Why is moon landing impossible

so I was thinking, the moon goes around the earth. even flat earthers agree on that , I suppose. So, since the moon goes around the earth, why can't we humans construct an artificial moon that goes around the earth in much the same way a moon does? better yet, if we can actually do that, why not go to the moon itself?

so I was thinking, the moon goes around the earth. even flat earthers agree on that , I suppose. So, since the moon goes around the earth, why can't we humans construct an artificial moon that goes around the earth in much the same way a moon does? better yet, if we can actually do that, why not go to the moon itself?

The moon is just luminous ether, or something like that.  It requires no force to keep it up since it is outside the dome and the atmosphere.  How will you keep an artificial moon from falling? 

Some people are so silly!

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

Quote

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

disturbed

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

so you believe that god exists? well, matters not. this is a discussion about reality not fiction. especially not about one that was written a thousand years ago. try again when you can actually make sense without the involvement of god. until you can, here's my actual reply to your post:

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

Quote

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

disturbed

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

If starlight on the horizon can be seen, then your idea of a umbrella parabola view that hides things bottom-up is wrong.

Most definitely wrong, because you are a fucking moron.

so you believe that god exists? well, matters not. this is a discussion about reality not fiction. especially not about one that was written a thousand years ago. try again when you can actually make sense without the involvement of god.

Is this entire site's time spent on ad-hominem attacks that don't address the merits of the claim? Fun!

so I was thinking, the moon goes around the earth. even flat earthers agree on that , I suppose. So, since the moon goes around the earth, why can't we humans construct an artificial moon that goes around the earth in much the same way a moon does? better yet, if we can actually do that, why not go to the moon itself?

As a newbie to the FE concept, my understanding of the theory is that the sun and moon are plasmatic phenomenon and not physical objects. There seems to be a professor who did an ABC interview in Australia prior to the alleged moon landings who supported this theory and claimed that the theory had been proven true before. Unfortunately, his prior work seems to have been scrubbed from the internet, as well as his identity in and of itself.

The plasma is either within the firmament and therefore not within our reach, or beyond the firmament in what would be considered the deep/abyss.

As a newbie to the FE concept, my understanding of the theory is that the sun and moon are plasmatic phenomenon and not physical objects.

The sun is plasma. Plasma is a physical object in the sense that it is made of matter.
The moon does not act like plasma at all.

There seems to be a professor who did an ABC interview in Australia prior to the alleged moon landings who supported this theory and claimed that the theory had been proven true before. Unfortunately, his prior work seems to have been scrubbed from the internet, as well as his identity in and of itself.

So you claim there is this professor, while also claiming there is no evidence.
Why do you believe this claim? Is it because you want it to be true? It clearly isn't because of evidence for this claim.

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on May 15, 2024, 11:35:24 AM

so you believe that god exists? well, matters not. this is a discussion about reality not fiction. especially not about one that was written a thousand years ago. try again when you can actually make sense without the involvement of god.

Is this entire site's time spent on ad-hominem attacks that don't address the merits of the claim? Fun!

bulma deserves neither respect nor decorum.
because he is a piece of shit.

The sun is plasma. Plasma is a physical object in the sense that it is made of matter.
The moon does not act like plasma at all.

I can't argue the second point; I am not well versed in astronomy, photography, etc. I've just seen interesting arguments made by some FE and also recognize that the moon landings were staged. I'm caught in a weird zone of skepticism between knowing that all the governments of the world lie constantly about everything and that there's a lot of untested/able theories out there about the real nature of the world.

So you claim there is this professor, while also claiming there is no evidence.
Why do you believe this claim? Is it because you want it to be true? It clearly isn't because of evidence for this claim.

I don't claim there is, I claim I saw what appeared to be an ABC Australia interview with a known ABC Australia anchor interviewing someone who was allegedly a professor. I find that the abnormal lack of information about this is in the same vein as other scrubbed information I've seen. I observe patterns and think about it, that's all. I wish I could see this alleged professor's prior work (if it exists) and look at it myself, but it doesn't seem possible.

