I wouldn't want you to, nor do I care about anything you do. But if you want to educate please do, your infinite pool of knowledge and wisdom should've ended the debate by now.
Ironic I'm being told to think more critical when literally all I do is criticize shaky concepts.
It's obvious you've been indoctrinated well into the world of Newtonian physics. But you can't say for sure that any of it applies outside of earths orbit. Of course you've never been in "space," so you can only assume that's how it works.
What exactly is my theory or hypothesis again, Eisenstein?
If it's that flat earth theory would be better discussed in a realm not ruled by self proclaimed rocket scientist google scholars like you, then I'd say im spot on.
I can actually argue the shape of the Earth and things like Newton's laws with very little need to use google. I do use it to offer references or to verify data, I used it today to look up some stuff about Newton and his thoughts about aether since I was not very knowledgeable on the subject.
Air pressure drops with higher altitudes.
Air pressure is basically how compact the air is and how bunched up the stuff that makes air is.
Space is at a higher altitude than sea level.
My theory is in space the pressure is lower, their is less stuff in it than would be in the same volume of air at sea level.
I then can assume if my theory is correct that friction caused by space will be less than the friction caused at sea level.
I can and have observed planets. I have seen the moons orbiting Jupiter and observed Venus, Mars, and Saturn through telescopes. I have observed the moon and it's phases, watched a lunar eclipse. Watched the sun set and rise, watched container ships appear to rise and sink at the visible horizon. All of which suggest the Earth is round. It also suggest that Newton's Laws and gravity are in play through out space. Seems things with enough mass like to form into spherical shapes. If mass causes gravity it would make sense that they would.
I have used predictions based on gravity like tide charts and they have been very reliable and accurate.
So moons can be observed orbiting planets.
I have a theory that if some one made something and could get it to space it could be put into an orbit.
I have another theory that if Newton's Law work on our planet they will likely work in space. I make this theory based on not making any observations that it would not work and can not think of why they should not. It is not like gravity acting on objects in space have not been observed. Changing their directions and speed. Seems to be following Newton's Laws.
Of course my theories have been made by others previously, so can not take credit for coming up with them.
You make it seem we just blindly accept stuff as fact. I have made observations myself in going about my day to day activities, used a telescope, used binoculars to observe the ISS, use tide tables using predictions based on gravity and relative positions of the moon and sun, observed ships seem to rise or sink at the visible horizon, used celestial navigation, watched Irdium flares appear when and where they were predicted,
A big bang certainly wouldn't create a flat plane,
Being held down is a principle of density in a fluid. When you're in water you go up, because you are less dense than water. In air you go down. A guy in the 1600's decided to try to explain how the Earth revolves around the Sun so that's where we get any explanation other wise.
It's not gravity that keeps these things distant, it's electromagnetic force.
Even a helium balloon sinks in a vacuum.
Space travel is basically an assault on common sense, much like big bang theory, and evolution.
The above are your hypotheses I found in this thread.