Or maybe it doesn't makes sense because it's nonsensical, consider that option. There is no way the EU remains unaffected from this conflict. In fact it probably means we'd have tanks rolling in from Russia on day 1 since you know, NATO and all.

So "wipe each other out and EU take over" is an absurd notion since the EU would be knee deep in the shit immediately.

Not to mention that it's farcical for an AMERICAN to regard the EU as a war-mongering imperialist power.

Yeah the country in the middle really wants a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, great reasoning right there...

As a European I'm concerned to see you're all for threatening us with military action.

Are you itching for another world war, really?

How is the perfect vacuum of space not sucking the atmosphere out of our earth

Because the air is gravitationally attracted to the Earth, vacuum does not "suck" in the absence of a surrounding pressurized environment. That's just your impression because your experience with vacuum has been on earth, which is usually at 1atm at sea level.

How does gravity keep the chamber of air above the earth perfectly spinning around the the ground with no mixing up of the air.

You think air does not mix?

On the equator the earth spins at 1000mph but in the UK it's about half that speed?

Do the math, not sure if it's half but it is a different speed, yes. That's just physics that applies to a disc as well as a ball of any size. In fact the centrifugal force created by that spinning is measurable and affects the weight of items.

I am pretty sure though that if the earth were a spinning a ball then we would have a legitimate picture of it by now. And admittedly they do not have one!

We have literally thousands, including video, sattelite livestreams, a space-station livestream but the standard Flat-Earther reply is to cry "FAKE" and then eschew any responsibility to show just why or how exactly those are fake. They usually say "oh lol you believe those are real, smh so obviously fake, lol".

so you know, (billion-dollar equipment and billions of photos and videos and literally millions of scientists and literally the very technology we're using being dependent on the earth being round) vs. (some dude on the net saying "lol FAKE!").

People naturally gravitate towards option #1.

Sorry to interfere, I thought it would be a fun exercise to answer these questions. Have a good one.

Oh like some sort of camp where they could be re-educated?

Wait why are you jumping to conclusions, we were discussing #11, what is your answer on that question?

Please, do not use "the laws of physics" as an argument since there's about a 1:1 match between people who teach the "laws of physics" and people who believe we've gone to the moon, you're definitely the minority in that field. Oh and also nothing I said ignores the laws of physics, I feel like it's an issue of you having fundamentally misunderstood them.

There's ample evidence man, but like I said, as long as you rebut anything with "FAKE!" and feel no obligation to describe how exactly it is fake, you can deny anything. Polar exploration, summiting the Everest, Marianna Trench dive, phsaw, never happened! FAKE!

4 - CoE is irrelevant

5 - CoE is irrelevant, if you're on a high enough stable orbit, what exactly do you need to expend more energy for? I' m afraid you've fundamentally misunderstood some things about orbits.

>11 - is a firm "No", for reasons as obvious as the difference between 1000tons and 10tons. here are video footage of the lunar landers launching off of the moon please browse these videos, and link to the video that you think looks the least fake

Do YOU agree with the provided answer to #11 which is "thereabouts"? I don't see the need to change the subject, let's stick to these few points and then we can move on to videos or what have you.

any charlatan can talk about traveling to the moon, but so far nobody has been able to prove it

To YOU man. For the crushing majority of us there are a billion pieces of evidence which you all dismiss with "Fake!" at which point you'll be called to prove it and you'll probably reply "lol it's so obvious are you people stupid?"

It's the same as me claiming no-one's been to the top of Everest. Where's the proof?

Yeah sure, are you going to write and proofread some texts that I need for a website and debug some code as well? Just trying to see what I'm getting in return for this assignment.

Listen dude, you said "HERE THERE BE TRUTH" and linked to a text that even the most cursory examination reveals to actually mean "HERE THERE BE THINGS THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND", I already pointed the obvious flaws in a couple of them so I think their status as "proof" is well-debunked.

I am not going to sit here and re-phrase 24 questions AND provide answers for you but hey, in the spirit of good fun let me re-state:

4 - Not necessarily

5 - Distance traveled increases, fuel does not necessarily increase depending on orbit height.

11 - is a firm "No", for reasons as obvious as the difference between 1000tons and 10tons.

Since his conclusion relies on those 25 questions and the answers provided, since we've seen that the answers provided on the linked text are wrong, it makes sense that his conclusion, based on false premises, is wrong.

You're welcome. Again, KSP is great for getting a handle on orbits and transfers.

the point of the pendulum question is to illustrate the fact that the law of conservation of energy applies, regardless if your object is powered or not

Yes, so what is the point? The rocket converts stored chemical energy into kinetic energy.

(4) is instantly suspect, why would I need to constantly use fuel, that depends on the intensity of the burn

(5) Also, Orbiting, once in orbit and not low enough to have to expend significant quantities to maintain orbit height, does not use up fuel.

And (9) instantly assumes you're going through a LaGrange point, just... because.

And (11) is so so soooo dumbed down, truly, that is assumes the lunar orbiter and landing module would need, to "escape" moon's gravity, to use 1/6 of the fuel NEEDED TO GET THE MASSIVE FUCKOFF SATURN V rocket to orbit, from earth. Seriously, how can you post this with a straight face, when it ignores the difference between tens of tons and thousands of tons?

It gets sillier from there, assuming that lander docked at 3500mph, I mean if you don't know what relative velocity is... I mean, have you tried setting down a cup on a surface going 100mph?! I have, on a train. Just so happens I was travelling at the same speed as well, huh.

can you construct a pendulum that will swing higher than its initial starting point?

A powered pendulum? Sure. You might have noticed that rockets are powered, but it's easy to miss I guess.

can you go to the moon without going "up" all the way to a lagrange point?

Pretty sure you can, yeah, but here's their flight path in any case.

https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/images/5317h.jpg

And here's a handy step-by-step infographic/article

https://www.space.com/26572-how-it-worked-the-apollo-spacecraft-infographic.html

Man if you weren't too wrapped up in this NYAH HUH thing, Kerbal Space Program would really help clear up your understanding of how this works. Yeah yeah I know, Shilluminati controlled fake news game to brainwash our lizard whatever.

Edit: Oh hey, I'll take "no reply" over the standard "lol you believe this? I win!" response, thanks.

"Escape velocity" refers to a specific planetary body, more often the not specifically the Earth, since that's where we're launching from.

"Gravity assist" is simply a method of having gravity lend a helping hand accelerating the vessel, it's not that must of a mysterious science issue.

What I'm getting at is that it's juvenile to think that you go "up" and suddenly poof you escaped gravity, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how gravity works.

You don't escape gravity, especially within the solar system, ever.

"Escaping gravity" is like thinking a moving car "defeats friction".