I can't argue the second point; I am not well versed in astronomy, photography, etc. I've just seen interesting arguments made by some FE and also recognize that the moon landings were staged.

You mean you believe they are staged.
I am yet to see any valid evidence for that.
But I have seen intentional manipulation by people claiming they are fake, who are faking the fake evidence themselves.

I'm caught in a weird zone of skepticism between knowing that all the governments of the world lie constantly about everything and that there's a lot of untested/able theories out there about the real nature of the world.

Not knowing, believing.
That is paranoia, not scepticism.

I don't claim there is, I claim I saw what appeared to be an ABC Australia interview with a known ABC Australia anchor interviewing someone who was allegedly a professor. I find that the abnormal lack of information about this is in the same vein as other scrubbed information I've seen. I observe patterns and think about it, that's all. I wish I could see this alleged professor's prior work (if it exists) and look at it myself, but it doesn't seem possible.

Which could easily just be you not remembering correctly. It happens quite often.
And as it isn't really noteworthy (unless there was actual proof) it isn't an abnormal lack of information.
A crazy person claiming to have proven something, without the actual proof, fading into obscurity is not abnormal.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 14, 2024, 03:33:48 AM

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

Quote

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

disturbed

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

If starlight on the horizon can be seen, then your idea of a umbrella parabola view that hides things bottom-up is wrong.

Most definitely wrong, because you are a fucking moron.

The moron is you. Despite numerous attempts, you have yet to understand the theory.

Starlight on the horizon cannot be seen when the sun is out. If we have a sphere, and stars are bodies of light, shouldn't the brightest and closest of them be visible? Instead the sun and blue sky completely obscures them. If the sun is big enough to dwarf the Earth several times, shouldn't it likewise be visible even from glare reflected from mirrored satellites or something? Nope, completely invisible and satellites don't exist. Worse, at night, the thick blue sky mysteriously thins and radio signals and such are affected. The light of the sun doesn't shrink due to distance between summer and winter, but somehow the light of stars is tiny in comparison. But yet, not tiny enough, considering that light years are in the trillions of miles away, and the near star (vs the sun) is 4 light years. The very closest should be 1/1000th of the size of the sun but it sorta kinda really isn't. And several other stars are supposed to be even farther. 16,308 light-years away for the farthest one with the naked eye. But there doesn't seem to be any kind of difference between the size of different stars. Almost like the stars are not what you say they are, or where you say they are. Thousands of trillions of miles away with no real difference from stars only about 4  light years?

Read the bottom line from 150 ft away. You can't read a simple set of letters. Yet you can see tiny lights from thousands of trillions of miles away. Human vision simply isn't that good.

Your weird ideas simply don't work. They require suspension of common sense.

Quote from: EarthIsRotund on May 15, 2024, 11:35:24 AM

so you believe that god exists? well, matters not. this is a discussion about reality not fiction. especially not about one that was written a thousand years ago. try again when you can actually make sense without the involvement of god.

Is this entire site's time spent on ad-hominem attacks that don't address the merits of the claim? Fun!

look dude, like I said, I'm discussing science, not some hobo with some wine making magic.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 15, 2024, 02:35:58 PM

The sun is plasma. Plasma is a physical object in the sense that it is made of matter.
The moon does not act like plasma at all.

I can't argue the second point; I am not well versed in astronomy, photography, etc. I've just seen interesting arguments made by some FE and also recognize that the moon landings were staged. I'm caught in a weird zone of skepticism between knowing that all the governments of the world lie constantly about everything and that there's a lot of untested/able theories out there about the real nature of the world.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 15, 2024, 02:35:58 PM

So you claim there is this professor, while also claiming there is no evidence.
Why do you believe this claim? Is it because you want it to be true? It clearly isn't because of evidence for this claim.

