There are plenty of experiments with sound methodology that disprove flat earth. Not you need to because the math just doesn't work with a flat earth.
Name one.
How much is a "few", can you give an approximate number?
The structure is pyramidal, and it's on a 'need to know' basis. Apparently the top eschelon is the 'Committee of 300'. Ultimately it's the devil at work.
You know with micro sats you can buy one to launch for like 20 grand.
I've got a bridge for sale on the moon. Interested?
And how would that work? Like the actual technology involved how would it work?
Apparently based on LORAN. I'm no expert, suffice it to say if they could do it with an array of satellites, a ground-based solution would be a cinch.
Orbital decay is a factor and satellites are set to crash down at end of life all the time. Also there are several space faring countries, some of which are hostile to the US. Are you saying that all of them are lying about satellites just to fool you about a globe model?
Yep, that's what I'm saying. There are many countries hostile to each other who have been signatories of the Antarctic Treaty since the 50's too, without any 'ice wars'. No resources there to cause dispute?
Not sure what you mean by Cavendish's claim, but a boulder doesn't have enough mass for gravity to be a noticeable factor. If you drop a lead ball and a rubber ball they will drop at the same rate, meaning that primary factor in their motion is the same on both.
I'm saying that gravity cannot be proven on earth as a Newtonian concept ie attraction of masses, because there's no independent variable. Cavendish claimed to ahve done it by hanging 2 lead balls on a coat hanger in his shed, and watching them attract from a safe distance. That's the biggest experimental proof of gravity in history apparently, the Cavendish torsion balance. From it we can derive the mass of the earth and the moon, apparently. Two lead balls hanging in a shed.
At least you agree that in an enclosed car going a constant speed the ball would go straight up and down. You are right on the idea that acceleration would affect it but scale is the issue here, most of the time it's not noticeable because EVERYTHING is moving together.
But it's not, in your model it's all independent parts. One air molecule is distinct from the next, the one above is moving at a greater linear speed. And yet the air thins out with altitude. All the celestial bodies are doing their own thing.
Technically it affects everything, including the helicopter from before but it's too small to notice. It's only on the rockets that you can see the affect. Although heavy artillery does have to account for the rotation of the earth as well.
Heavy artillery most certainly does not compensate for the alleged earth rotation. It didn't affect Felix Baumgartner who 'skydived from space' to land not far away from his original starting position. Come on, how high would you need to go before you were no longer 'dragged along'?
So you believe that nasa and every other space faring country is shooting rockets into the ocean just fool people into believing the earth is flat?
Yep, that's why they invested the Bermuda Triangle off Cape Canaveral. Keep out, rocket graveyard!
Believing in the FE model is not a small thing and non-christians that believe in that are as ignorant as you.
It's a small thing compared to the real knowledge of God. But if you can't trust Him on that point, how can you believe His words on heavenly subjects? (Rhetorical, you as an atheist by definition has no concept of such things.)
That has nothing to do with what I said. You still haven't accounted for how gravity works in an FE model.
Stuff falls down. Except if it's lighter than air, it buoys up. Satisfied? Gravity works just the same, but better, because you have a level playing field without all these other forces at work such as centrifugal - that you need to theoretically compensate for.
Friction mostly, but you are kinda correct in that air would slosh around. There are streams and eddies at different layers of the atmosphere.
So if the motion is generated by the earth, it translates to each air particle, dragging the air around, something like a whirlpool. Is that basically what you're suggesting?
Yeah we know that from observations of the sunrises.
So if there's acceleration we should be able to physically measure the earth's motion through space. Many have tried, none have succeeded.
You're implying that these velocity changes would be felt but it happens over the course of 6 months.
The changes would be diurnal. Every day earth rotates in the direction of orbit, and every night it rotates away. So 66000mph +/- 1000mph (equator).
It's also farther away. Also, how do you think the moon stays up?
I don't know. It's a wonder of creation. But it sure ain't explained by gravity and orbits. Plus someone did the calcs on the moon's predicted orbital decay after however many million years and found it should be right on top of us now! Run the numbers yourself.
You are easily amused by your own ignorance. How does pressure work in an FE model then?
Consider a container with 2 stacked compartments, separated by a barrier. The compartment below is highly pressurised. When the barrier is removed, what will happen? Did gravity prevent the high pressure air moving into the lower pressure environment? No, it's a simple case of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at work.
So the pressurised atmosphere of earth v the super low pressure of near-infinite space, no solid barrier...what should happen? Or the atmosphere should get 'blown away' as we hurtle through space. Take your pick.
