1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about Air Travel

« on: May 02, 2020, 11:42:56 PM »

Why would you set up a flight route across the potentially dangerous barren Arctic when it makes more sense to stay near more of the habitable zone containing airports, islands with airstrips, and also make money picking up and dropping off passengers on the way?

Based on this argument, it would make sense that most airlines would want to fly over one of the main continents while doing their flights.  Large landmasses would have more airports, are easier to land on and get rescued from, and have considerably more passengers wanting to go places than the various island nations of the Pacific.  Let's take a look at a flight from Argentina to Australia.  If we assume that the earth is flat, according to your theory, this flight path would want to travel north, through the USA and Canada, and then take a slight detour to fly down the coast of east asia, then follow the Indonesian islands down to Australia.  This route would be close to a straight line between the two countries, and would pass by many major cities, like Chicago, Tokyo, or Hong Kong. 

So then, I ask you, why don't they take that route?

The flight from Buenos Aires to Sydney flies straight across the south pacific, a route that, by the flat earth model, is almost twice as long, and passes by no islands with airports other than New Zeland.  So then why do they use it?  According to the flat earth model, it's much longer and passes by almost no major population centers or airports that could be used for emergency landing.  So why do they not use the route that goes through the Americas?  I will be intrigued to read your answer.

To me, it seems like the only logical explanation for this is that the route in use is in fact, shorter than the one through the Americas.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: May 02, 2020, 11:14:28 PM »

There is nothing in Relativity that suggests any object could not undergo constant acceleration forever. If you disagree, please show your work.

It seems to me like it doesn't matter what frame of reference the Earth is accelerating in.  Regardless of the frame of reference, if the Earth is accelerating, it is gaining speed, and eventually, that speed will reach the speed of light, ipso facto, the speed can no longer increase and the Earth will stop accelerating.  The speed of light is the hard limit for speed in the universe, and an object under constant acceleration is going to reach it eventually.

You can think of it this way:  You have a 10 liter water bottle.  Your task is to constantly pour water into the water bottle at a rate of one liter per hour, forever, without spilling any.  This is completely impossible, because the water bottle can only hold ten liters.  No matter what you do to the water bottle, no matter where you put it, it is physically impossible to add more than 10 liters to the water bottle.  The speed of light is like that water bottle; you can only fill it with so much velocity.  If you are constantly adding velocity, no matter where you put the speed-of-light bottle, no matter what angle you look at it from, it has a hard limit to how much velocity you can add; ipso facto, infinite constant acceleration is impossible.

I know it's not a perfect analogy, because water and speed are two very different substances, but it gets the idea across.

So, am I missing something here?  Why does the frame of reference even matter?