New in cosmology

Seems the JWST is throwing up a lot of surprises. Some even go as far as to say that the surprises refute the Big Bang Theory, while others observe that modifying the details of the theory may be more appropriate in order not to lose the huge successes of the theory in explaining major observational facts.

Whatever the truth is, there are a lot of impressive new observations and new hypotheses to explain them.

I was born out of a black hole - which spite out the earth  

This explains all the chaos around and increasing entropy

RIP Big Bang Theory

So the second law of thermodynamics is your fault...

We were all young and did our mistakes 😇

There is no space telescope 1 million miles away from earth

LouisLunchbox. Has always adored Uranus

LouisLunchbox. is surprised that you.consider him not to be grown up.Here he is.btw he relishes MARS bars.KWIM   

https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/The-Mystery-of-Gravitation 9-minutes

Gravity is still a cosmological theory................at best! 

Astronomical Violations of Perception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAr7yWnTBDY 

Objectively it is not. It is a theory of physics. One that has worked very well - something apparently beyond the ability of flat Earthers to understand.

Actually it is very simple and observable until theoretical physics comes along to screw everything up 

Says someone who has been stumped by trying to calculate the path of a projectile (as correctly achieved by average early teen students of physics).

I know this will be something your ego will need to hide from, but incompetence is not superior to competence (eg being able to do this sort of thing).

So how does a Military Rail Gun function on a spherical earth?

It shoots a projectile over 100 miles (not a missile).

According to the globe formula 100 miles equals 1.26 miles of curvature. 

One can write out a theoretical physics/mathematical formula that covers an entire chalkboard that proves absolutely nothing in reality. 

Of course, that is what heliocentric theory is all about. 

Never ending theories

These are interesting questions that would be enlightening to you to understand properly, but the place to start is understanding how to predict the path of heavy projectiles on a small scale (so gravity is uniform and the curvature of the Earth is irrelevant).

To be frank, I am a bit puzzled why you are asking the first one, since the answer is intuitively easy - since the projectile is fired at (way) less than orbital velocity (5 miles per second in old money, take a look at the ISS) it will inevitably fall to Earth. A straightforward calculation implementing Newtonian gravity allows someone to calculate where it hits the ground on the curved Earth (best done with a program because of the slow change of the direction of the gravitational force as the projectile travels a long distance).

Only unusually foolish people think the military rely on the Earth being flat.

Please note that you still need to learn how to predict the path of a cannonball on a small scale to reach the level of practical competence of an intelligent middle schooler. I understand that this will provoke some sort of ego-defensive protection mechanism.

So how does the scope view the target 100 miles away i.e. through the earth of 1.26 miles of curvature? We are not talking about missiles but a bullet from a gun. 

Explain why globe apologists claim snipers must account/calculate/adjust for the assumed coriolis effect(which is just a fancy way of saying the rotation of the earth) and airplanes/pilots do not have to calculate for any alleged rotation? 

Why do ALL aeronautical manuals/instruction(even NASA official documents) plainly state that all aeronautical calculations/navigations MUST be based on a nonrotating, stationary flat earth? 

All b/s. All long distance ballistics takes curvature into account, and long range ballistics is of course, done without direct sighting. Do you think Russia can see targets in the US for their ICBMs?

ICBMs (the B is for BALLISTIC), have paths that are mainly unpowered and well above the atmosphere, thus taking a suborbital trajectory due solely to gravity.

Here is an example of the calculated path of an ICBM. Most of the flight is ballistic in space and, because the speed is insufficient to reach orbit, it falls back to Earth near the location calculated by the sender (course adjustments are made late in the flight due to the slight uncertainty in the calculated path.

Note the military are not stupid enough to do this calculation assuming the Earth is supported by a pile of turtles. Both the Russians and the Americans have enormous experience of orbital flight around the Earth.

How many times must I distinguish a missile from a bullet?

They are NOT one in the same. 

A military rail gun shoots a bullet/projectile(100 miles). It does not launch a missile/rocket. Like the V1/V2 rockets the Germans launched during WWII thanks to NASA/NAZI rocket scientist Werner Von Braun.

When the rockets switch off, a missile becomes a bullet. For an ICBM, this is in space, so there is not even a correction for air resistance. These missiles are designed to fly for thousands of miles in space while unpowered, on a ballistic path. The clue is in the name:

Intercontinental BALLISTIC missiles

I remind you once again that competent middle schoolers can CORRECTLY calculate the path of a cannonball. You need to first catch up with their level of understanding.

It's like if you have a rating of 400 at chess: you need to get it up to 1000 as a first step before you start arrogantly telling GMs where they are going wrong.