RE: Are Flat Earthers As Crazy As We're Led To Believe?
Regarding a couple of your questions.
As far as I understand it, most satellites aren't made by NASA, but by companies (for telecomm for ex,) usually manufactured by other companies like Lockheed or Boeing. So if you changed your search parameters from "NASA satellite" to "NASA releasing satellites," or "Lockheed Satellites," you get better image results. (There are still many cartoons though.)
Regarding the strength of gravity and your question about (y)our ability to stand despite gravity being strong enough to create oceans upside-down. So firstly, (and of course I mean this politely,) there is no upside-down in space. Gravity doesn't pull you "down" per se, rather it pulls any two masses together, relative to their mass/distance. This is why both the water of our oceans has collected, and why the material of our earth itself has collected. You raise the issue of density, which is why rock is "above" (now) liquid metal, water is "above" rock, and atmosphere is "above" water. Gravity compared to the other 3 forces is the weakest. (Others are electromagnetism, as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces.) This explains why when I pull apart two objects who are barely connected by anything but gravity, like a book and a table, I get little if any usable energy, (I can drop the book back down to release a sound and a touch of heat.) Whereas when we split just a few hundred nuclei of even the lightest atoms (held together by strong and weak nuclear force,) we get massive amounts of usable or G-d forbid, destructive energy. This is also why all it takes for you to stand up without oozing into the earth, is just a light, mostly calcium skeletal system, and a few muscles. Notice also that when you suddenly experience multiple G's, like in a car, plane, or even just when you jump up and down, your weight becomes significantly more burdensome. This of course is because we primarily function within a specific range of G's, as in, we we're designed/evolved to operate in a range of say -2 to +2 G's. (Before technology and roller coasters^^)
Does this reply to the aspect of the question you meant?
My brain is no longer working well enough to make sense of these words. I am far too tired and have been looking at a screen for over 12 hours today trying to write this post up and respond to comments, which has led my head and my eyes to ache.
I shall give this a read tomorrow morning once I have my wits about me, at which point I will offer you a response worthy of your time. Night-
Understandable, no worries^^ I appreciate the reply.
And I think others have said most of what I said, so you'll probably have already responded to the ideas elsewhere... Gnite!
There was one thing mentioned elsewhere, but I answered you anyway.
Yes, I did this and they still appear to be fake, I think it's even more suspicious that NASA don't make their own satellites, but source it out to a private company in spite of having some of the best engineers and scientists working for them..
I know this. At least, I know there is no upside down in space, if there is a space, and if gravity exists. This is really an issue with semantics. I used the words upside down because I was bringing gravity into question within the context.
I believe this is yet another issue of semantics. I said down, because the larger mass( the Earth) that as the higher gravitational force is below us-- down.
I can't argue your point about the immense energy released through nuclear energy. I just don't feel that it offers any explanation as to how gravity effects me differently from how it effects the ocean, so I'm not sure where you're going with this...
NASA doesn't make most satellites 'cause most satellites are corporate. It's really not suspicious. NASA gets paid to launch them. Additionally, NASA, Lockheed, Boeing, and several others have been basically inseparable for decades. So one company does part of a satellite, and another does what they specialize in.
I appreciate that the use of the word down might only have a semantic difference for you, and that's ok since you understand the difference, but others may not.
The point about the immense energy of the nuclear weak/strong forces that I was trying to make, was to show the difference between the amount of energy holding together the nuclei of just a few atoms (or released whey they are "pulled" apart through fission,) vs. the fact that you are able to stand against gravity with just a few muscles, ie, you can stand despite being "pulled" towards every single atom on earth. In your post, you implied that gravity was very strong, when in fact it's the weakest of the 4 physical forces. So from the example I gave, the amount of energy released when dropping a book onto a table of trillions of atom, is far less, than what's available when releasing the energy of a few atoms in a nuclear reactor...
Sorry if this was not helpful...
I understand you now.
Let me explain why I believe that gravity must be an immensely powerful force. According to NASA videos, we have seen that without gravity, objects simply float around.
The weight of an ocean, I am just guessing here, but is surely at least a few billion tons. Gravity must be consistently pulling down (towards the centre of the Earth) on that ocean to prevent it from simply rising with the wind and with water displacement from sea life. The water would just be floating around in the air above us before long if it was not for gravity.
So how much force does it take to pull down an ocean and keep in position on the Earth? I would imagine A LOT.
Was I was saying is that if this same force was applied to me, I would be flattened into the floor.
Many in other comments have spoken of how gravity is relative to the mass of an object, and I know this to be what is taught. However, I am not entirely convinced this is the case. That is all I was stating.
It would be a pointless endeavor to attempt to prove me otherwise though, because I understand the scientific reasoning presented behind relative forces applied to objects depending on their mass. I just think that there are interpretations of the results of the experiments that led to this conclusion, that are not being explored by mainstream science.
Essentially, I'm questioning the existence of gravity as a whole. Whilst that may seem crazy to a lot of people, I am simply hesitant to place absolute trust in a theory that no one has been able to conclusively explain or measure. There are a lot of working equations for gravity. Perhaps when there is one that everyone can agree on, I too will agree on it and stop looking for a better answer.
You said a lot so I'll just pick a few if that's cool.
Scientists haven't stopped looking for a better answer, they are constantly refining towards the better answer. There are loads of ongoing experiments.
You say "if this same force was applied to me, I would be flattened..." But the same force is being applied to you, except you have muscles and far less mass. You could ask the same question about the FE theory statement that says we are travelling "upwards" at 9.8 m/s2. Why aren't you flattened?
"We have seen that without gravity, objects simply float around." There is really no such thing as "without gravity." Everything is affected by the mass of everything else relative to each body's mass and distance from the next. What you see on the ISS are objects "falling" inside a vessel, travelling at about 18,000 mph, in effect, also "falling," towards earth in a spiral shape. You can partially feel this in an elevator if you jump as the elevator begins to descend, or you will feel heavy when it stops for the opposite effect.
What I am saying is that after a century of refining a theory and still not being able to perfect it, the science community should be willing to accept proposals of new theories. But they don't, because science has become politics. I was just reading something a moment ago on how climate change has finally been exposed as a hoax, or at least a major scientific institution where many other institutions get their data, has been busted manipulating data to support climate change. This is exactly what I mean. Over the past decade so many scientists have spoken out about their disbelief in clime change, and none of those fuckers have a job anymore. Science isn't science anymore. It is politics and what they want us to believe has nothing to do with what what the truth is.
You are still not understanding me based on this sentence, and I do not know how better to explain it without drawing a picture, so best we just forget this issue.
My experience with looking into the flat Earth theory has revealed that this fact you speak of is something that the Flat Earth Society put forth. The Flat Earth community recognise The Flat Earth Society as controlled opposition, meaning that they intentionally say stupid, unbelievable shit in order to discredit the theory. No genuine flat Earther that I have ever spoken to adheres to this theory. They have all maintained that the Earth is 100% stationary, and that the stars move around the Earth in the firmament, as stated in the Torah or Bible.
You're not even willing to accept a possibility that gravity might not be true are you... I'm willing to accept that gravity could definitely be a thing. I'm just not certain of it. But, if you can only speak from a perspective of certainty, then I'm not sure it is possible for us to have a very productive conversation on this matter.