I'm pretty sure that the flights and flight paths that Sir Knight is talking about does not have any stop overs. Which brings us back to his questions:
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Emergency Air Plane Stop Proves Flat Earth
This was in the news. A woman gave birth on a plane going from Bali to Los Angeles. They made an emergency stop in Alaska. On a globe Alaska is as far away, if not farther away than Los Angeles, but not on a direct flight on the flat earth model.
--Dave
FLAT EARTH ADDICT 25 : Sydney To Santiago Non-Stop Flight Cockpit Video
Here is a video made on this flight in the **** pit, talking to the pilots.
--Dave
musterion
Well-known member
This is exceptionally moronic.
At 3:00, video rant guy says the stop was made 6 hours into a 19 hour flight, and shows a flat earth map of how this would look "in the real world."
On that map, Alaska is about 2/3 of the way to L.A., right in a straight line he draws.
But pause the video at 3:05 and think about what this guy is saying.
How did it take only 6 hours to get 2/3 of the way ON THIS GUY'S MAP, from Bali to Alaska, with 13 hours of flight time left to get from Alaska to L.A. WHICH IS ONLY 1/3 THE DISTANCE HE SAYS THE JET HAD ALREADY COVERED?
Dave, I wouldn't buy a used car from you.
Dave,
I've listened to all and responded directly to most of the arguments that have been presented in support of the flat earth model, including arguments made on other sites that I haven't yet seen in any of the videos you've posted. It is not fair to treat me as if I'm just cavalierly blowing this off as some lunatic fringe conspiracy theory simply because I happen to disagree with it. I've made the arguments. I've not merely made accusations of stupidity and deception, I've proven it. And I do mean exactly that - I have proven it. I've done so more than once and in more than one way. Just because you've seemingly chosen to shut your eyes to that truth doesn't change the facts of reality. I, for one, know how to think. I understand what it means to prove something and I know when something has been proven. It isn't about personal opinion and it isn't about how one feels. Facts are facts.
People make mistakes and are often wrong but stupid people stay wrong and cannot be convinced of their error. Fools are worse because they intentional turn off the only tool they have with which to even detect that an error is possible, nevermind correct it. Irrational nonsense is not worthy of serious consideration, stupid people cannot be debated and fools ought not be. You do no service by pretending otherwise, either to yourself or those stupid fools who stubbornly cling to their error. An honest investigation into an issue to understand it for yourself is one thing. But giving fools credibility equal to the greatest minds that have ever graced the surface of the Earth and to give them equal consideration, ignoring the verdict of history and of sound reason is to make a mockery of both rational thought as well as the whole of mankind itself.
Clete
What is your point in posting this video? Yes, some pretty spectacular technology exists today. What existed in the 60's when the moon shots were done? Your video doesn't prove anything regarding the history of the space program.
As stated - No, I do not know that.
Newton made no attempt to describe the nature of gravity, only how it works.
Einstein is the one who made statements about what gravity is (i.e. what causes it). And in many ways, Einstein's work provides a more useful and accurate way of figuring out just what effects gravity is going to have. It would not be wise to discard Einstein's work entirely. You'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You do not even know what you're saying. I'm not even going to respond to this except to say that if you are going to do a real investigation into the flat-earth stupidity (that's what it is - I'm finished giving it the benefit of the doubt because there is no longer any doubt) then you are going to have to learn something about subjects that you've stated are not your strong suit, including subjects like astronomy and physics. Your comments here demonstrate a near total lack of even rudimentary understanding of the most basic concepts of either field.
So now gravity (that's what I like to call it) is responsible for the existence of trees and rivers and clouds and life?
David, you're losing your mind here. You need to stop and do a serious reset.
What keeps the rocks and dirt and dust on the Moon? Magic!? Or don't rocks and dirt count as "things on the moon".
And whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, we've been to the Moon nine different times and have left all sorts of things on the surface, all of which seems to stay on the surface just fine and some of which we are still interacting with to this day.
And if the Moon didn't spin, it's back side would come into view as it went around its course, whether in orbit around the globe or in some giant circle above it. Think it through!
How about the other planets and their moons? They don't have trees and life and all the things we have here on Earth.
Clete
They're more than speculation but little more than mathematical constructs.
I'm not even saying that they are wrong. Some important aspects of them are clearly correct and have proven very useful in the development of all kinds of technologies. But that doesn't make them hard science. In fact, their utility is somewhat unfortunate from a certain perspective because it leads scientists to think it wise to leave hard science behind and to lean too heavily on mathematics. The result has been the creation of "scientific" theories that are all but entirely useless and completely untestable but nevertheless entrenched into scientific thinking.
Science did much better when it wasn't financed by the government and results had to be of use to someone or your financing went away. Now it's, as often as not, political and agenda driven(i.e. atheistic, evolutionary, global warming and in all ways left-wing).
musterion
Well-known member
This is not the place for such a discussion. Still, though I agree that they are mathematical constructs, and often do not explain "why", but only "how", I do not see it as some kind of flaw. Newton's gravity is "just a mathematical construct". So what?
And #2693 and #2694
The Berean
Well-known member
This is a picture I had in my cube as a reminder of the proper orientation of a geosynchronous satellite in orbit. 
View attachment 25509
View attachment 25509
The history of cosmology
The first cosmology in history is a flat stationary earth covered by a dome with the sun, moon, and stars moving above or at the top of the dome.
The next cosmology in history is a stationary globe earth at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, and stars/planets, circling it.
The next cosmology is the sun at the center of with a spinning globe earth, stars/planets circling it and the moon circling the earth.
The current cosmology has united time with space in an evolving/changing universe in which nothing is stationary and everything is moving in relation to everything else.
The current cosmology is a total departure from rational thought and most of you have accepted spacetime relativity as a logical extension of, what you think is, the Biblical Copernican reality of the universe God created.
Quantum physics and multi universe theory is the next step and flat earth is still here.
I question all it in order to find an answer.
Clete, knight, you both share the irrational cosmology of spacetime and relativity as far as I can tell. I intend to examine the above mentioned historical cosmologies and uncover where, when, and why we have come to this point.
--Dave
Dave, nothing you wrote in this post is relevant to the topic at hand. And you know it. The Earth is either flat, or a globe. The history of cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics and all the rest are not relevant. And you know it full well. While you completely ignore the rational inputs of others.
They are not all rational . But don't let me keep you here any longer. You can keep your relativity, just don't try to pass it off as rational in my company.
--Dave
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
- Status