davey_83

Prove it? Ive replied in post #323

Globe model flight path......... Ok via Uzbekistan

No, however its a map derived from a globe. Steve I can see you aren't getting this. Google when asked the distance to HK, shows the quickest route on a globe model which goes over Turkey - so it's not me saying anything. The actual route taken to HK can be as I have shown on Jay's post to be over North Russia which IS a detour from the information shown by Google about the globe flight path. The black line that you've added to the map, are you aware that's a flat earth map and not a globe one looking down at the north pole.

Bold = win, I like it

Yes, not being able to sail below iirc 74' latitude and not a place one circumnavigate. Because Jay's flight to HK went over Russia which on the globe model is a massive detour......

Huh? When has that ever been said........... Just accept Jay's flight path works on a flat pancake earth more so than a globe lol

Or it's called not accepting everything you are told just because it's from "clever people" I'm pretty sure no one is falling off anywhere.

Dude, come back to me. Your own words not mine fall away from the globe model..........

Dude.... #micdrop

So with a plane flight, staying North creates a shorter distance? Yes or No...

I think it's fair to say published distances or flight path, would be from a heliocentric model and not a flat one. I've actually looked out the window of a flight from Manchester to Jamaica and starboard showed land (US) for hours and hours. Seen it with my own eyes and your flight path should be sea on both sides, so that's that. Consider London to HK, on a globe this should be a straight shot thru Turkey with no need to go over Russia and yet.......

Have you drawn this path on a globe? Or is expectation predicting the outcome? That last giant sentence takes some figuring out..... We've covered flight paths and both examples made more sense on the flat map than globe.

Pictures from Nasa are said to be composites, as said by themselves......... Not even the ISS is high enough to see snap shot of the earth in one go. What do you make of the path rockets/spacecraft's orbit around' the world? Do they not seem strange?.......Can you imagine how they look on a flat plain for example, I can.......

no, have you? Note that the given minimum of 35,000 feet (10.7 km) is a plausible cruise altitude for a commercial airliner, but you probably shouldn't expect to see the curvature on a typical commercial flight, because: 10.7 km is the bare minimum for seeing curvature, so the apparent curvature will be very slight at this altitude. 10.7 km is near the upper end of the usual range of commercial cruise altitudes. Many flights won't get this high, and very few will go significantly higher. A passenger window may not give the necessary 60° field of view, especially if you're over the wing.

It's was remark inline with pass thread posts. I don't see any evidence for a curve inline with 8 inches per mile squared as we're told. I don't now what shape the earth is or the night sky schematics. Why does Musk want man kind to go to Mars? I've just learnt this today.

This isn't a theory Vs theory matters as I see stalemate on the lack of curved horizon lol I've listed many examples that me for don't add up and that's my view point. Evidence is subjective and that's again my understanding on matters. Haha no one has said rockets don't exist. Question ultimately is, do government/s lie? If no, then I'm totally wrong. If yes, then who's to say what is truth and whats not.

Hey Steve, no at all. Seeing things that don't add up with a space agency has nowt to do with religion. Question is it only religious folks that are prepared to believe space if BS? No. Personally as said before the shape of the earth doesn't increase or decrease one's faith - how could it? I seeing edited earth into space picture, rocket man in a standard car in space and it 100% fine, the fact that we've lost all telemetry from the missions to the moon to begin to piece together the tech to do it again. Various scientist say you can see starts all the time when in low earth orbit, others say you can't. Videos from the ISS break up in a fashion one would expect from green screen, or as an individual goes round a corner on screen their body fades out (like MJ Fox in back to the future lol) before being completely out of sight. The general manner of the three astronauts in the official press conference once returned home, lacked any enthusiasm which was clear to see and they didn't even agree with each other about seeing any stars on the same mission. Then when you look into operation paperclip and fishbowl, one begins to paint a picture. I find it all very interesting.

That's just it, you have to compare the build quality of an X to an iPace, as they sit in the same market of vehicle. From what I gather even the entry level X for the ££ compared to a Audi, BMW, Merc, Jag etc (well any top car manufacture) is well below par sadly.

Yes

This is why I find it hard to believe what comes from the leading authority on space science. Why is there a square box around earth on the famous picture taken from the moon.......

eek, I was trying to be nice to Tesla. I guess moving on from pick-up trucks, a Tesla is a slight step up in quality for the yanks lol

Pm'd

From what I gather the Tesla interior build isn't shoddy, but its nowhere near what one would topically expect from the list price.

I'd say the switch pal