I expected someone to come back with the "falling to the Earth" argument, which I consider to be just obfuscation or a muddying of the water. Why would something fall? What causes it to fall? The conventional theory is that things fall because a force called gravity pulls them down, such as in the case of the proverbial apple falling from the tree. If gravity is pulling on something and it is moving downward it can be considered to be falling. But in the case of an orbit, we have a tug of war going on between the momentum of the object which is trying to continue straight on and the force that is pulling it around in a circle, a force which we call gravity.
The interesting thing from my perspective is that when something is going around in a circle, it tends to want to fall to the outside of the circle. We call this centrifugal force. When we are on a merry go round, we don't feel a force pulling us to the center of the merry go round, we feel it pushing us to the outside. If we drive our car around in a circle, the force we feel is pushing us to the outside of the circle, not to the center of the circle. If we take a rock and tie a string to it, then tie a loop in the other end and put it over our finger. If we then spin the rock in a circle around our finger the rock will try to go to the outside of the circle thus created. It does not try to fall inward to our finger. We know this because the string is tight, holding back the rock.
So it seems that saying the object is falling toward the Earth in an orbit is just a somewhat misleading way of saying that, indeed, gravity is pulling on the object in orbit. I suppose my focus is on the momentum of the object, which is to continue straight on. It has no momentum downward as in falling, or it would fall to Earth and gravity would win.
As far as the paradigm (good word) goes, it is flourishing. The flood of movies about space is a good example, though in the vast majority of them they can move freely about their spaceships without being in zero gee. Some do present a space craft with a rotating section to use centrifugal force to simulate gravity, but most are like the sports cars of space craft wherein the crew just walks around normally.
I agree regarding the "Goddess of Science", or science with a capital "S". But is it really science, or is it just dogma, as I think we both realize.
Ok, I had to take a brief break there as I have a functioning pineal gland and I have to get away from the electronics/EMF every so often and let my brain cool down. Needless to say I don't sport a cell phone.
So I have a confession to make, and that is that I am a flat earther of sorts. I've done my research and experiments and observations and that's just what it is. However, I'm not one of those who has to hit people over the head with it, push people into the deep end of the pool and expect them to swim. I try to take the official narrative and just poke holes in it for people, show them how contradictive and convoluted it is, maybe get them thinking "well if that's not true then...".
Back in the early '70's when I was 11 or 12 I had a model of the lunar lander, complete with tin foil, and I always thought "really? That's what a space craft looks like?" Then, when I was stationed in Germany around '86 or '87 I saw a show on AFN (American Forces Network) in which they tried to debunk those who didn't believe they had gone to the moon. Really? Some people don't believe we went to the moon at all? It was news to me. I always thought some things were kind of unbelievable, for example that they could blast off from the surface of the moon and actually rendezvous with the space capsule as it came around, close enough to actually hook up, every time without fail, with no practice at all. That seemed like the most amazing feat of the whole trip. But it wasn't until I got my first PC and an internet connection that I was able to see how many lies there truly were (and how much porn there was).
So, I read that back in the early days of the rocket program, a reporter approached Wernher Von Braun and asked him, "What would it take to put a man on the moon?"
Wernher came back with "To put a man on the moon it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State building." Why do you think he would say that? Possibly because he knew that the Earth's gravity, if you believe in the Heliocentric model, would have to extend far beyond the moon and therefore a rocket going to the moon would have to thrust with its engines the whole way, in essence going uphill the whole way. But that's not what NASA claims they did with Apollo, they claim they "slingshotted" (don't get me started on that) around the Earth and coasted to the moon. Hmm, well that's only half of the problem because if gravity extends beyond the moon, as the Sphere of Influence (SOI) tells us, then coming back from the moon would be a downhill run that would build up a huge amount of speed. A rocket would not only have to burn fuel all the way to the moon but it would have to come back "backwards" thrusting against the pull of gravity to keep from building up too much speed. Thus the huge rocket required to carry so much fuel, and the more fuel you carry the more fuel you have to carry to move all that fuel, and so on.
Of course NASA was not only able to coast to the moon but they were able to coast back. Without gaining any additional speed.
This conundrum also applies to the Soviet unmanned lunar lander as well as the recent Chinese visit to the moon.
In fact, no space enterprise, from the Soviet probe to Venus, the Viking landers on Mars, the probe that visited Saturn, or was it Jupiter, one that supposedly visited an asteroid, the Mars rovers and even the Voyager space probes, were ever launched into space with a large enough rocket to power itself all the way out to the edge of the Sphere of Influence, the limit of the Earth's gravity. Not even close; they all used up their fuel, three stages of it, just getting out of the atmosphere.
This Sphere Of Influence thing is such a gimme when it comes to showing how full of shit the conventional narrative is, so why would they have told us about it? I think it goes back to what Banta said
Thinking about your question more, I guess my clearer answer is… outer space isn’t the lie that’s so important that it’s worth decades of deception (which is easier than I think most estimate, keep it very compartmentalized and you generate an army of honest people who will trumpet your success unprompted), the paradigm that requires this maintenance is the Goddess of Science herself.
Yes, you generate an army of honest people who believe the narrative, but more so they try to explore it and expand on it, so the lies just have to keep on coming.
ha, ha, ha
GoFast private rocket
at 58 seconds it hits something that stops both its spin and its forward progress. Even when the first stage separates it climbs no higher. What could it have hit? Interesting that, probably due to the type of lens being used, the edge of the Earth changes its curve back and forth.