Why do y’all always refer to gravity as being incredibly powerful? Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental interaction forces.

No, NASA is not on record saying all their imagery is CGI. They are on record saying many of their images are composites of multiple pictures, or created from raw data, or color shifted to make them visible. You are implying that NASA has “admitted” all their imagery is fake and this simply isn’t true. IIRC, the comment “debunking” the fact that short wave radio bounces off the ionosphere was the commenter saying that I couldn’t physically embody a short wave signal and watch it bounce off the atmosphere so I can’t prove it happens. Or did I miss something?

The atmosphere isn’t what causes objects in flight on Earth to rotate with the Earth. Gravity is what causes this, as well as what causes the atmosphere to “stick” to and rotate with the Earth.

Studying th Sun’s corona allows us to better understand, predict, and mitigate solar weather events like solar wind and solar flares which can negatively impact communications systems on earth and between orbiting satellites.

Because those instruments, like Hubble and James Webb, are designed to take photos of extremely distant, extremely dim sources of light. It would be like taking a camera set up to take photos at night and trying to take a photo in midday sun. It would not only produce a completely washed out image, it could potentially damage the camera. It’s important to remember that NASA’s mission is not to prove that the Earth is a globe. This has already been established. With this in mind it makes sense that NASA is not spending millions of dollars to produce equipment to take high resolution photos of earth from a distance to “prove” anything to people who, again, would simply call that evidence fake. Which again begs the question - why do you ask for photographic evidence when we both know you’ll simply call that evidence fake?

True, we cannot literally embody a short wave radio signal and feel ourselves bounce off the atmosphere. But this doesn’t mean the ionosphere or the firmament (or a giant turtle shell or a group of interdimensional gnomes or any other random explanation) are equally valid explanations for the observable over-horizon communication of short wave radio, right?

Why would you expect there to be high resolution imagery of the entire Earth that isn’t a composite of many images? Get a beach ball. Now take your phone camera and hold it a few millimeters away from the ball. Now try and take a full panoramic photo of the ball. This is a great illustration of why satellites that orbit the earth cannot take a single high resolution photo of the entire Earth. But then again, I wonder why FE’s ask for or comment on the lack of photographic evidence of the globe. Isn’t it fair to say that you will simply call any photographic evidence of a non-flat earth fake?

I can hold my thumb in front of my eye and block the sun from my eyes. Does this mean my thumb can create eclipses on demand? Of course not. The same is true of these satellites. One blocks the sun from the view of the other, they aren’t remotely large enough to cause any effect in earth. We simply are not technologically capable fo creating an object large enough to block out the sun the way you are suggesting.

This is because short wave radios like those used in CB radios bounce off the ionosphere and return to earth. They don’t require a satellite to relay the signal, it bounces off the atmosphere.

Respectfully, why do FE’s just say things that are easily disproven with very little research? Im genuinely curious, did you just think this sounded true and decide it must be true? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/20/astronaut-spots-spacex-starlink-satellites-from-space-station.html

When you’re on a plane does the earth move and not the plane?

Hi Katie, First of all, it’s great that you don’t just blindly accept either argument and are actually thinking critically. As for “pressure without a container” and people “standing upside down” these are both easily explained by gravity. Gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth and gravity pulls everything towards the center of a mass (like earth) so that “down” is always “towards the center of gravity” or towards the center of earth. You’ll notice that FE’s rebut these points by simply saying gravity isn’t real. They don’t offer a comprehensive and resonable alternative explanation for the force we all experience that we call “gravity.” Instead, they say that “buoyancy and density” do all the work without the need for gravity. There’s one problem with this - buoyancy requires gravity to work the way it does, and in fact the mathematical equation for determining an objects buoyancy requires the acceleration of gravity as a variable. FE’s will also claim gravity is “only a theory.” This is a misunderstanding of what “theory” means in a scientific context. The existence of the force we call gravity is not a theory any more than the existence of the color red is a “theory.” We all observe this force constantly. The “theory” is how that force works and what causes it. Just like we know red exists, but interplay of subatomic particles and our eyeballs -ie how the color red “works” - is often theoretical.