I don't claim there is, I claim I saw what appeared to be an ABC Australia interview with a known ABC Australia anchor interviewing someone who was allegedly a professor. I find that the abnormal lack of information about this is in the same vein as other scrubbed information I've seen. I observe patterns and think about it, that's all. I wish I could see this alleged professor's prior work (if it exists) and look at it myself, but it doesn't seem possible.

look, nobody is asking you to trust the government. there have been plenty of third parties not affiliated with the us government or nasa who have verified the moon landings. China, Japan, Russia, India are countries with their own space programmes whose satellites have picked up traces of the moon landing. And lastly, many people not affiliated with any government who owned radio equipments have confirmed the transmissions of both audio and video directly from the moon.

and then you claim moon is plasma. why do you think so? you say you're an noob in astronomy, so you believe the words of some guy who said moon is plasma. but then, there are also plenty of other astronomers who say that the moon is very much solid and not plasma. why do you want to believe one astronomer over the other? what is the reason?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 15, 2024, 12:23:23 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 14, 2024, 03:33:48 AM

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

Quote

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

disturbed

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

If starlight on the horizon can be seen, then your idea of a umbrella parabola view that hides things bottom-up is wrong.

Most definitely wrong, because you are a fucking moron.

The moron is you. Despite numerous attempts, you have yet to understand the theory.

Starlight on the horizon cannot be seen when the sun is out. If we have a sphere, and stars are bodies of light, shouldn't the brightest and closest of them be visible? Instead the sun and blue sky completely obscures them. If the sun is big enough to dwarf the Earth several times, shouldn't it likewise be visible even from glare reflected from mirrored satellites or something? Nope, completely invisible and satellites don't exist. Worse, at night, the thick blue sky mysteriously thins and radio signals and such are affected. The light of the sun doesn't shrink due to distance between summer and winter, but somehow the light of stars is tiny in comparison. But yet, not tiny enough, considering that light years are in the trillions of miles away, and the near star (vs the sun) is 4 light years. The very closest should be 1/1000th of the size of the sun but it sorta kinda really isn't. And several other stars are supposed to be even farther. 16,308 light-years away for the farthest one with the naked eye. But there doesn't seem to be any kind of difference between the size of different stars. Almost like the stars are not what you say they are, or where you say they are. Thousands of trillions of miles away with no real difference from stars only about 4  light years?

Read the bottom line from 150 ft away. You can't read a simple set of letters. Yet you can see tiny lights from thousands of trillions of miles away. Human vision simply isn't that good.

Your weird ideas simply don't work. They require suspension of common sense.

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra now with 100x zoom to find your brain cells

The moron is you. Despite numerous attempts, you have yet to understand the theory.

You don't have a theory, you have a collection which simply doesn't work.
Explaining why your nonsense doesn't work doesn't mean we don't understand.

If we have a sphere, and stars are bodies of light, shouldn't the brightest and closest of them be visible?

It is, it is commonly called the sun.
It is visible as long as Earth isn't blocking the view.
The rest aren't visible during the day because of the brightness of the sun.
This is also why you typically can't see them through the window from a brightly illuminated room.

shouldn't it likewise be visible even from glare reflected from mirrored satellites or something?

It is.
You can see those satellites reflecting the sun.
But that doesn't magically let you see the sun.

the thick blue sky mysteriously thins and radio signals and such are affected.

The sky doesn't thin, the blue just disappears because it doesn't have the sunlight which causes it.

The light of the sun doesn't shrink due to distance between summer and winter

This BS of yours has already been refuted.
The distance to the sun varies by roughly 3% over the course of a year.
That is not going to have much of an effect on its visual size.
Conversely, in your fantasy there should be a massive difference over the course of a day.

The very closest should be 1/1000th of the size of the sun but it sorta kinda really isn't.

Because once a light gets small enough, it is just an unresolved point.

Do you have something that can resolve that size (~0.0005 degrees)?

Yet you can see tiny lights from thousands of trillions of miles away.

Yes, because that is how light and human vision works.
If you have a light source, which is brighter than the surroundings, it will be visible, regardless of how far away it is. If it is too far, it will just be an unresolved point.

Your weird ideas simply don't work. They require suspension of common sense.

