Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
it sounds lacking in foundation
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
and contrary to observations and reality
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!
The “physics” (astrophysics, in point of fact) i am criticizing is not particularly complicated. It’s just intractable, wrong, and fictional.
"what goes up must come down" is correct
I’m glad you recognize that. Many don’t, and mistakenly conflate the law of gravity with the theory of gravitation. My criticisms are towards the latter, not the former.
but you simply not understand this: ... Gravity is "a string" keeping it from running.
I understand centripetal force just fine. I know that you imagine (and were taught) gravitation as a string that is attached in some mysterious and persistently unknown way to bodies at a distance - but i am saying that is entirely fictional, and was its clear historical origin as well.
Gravity well
Right, that’s relativistic fiction. There is no spacetime to warp, whatsoever.
Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
It doesn't sound wild, it sounds lacking in foundation and contrary to observations and reality.
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!
You poor retard... Physics bit is more complicated.
"what goes up must come down" is correct,but you simply not understand this: https://microbenotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Centrifugal-force.jpg
Similar. Gravity is "a string" keeping it from running.
With almost complete vacuum force is constant and almost equal to gravity (no gas no friction). After years satellites actually have to fall.
Gravity well. They are falling but only a bit.
Obfuscation by feigned abstruseness.
The “physics” (astrophysics, in point of fact) i am criticizing is not particularly complicated. It’s just intractable, wrong, and fictional.
I’m glad you recognize that. Many don’t, and mistakenly conflate the law of gravity with the theory of gravitation. My criticisms are towards the latter, not the former.
I understand centripetal force just fine. I know that you imagine (and were taught) gravitation as a string that is attached in some mysterious and persistently unknown way to bodies at a distance - but i am saying that is entirely fictional, and was its clear historical origin as well.
Right, that’s relativistic fiction. There is no spacetime to warp, whatsoever.