I think airline flight routes raise questions as to whether the earth is a globe as given by these videos.



This one shows how the maps we use seem to be unreliable.

Are the airline pilots in on it too or have they been fooled as well?

I dont feel like I have seen the curvature of the earth in an airplane. It should be super pronounced even at sea level with a good view. In the air the horizon should not rise to vantage point.


This rocket goes to 121,000 feet and theres no curvature and the horizon rises.

They are fooled as well. I'm waiting for an explanation for the point as to how when flying level at 500+ mph their isnt a need to constantly correct downwards to avoid flying "off".

- God -- exists
- Age of the earth --old
- Evolution -- it happens
- Bigfoot -- might be?
- Ancient aliens -- aliens exist
- The Bermuda triangle -- the earth has 'energetically weird spots'

Ever heard of this little thing called gravity?

Google Newton and apple.

a) Potential way to test whats at the ceiling. Perhaps meant to try and punch through. Apollo missions didnt make it to the moon.
b) doesnt exist. "But I saw it!" You saw something the size of a bus from 200 miles away? Wow you have impressive eyesight.

So you are telling me no AIRPLANE or SATELITE or someone on a SPACE STATION has ever circumnavigated the world north to south. LOL.

i think to fly off they would need to move at a speed with a factor of escape velocity. if they were flying verticle obv they would need to achieve escape velocity, horizontal some kind of fraction of that speed. idk much about physics, but enough to know that a plane flying at normal cruise altitude and speed would need more to vector away from the planet.

“Any object which is heavier than the air, and which is unsupported, has a natural tendency to fall by its own weight. Newton's famous apple at Woolsthorpe, or any other apple when ripe, loses hold of its stalk, and, being heavier than the air, drops as a matter of necessity, to the ground, totally irrespective of any attraction of the Earth. For, if such attraction existed, why does not the Earth attract the rising smoke which is not nearly so heavy as the apple? The answer is simple - because the smoke is lighter than the air, and, therefore, does not fall but ascends. Gravitation is only a subterfuge, employed by Newton in his attempt to prove that the Earth revolves round the Sun, and the quicker it is relegated to the tomb of all the Capulets, the better will it be for all classes of society.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma”

Now, even if gravity did exist, why would it cause both planets to orbit the Sun and people to stick to the Earth? Gravity should either cause people to float in suspended circular orbits around the Earth, or it should cause the Earth to be pulled and crash into the Sun! What sort of magic is “gravity” that it can glue people’s feet to the ball-Earth, while causing Earth itself to revolve ellipses round the Sun? The two effects are very different yet the same cause is attributed to both.

“Take the case of a shot propelled from a cannon. By the force of the explosion and the influence of the reputed action of gravitation, the shot forms a parabolic curve, and finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, why - if the forces are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation - does not the shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and revolve round the earth? The Newtonian may reply, because the impulse which propelled the shot is temporary; and the impulse which propelled the planet is permanent. Precisely so; but why is the impulse permanent in the case of the planet revolving round the sun? What is the cause of this permanence?” -N. Crossland, “New Principia”

Furthermore, this magnetic-like attraction of massive objects gravity is purported to have can be found nowhere in the natural world. There is no example in nature of a massive sphere or any other shaped-object which by virtue of its mass alone causes smaller objects to stick to or orbit around it! There is nothing on Earth massive enough that it can be shown to cause even a dust-bunny to stick to or orbit around it! Try spinning a wet tennis ball or any other spherical object with smaller things placed on its surface and you will find that everything falls or flies off, and nothing sticks to or orbits it. To claim the existence of a physical “law” without a single practical evidential example is hearsay, not science.

Yes, it was explained to you earlier. The way an aircraft flies is air flowing over the wings generates lift. At high altitude, there is less air, hence less lift. It is impossible for a plane to fly off into space and no they are not constantly having to correct downward to avoid this, and it's not because the earth is flat.

These are questions that are really, really easily answered.

I think you need to refine your Google search just a bit.

Wait, if there's no gravity, why am I not floating up into space right now?

oh, this seems to make some more sense.

A cannonball CAN theoretically be shot into orbit, it just needs to be blasted up with way more power. This is exactly what is done when rockets are blasted into orbit.

That is because the earth is right there below the tennis ball pulling whatever object towards it with way more gravitational force then the tennis ball is able to generate.

Thought experiments are fun, people generally are too stubborn to even participate.

The reason it is squared is because the earth would be curved and not a straight line down. If it was just 8 inches a mile it would be a slope down and not a curve.

I'm glad you understand the picture. A bunch of people who control Antarctica are sitting around an arrangement that shows the FE model simplified to table set up.

Your theory that there is a sweet spot in the air where the force of the plane is such that given the density of the air it constantly stays balanced and level doesnt make any sense. Planes fly level at all speeds and levels of the atmospheres, air density is not what causes this to self correct to handle the drop in curvature and stay level.

It's not a "theory" - and it has nothing to do with whether the plane is level or not, unless the plane noses up too much, the air is unable to flow over the wings in a way that creates lift and it will stall. If a jet loses enough speed, it will start to lose altitude.

How exactly do you think planes work?

"Spinning" at a rate of 1 revolution per day presumably? Sorry too busy but I don't think things would fly off.

Airy's Failure demonstrates that the Earth is stationary.

I mean, what? How do you think planes fly? Have you ever heard of stalling? If planes can fly "at all speeds" why can't a 747 take off vertically?

If planes can fly at "all levels of the atmosphere" why do planes have a performance ceiling? You think that 747 could just fly off to Mars if it wanted to?

I dont think youre visualizing what youre talking about, try sketching out your plane moving through different levels of atmospheric density while remaining level and at a constant height above the earth.

On the scale of the bizarre **** he thinks, that one's on the more reasonable side.