Your ears pop yes? because the atmospheric pressure is lower at a higher altitude.

That destroys your thermosphere claim

Ok, but in heat, the molecules are already spaced apart. This is true with boiling water.

So what is your point?

This is true on Earth according to you guys.

If you keep going up and up, the pressure keeps decaying towards zero. And once the pressure is close enough to zero, it can be considered a vacuum (not a true vacuum), and by then you're practically already in 'outer space'.

It doesnt really have to do with pressure actually. Its more on the transfer on radiation

Now you guys are changing the discussion to pressure.

Lol

I've seen no evidence of curvature from an empirical stance, you guys should make empirical observations.

Not just believe what you've been told.

Do you believe in Fourier's Law? @🎃Oakheart🎃

we're not on curvature either

you guys are shifting the goalposts so much I'm just going to stop talking

It related to empirical observations, which you neglect to make.

come back to me if you're going to have a decent debate

And so, going up in an elevator to the top of a tall building already proves that you don't need a "firmament" to contain the atmosphere.

I am not familiar with that law.

Unless the earth is flat...

Well it essentially defines the conductivity of a material and the vector flow heat rate

It applies directly to the ISS and the thermosphere

Don't state that it's too complicated to understand

I never stated that.

I know

I'm saying don't do that

Fair.

Ill link it again, the math is post-highschool so its not that bad: http://www.tak2000.com/data/Satellite_TC.pdf

"If I used flat earth equations on a globe model, it wouldn't fit.
So how is this remotely making sense." - you

it doesn't make sense, so I'm not going to believe it

don't do that in the future

You cant make math work in certain situations and not elsewhere

Decaying pressure as a function of altitude proves you don't need a firmament, and also logically predicts that if you keep going up, you will reach 'outer space' without ever needing to hit a firmament.

I'm not saying math wouldn't work, it just needs to be adjusted to fit this model, unless of course it has no relation to the earth's shape at all.

So a universal model perhaps.

One where the shape of the planet doesn't matter.

Newtonian mechanics works well for speeds much less than the speed of light

Newtonian mechanics loses accuracy as you deal with speeds comparable to the speed of light.

No, you cant literally derive these equations to a more rudimentary example. And the Fourier law and Planck's and Boltzmann's laws all apply in human life

You cant say that it is altered to fit the globe

it doesnt make sense

And so, equations or models serve as approximations.