Pure BS.
You are yet to show a single fault, and instead need to repeatedly discard common sense to pretend it doesn't work.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 15, 2024, 12:23:23 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 14, 2024, 03:33:48 AM

The moon is inside the dome. Outside the dome is the void. They call it outer space, but this is what we mean.

Quote

The earth was formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep (primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth). The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

disturbed

That's right. Only God can move across the void. Sun and moon are inside the firmament. The stars are pinpricks in the firmament. The void is white, not black. So we are seeing the absolute brightness of God through these holes in the sky.

If the moon is inside the dome, you can in fact land on it. However, they didn't. It was all propaganda to hide the fact that the two governments allied against their own people.

If starlight on the horizon can be seen, then your idea of a umbrella parabola view that hides things bottom-up is wrong.

Most definitely wrong, because you are a fucking moron.

The moron is you. Despite numerous attempts, you have yet to understand the theory.

Starlight on the horizon cannot be seen when the sun is out. If we have a sphere, and stars are bodies of light, shouldn't the brightest and closest of them be visible? Instead the sun and blue sky completely obscures them. If the sun is big enough to dwarf the Earth several times, shouldn't it likewise be visible even from glare reflected from mirrored satellites or something? Nope, completely invisible and satellites don't exist. Worse, at night, the thick blue sky mysteriously thins and radio signals and such are affected. The light of the sun doesn't shrink due to distance between summer and winter, but somehow the light of stars is tiny in comparison. But yet, not tiny enough, considering that light years are in the trillions of miles away, and the near star (vs the sun) is 4 light years. The very closest should be 1/1000th of the size of the sun but it sorta kinda really isn't. And several other stars are supposed to be even farther. 16,308 light-years away for the farthest one with the naked eye. But there doesn't seem to be any kind of difference between the size of different stars. Almost like the stars are not what you say they are, or where you say they are. Thousands of trillions of miles away with no real difference from stars only about 4  light years?

Read the bottom line from 150 ft away. You can't read a simple set of letters. Yet you can see tiny lights from thousands of trillions of miles away. Human vision simply isn't that good.

Your weird ideas simply don't work. They require suspension of common sense.

You're not anti science from what I can see, but are definitely a science denier. Why don't you just be honest and say you deny all science associated with the shape of Earth, NASA, the moon landings, astronomy, geography, .......Ok, maybe you accept biological science, medicines, etc?

You're a person who recognises that anything to do with NASA, and anything off-planet, is irrelevant to you and your life, yes? So, you're a person who lives life by your five senses, what you can see and feel, primarily. What you see, informs you your world around you is flat, and what you feel is this world is stationary and unmoving in any way, yes?

So, to you, the moon is nothing more than an ornament in the sky that nobody can stand on, and the stars are nothing more than pricks of light. That's all the attention they will get from you, isn't it?

Am I on target, Bulma?

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. I learned science back then. I do a quick mental comparison, and quickly get that there seems something wrong with the way science headed. When I was a kid which wasn't that long ago, they told us all about the scientific method of repeated results. Today the scientific method appears to be:
1. Does one or more politician support it?
2. Is it part of The Dogma?
3. Does the group consensus ("peer review") say it's okay?

Ummmm, sorry, but I don't trust that science. I trust the science where people said unpopular things, and were sometimes burned as witches, but nonetheless tested their experiments. If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity. Science is about breaking tradition, about testing limits. Not about deciding we have settled something. When science says that, they are covering something up. Because the goal of science is never to settle.

Your "science" is nothing but propaganda.

But yes, if my senses show the sun going around the Earth, and someone tells me, "You eyes are lying to you," I immediately recognize that I've heard similar rhetoric from cults that tried to suck me in. And I tell them back, "They probably aren't. And since my eyes agree with my sense of reason, when I see the sun going around the Earth, I'm pretty sure it did in fact go around the Earth. I don't pretend to know the full mechanism of flat Earth, but I can guess alot from observation. Sorry, not buying it." This is further compounded by the fact that both the NASA scientists and the climate scientists are trying to claim tax dollars and pushing for greater government control (e.g. carbon neutral by 20xx).

