measured, only the OTHER one can be, which is the AIR, above the surface.

We're not pulled down through the ground, to the core, right? Not a valid argument to say that we must measure the distance from a core, you don't know even exists, or have any PROOF for it existing, let alone being stronger when closer to it, boring a hole through Earth, to the 'core'.

Your argument is BS, in other words. As usual.

Objects fall at the same rate, which proves there IS no force, that has a source within a ball Earth core. The surface must be used as our reference point of it's strength, whatever distance you claim to the ball Earth core, doesn't matter, it's not used, even if it DID exist.

Tricks like that don't work, but nice try anyway. Remove the BS argument, and see that it is a made up nonsensical excuse for the ball Earth lie, as they all are created for. And all will crumble with it, one fine day. Not that it hasn't already, it's just not widely known yet, but it will be, eventually,

How would we know the strength of a magnet, on a nail, can start from a distance away from the source, the magnet itself, right? We can use ANY distance from or right ON the source, as our reference, or starting point.

It's all BS, made up and sold to the world, sadly.

Hey Turds, it looks like India just joined your worldwide conspiracy, having just landed a spacecraft on the moon. Russia bailed out of the conspiracy at the last second with their moon mission spacecraft crashing on the moon. Woo, boy, I'll bet you were pleased to hear that one! How many countries are in on your moon landing conspiracy, now? Is it five or six?

Lucky there are people out there like you who are awake to the truth, isn't it? There are so many sheep out there like me, just towing the line and promoting the evil globalist agenda, isn't there?