[WhyTho]

I mean for exemple, a picture taken from high altitude over Florida that clearly shows Australia far away, which would be possible if the earth is flat. For the people who says ''The dome isn't that high so we can take such a picture'', you are wrong. Anyone, I mean ANYONE, could go near Cap Canaveral in Florida and witness a rocket launch. By that, you will witness by your own eyes how high what you call a ''dome'' really is, because if the rocket you are seeing by your own eyes can go up there, than anything can go up there. After that, any flat earth beliver with a lot of money could purchase a model rocket of 6 meters tall and place go pros on it. Such model rockets like the SL-10 (6m tall) can reach 120km of altitude, which is more than enough to see Australia from the US. Such rockets are expensive, but completely affortable for someone with money (price of a new car).

LAUNCH OF A SL-10 IN NEVADA:



Strange no flat belivers did this, such an easy way to prove without ANY doubt that the earth is flat, for a price that is totally worth it if it can prove that all governments of every country of the earth + the video bellow are lies.

I actually want to start a debate, that's why I posted this here.

[JohnAdams1145]

I think that any FE believer could use radar to figure out how high the rockets actually go -- but then they'd just say the radar was broken. There is no dome, because rockets have gone past it. Rockets work in space and have been proven to work in space through terrestrial experiments. All of the dome "proof" videos I have seen are garbage edits of amateur rockets running out of fuel and using their despin mechanism to actually get a good camera shot. The dome would imply yet another mysterious force (gravitation #1 -- variations in weight across Earth's surface, gravitation #2 -- stars on Foucault pendulum, dome forces, UA) introduced by FE theory, when they're wildly content with saying "we don't understand gravity so it doesn't exist" when the modern question is really just a unification problem. I wonder how they plan to justify UA when gravity has far better theory behind it. I could say the same about UA.

It's been suggested several times to launch a CubeSat to a much higher altitude (and in orbit), but nothing has come out of it. It has been suggested to measure distances on Earth; that one was contentious. I have suggested that the burden of proof is on FE to justify why rockets wouldn't work practically because they're solid on paper; it all comes back to the rockets don't work in space argument.