Sorry. You're welcome to believe in that science if you want, but I think I'll believe in what I consider real science.

Oh and btw, as I've never seen the backside of the moon, I'm gonna decide it's flat. So why can't we land on it? Well, from my perspective on this Earth it appears as though we'd have to land on it upside down. If it was intended as a landing pad, it ought to look more like a flying island.


You know, upright. So unless it has a topside, the primary reason is that round Earthers should agree with me when I say that by your own science, visitors to the moon ought to fall back to Earth.

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

 I trust the science where people said unpopular things, and were sometimes burned as witches, but nonetheless tested their experiments. If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity. Science is about breaking tradition, about testing limits. Not about deciding we have settled something.

Tested with experiments.
Yes
Ball earth has been tested and verified.

Your flat earth?
No.
We have "probably the moon is flat".
"Probably there is a parabola".



Probably bulma is a fucking moron?
Nope, not "probably" but well tested well repeated, therefore well proven.
It is settled.



Fucking idiot contradicts himself in his own post.
If church says its a well esrablsihed that xy is correct.... then is that not dorectly against what you jusr claomed science should be?


Moron.
The church killed that guy because he said the sun  was the middle of the solar system.



Fucking stupid.

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. I learned science back then. I do a quick mental comparison, and quickly get that there seems something wrong with the way science headed. When I was a kid which wasn't that long ago, they told us all about the scientific method of repeated results. Today the scientific method appears to be:
1. Does one or more politician support it?
2. Is it part of The Dogma?
3. Does the group consensus ("peer review") say it's okay?

Ummmm, sorry, but I don't trust that science. I trust the science where people said unpopular things, and were sometimes burned as witches, but nonetheless tested their experiments. If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity. Science is about breaking tradition, about testing limits. Not about deciding we have settled something. When science says that, they are covering something up. Because the goal of science is never to settle.

Your "science" is nothing but propaganda.

But yes, if my senses show the sun going around the Earth, and someone tells me, "You eyes are lying to you," I immediately recognize that I've heard similar rhetoric from cults that tried to suck me in. And I tell them back, "They probably aren't. And since my eyes agree with my sense of reason, when I see the sun going around the Earth, I'm pretty sure it did in fact go around the Earth. I don't pretend to know the full mechanism of flat Earth, but I can guess alot from observation. Sorry, not buying it." This is further compounded by the fact that both the NASA scientists and the climate scientists are trying to claim tax dollars and pushing for greater government control (e.g. carbon neutral by 20xx).

Sorry. You're welcome to believe in that science if you want, but I think I'll believe in what I consider real science.

Oh and btw, as I've never seen the backside of the moon, I'm gonna decide it's flat. So why can't we land on it? Well, from my perspective on this Earth it appears as though we'd have to land on it upside down. If it was intended as a landing pad, it ought to look more like a flying island.


You know, upright. So unless it has a topside, the primary reason is that round Earthers should agree with me when I say that by your own science, visitors to the moon ought to fall back to Earth.

great. at least you've stopped talking about the wine making magician. but anyways, even if the moon was hypothetically flat, why can't we just fly over to the top side? we can see the bottom side, so there must be a top side as well. you just can't have a flat plane with just one surface area. there is always a topside to a flat plane.

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. I learned science back then. I do a quick mental comparison, and quickly get that there seems something wrong with the way science headed. When I was a kid which wasn't that long ago, they told us all about the scientific method of repeated results. Today the scientific method appears to be:
1. Does one or more politician support it?
2. Is it part of The Dogma?
3. Does the group consensus ("peer review") say it's okay?

Ummmm, sorry, but I don't trust that science. I trust the science where people said unpopular things, and were sometimes burned as witches, but nonetheless tested their experiments. If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity. Science is about breaking tradition, about testing limits. Not about deciding we have settled something. When science says that, they are covering something up. Because the goal of science is never to settle.

Your "science" is nothing but propaganda.

