[ShowmetheProof]

So I saw an interesting post about how a flight from Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa would go over Asia on the FE.  So it got me thinking: How would the cover-up of a flat earth work? 
Problem 1:  My first question was: Wouldn't they have to get the Pilots in on it?  Commercial Airliners would see the flights going over places they wouldn't on a flat earth through the windows, and might see the curvature of the earth if flying high enough.  They would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from
 being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.  The cost would be extraordinary, which brings us to the next problem.
Problem 2: The cost is another problem.  I'm not going to try to calculate it, but the films of earth from space would have to use technology they didn't have.  The Commercial Airliners cost a ton.  I'm not going to think about every single thing that would have to have been faked, but the cost would be too large already.

[Scroogie]

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

[Tom Haws]

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

Well, it's generally accepted by the Round Earthers here that UA is not the breaking point of this site's FE model(s).

1. Airplanes really do continuously "climb". They don't float.
2. Air is being accelerated just like we are because it and we are pressed against the earth.
3. There's no discernible difference for us between gravity and UA
4. As for celestial objects, it's not a real stretch to believe that UA affects them or doesn't affect them. I don't think anybody has gone so far as to create a model for how they actually move.

As ludicrous as UA seems, it doesn't break any rules. What are more egregious are things like:

1. The sun, moon, stars, ships, mountains, and buildings do not really appear to rise and set at the horizon. They simply fade or shrink.
2. The distances between any four trapezoidal remote world points are not known (admitting they are known would prove they cannot geometrically be represented on a flat figure).
3. Mountains can cast shadows on the underside of clouds from a sun 3000 miles above it all.
4. The time and location of equinox sunset all over the world are not known.

[ShowmetheProof]

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

 
My dad had the same question!  Thank you so much for bringing this up!  And Tom, I get that they continuously climb, but they would have to climb at a much higher rate. 

[Roger G]

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

 
My dad had the same question!  Thank you so much for bringing this up!  And Tom, I get that they continuously climb, but they would have to climb at a much higher rate.

They don't have to climb at a higher rate as in an FE world the air would be moving upwards at the same rate as the earth, so to maintain height an aircraft has to move through the air at a sufficient speed for the lift created by the wing's forward movement, to counteract the opposing forces of drag and weight and the engines will provide the thrust to do that. The requirements are the same in RE or FE.

Roger

[ShowmetheProof]

Thank you.  I didn't understand that.  I am thankful you informed me of that.

[SpaceCadet]

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

Well, it's generally accepted by the Round Earthers here that UA is not the breaking point of this site's FE model(s).

1. Airplanes really do continuously "climb". They don't float.
2. Air is being accelerated just like we are because it and we are pressed against the earth.
3. There's no discernible difference for us between gravity and UA
4. As for celestial objects, it's not a real stretch to believe that UA affects them or doesn't affect them. I don't think anybody has gone so far as to create a model for how they actually move.

As ludicrous as UA seems, it doesn't break any rules. What are more egregious are things like:

1. The sun, moon, stars, ships, mountains, and buildings do not really appear to rise and set at the horizon. They simply fade or shrink.
2. The distances between any four trapezoidal remote world points are not known (admitting they are known would prove they cannot geometrically be represented on a flat figure).
3. Mountains can cast shadows on the underside of clouds from a sun 3000 miles above it all.
4. The time and location of equinox sunset all over the world are not known.

I think UA breaks the rules. Literally. Gravitational differences have been measured and it is agreed that there are differences in acceleration due to gravity measured, for eample, at the poles and the equator. These differences, if applied to UA would tear our flat planet apart. Ergo, UA is not possible.


Wait. Flat planet. Is that a valid phrase?

[OrigamiBoy]

Also, why, when we measure gravity the top of tall mountains, is it always slightly less than at sea level. Shouldn't it be all the same with UA? A lot of things just don't line up in UA.