But yes, if my senses show the sun going around the Earth, and someone tells me, "You eyes are lying to you," I immediately recognize that I've heard similar rhetoric from cults that tried to suck me in. And I tell them back, "They probably aren't. And since my eyes agree with my sense of reason, when I see the sun going around the Earth, I'm pretty sure it did in fact go around the Earth. I don't pretend to know the full mechanism of flat Earth, but I can guess alot from observation. Sorry, not buying it." This is further compounded by the fact that both the NASA scientists and the climate scientists are trying to claim tax dollars and pushing for greater government control (e.g. carbon neutral by 20xx).

Sorry. You're welcome to believe in that science if you want, but I think I'll believe in what I consider real science.

Oh and btw, as I've never seen the backside of the moon, I'm gonna decide it's flat. So why can't we land on it? Well, from my perspective on this Earth it appears as though we'd have to land on it upside down. If it was intended as a landing pad, it ought to look more like a flying island.


You know, upright. So unless it has a topside, the primary reason is that round Earthers should agree with me when I say that by your own science, visitors to the moon ought to fall back to Earth.

You're in your mid-forties, yes? Just a tad younger than I am.

You would have been a round earther for most of your life, I presume? Have you considered this newfound interest in the shape of the Earth of yours, along with your distrust of the government, could be just you experiencing a mid-life crisis? So, instead of you walking out on your family and going and buying an expensive sports car to pick up women in their twenties, you instead became a flat earther?

Something within yourself you could look at, considering your gender identity also being questioned at the same time? I don't see that it's just a coincidence every aspect of who you are is up for a change, do you?

Demographically, I see a lot of flat earthers are in the middle aged bracket, dissatisfied with life and looking for alternatives to the mainstream, and shunning authority.

Now is the time to ask yourself the big question, like was there a dream you had for your life which for whatever reason didn't happen, and you feel unfulfilled? Now might be the time to revisit that dream, and I'm sure that dream wasn't to spend a quarter of your day arguing for the merits of the Earth being flat?

So, back to the topic. Is the landing of people on the moon only impossible because a person would slide right off and fall back to Earth, or is it also impossible because it's too small to land on? Or is it impossible because it's just a flat projection on the firmament?

No I'm not. I'm a "science" denier.

Yes, you are.
You deny any science that doesn't match your fantasy.
So much so that you even deny things like properties of light and inertia/momentum.

Today the scientific method appears to be:

No, that is just your strawman of it.

If round Earth or heliocentrism are "established science", we ought to immediately question their validity.

The fantasy of a FE was questioned and replaced with the RE.
The RE has since stood the test of time with no one able to show a fault.

Science is not about just rejecting tradition like you want to pretend.
It is about actual scepticism.

Because the goal of science is never to settle.

The goal of science is to understand how the world works and be able to use that to predict what will happen to better prepare us for events and to make new things.
Part of that includes developing models which work and using those models. That is what is meant by "settled".
The RE model works and has been used for plenty of things, without a problem.

Yes, if you find something which shows a problem with the model, and can improve the model, then it will be improved.

But that is not a reason to just throw the model out because you don't like it.

But yes, if my senses show the sun going around the Earth, and someone tells me, "You eyes are lying to you," I immediately recognize that I've heard similar rhetoric from cults that tried to suck me in.

And so you just reject reality, and instead act like a cultist trying to suck others in.
Do you do the same when people tell you that when you are on a merry go round, the entire world isn't spinning around as you remain stationary? And that when you are in a car on a highway or in a plane, it isn't you being stationary with the entire world flying backwards?

Your eyes tell you RELATIVE position. They can't actually tell you which is moving.

Meanwhile, when people recognise things like the sun and moon remain roughly the same angular size so must be roughly the same distance, you entirely ignore that and still lie to everyone and claim it appears to go down because it is getting further away.
Likewise, if we look at distant objects with the bottom obscured by water, which is level.

Modern FEers outright reject what their eyes are telling them because it doesn't fit their fantasy.
So cut the crap about trusting your eyes.
You pretend they are lying to you all the time because you need to to pretend your fantasy works.

Instead, I actually use reason.

So going back to a sunset, or a moon set. I observe that it remains roughly the same angular size the entire time.
And I observe it appearing to go down.
This tells me that its path relative to me is roughly a circular path where it goes "below" my position on Earth, with Earth then blocking the view.
I don't claim to know which is moving from this, because I can't tell from this visual observation alone. I would need something else to determine if I (and Earth) am rotating or the sun is circling.

But not dishonest people like you that are so desperate to cling to a fantasy.
You will claim your eyes alone are pure magic and can tell that it is the sun that is moving, not you, and that even though the sun appears to be the same distance, it is magically getting further away and that is why it magically appears to set, and that even though it looks like Earth is blocking the view, it is actually pure magic.

So you rely upon your eyes to determine something they literally cannot determine, and then reject them for things they can determine.

I don't pretend to know the full mechanism of flat Earth

The problem is you have no mechanism at all.
You have nothing more than hopes and dreams.

Sorry. You're welcome to believe in that science if you want, but I think I'll believe in what I consider real science.

Be honest. You will reject that science and cling to fantasy.
What you are appealing to is not real science at all.

Do you know a key part of real science? Not just blindly trusting your senses and assumptions, but instead testing them and if possible, using other instruments.
For example, you say your eyes tell you the sun is going around Earth, and it isn't Earth rotating.
Do you know the appropriate way to test this?
Make a small model. You want a camera, mounted on a small model Earth, and a small model sun you can control.
Surround this with darkness so you can't see anything else. (If you object to this, then replace the darkness with a star field, e.g. a mainly black surface with little dots of white.)
Then film some shots where Earth is stationary and the sun moves (You can even try different paths, e.g. circling in a plane perpendicular to the surface of Earth at the camera, and in a plane parallel).
Film some shots where the sun is stationary and Earth rotates. (Note: Just the sun, not the starfield if you are using it, if you want, you can even then have that move with the sun as an additional option).
For added fun you can also have both moving.

Then, this is part where ideally you have a friend help out so you don't know which is which.
Mix up the shots, so after you have made your determination (below) you can then identify which is which, but when you viewing the shots you do not know.

Then, watch each shot, and make a determination of which is moving, Earth, the sun or both.
Then see how accurate you were.

Have you even attempted that? No. Instead you just know you want to believe Earth is magically stationary and the sun is moving around us, so you blindly accept it and reject anything to the contrary. That isn't science, that is religion. A cult you have decided to join and promote.

You could also do this in a computer simulation.

Oh and btw, as I've never seen the backside of the moon, I'm gonna decide it's flat.

So based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance, you are going to decide pure BS.

Observations of the moon show it is not flat, in several ways.
Due to the eccentricity of the orbit, we don't actually see the same portion of the moon the entire time, instead it changes over time appearing to rock back and forth.
With the phases, and the small details like shadows in craters, it acts like a spherical object illuminated by something else.
But also, if it was flat, it would need to continually reorient to face just you, or it should appear to distort as it moves around.

So there is plenty to show the moon is round, and NOTHING to show it is flat.
But because you are desperate to reject reality you cling to whatever BS you can and reject anything that doesn't fit your fantasy.

You know, upright. So unless it has a topside, the primary reason is that round Earthers should agree with me when I say that by your own science, visitors to the moon ought to fall back to Earth.

No, that is by your delusional BS so far removed from science it isn't funny.

It is also incoherent nonsense.
So you say the moon is flat, what is on the other side?
Is it just a flat disc, which has a top and bottom?
Or is it some magical never before seen thing which only has a bottom?
What happens if someone where to hypothetically try to go over the moon? (I hear a cow did it once )

Jack, you could sell that last post of yours as a cure for insomnia! I fell asleep at least twice trying to get through it.

Have you never heard the saying, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"? There is more salt and vinegar in that post than a packet of smith's salt and vinegar potato chips.

Are you really asking Bulma if he thinks the moon is a giant coin up in the sky, held there and moving around by magic, that a cow can jump over? That's pretty insulting, Jack!