If there is no gravitational pull towards the earth how do you explain things tending to return to earth? If you throw something upwards it soon returns to earth. If you're just putting what most people call gravity in terms of a lack of buoyancy in air it seems like it's semantic gymnastics. Since gravity is quoted as 32ft/s2 we can verify that objects in freefall will accelerate at a rate that is consistent with this.
Do they? Does hot air "gravitate" towards earth? Or does it always rise? We see it being used to send human beings into the air with hot air balloons.
How do you float in water? Unless one is an obese person, it only takes a relatively small amount of air in your lungs to cause you to rise to the surface, and stay there. This has 0 to do with weight, or weight alone.
If weight was the biggest factor, how about a submarine? Does it "tend" to move down further into the depths of the ocean, or does it "tend" to move to the surface?
The answer to your question is that it is not a question of "gravity" - it is a question of density and buoyancy. Here is a good video that explains the concepts in detail:
I believe it's cold there because I've seen pictures of vast masses of ice. The reason for it being cold is irrelevant. It gets cold here in the winter time - I know that because I've been outside in it.
How does your flat earth model explain cold?
Great, we agree it's cold. The reason is not irrelevant though - because it pertains to the model one believes in - although the reason is the same. On Heliocentric, it's a matter of distance (and exposure time) to the sun. On FE - it's a matter of distance (and exposure time) to the sun.
So if distance to the heat source (and exposure time to it throughout a year) is the reason it lacks in heat - AND the given reason planes "can't" or "can't safely" fly over it completely - I ask again how the ISS is supposed to accomplish this feat? They are much further up than a plane - thus they are much further away from the sun when they supposedly fly over this region. The temperatures must be astronomically cold. In contrast - when they are on the sun side - they must be much closer to the sun - and the temperatures must be astronomically hot.
Some people will argue that in space temperature differs. Yeah, maybe - but the ISS and all other "spacecraft" have to get through the thermosphere, which can get as hot as 2,500 C (4,530 F) - which is going to melt most of the components anyway.
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm thinking of possible reasons why commercial aircraft use one route over another. As to the number of people who would fly routes, when I get on a commercial flight I don't get a say in what route it takes. I simply get on the plane and then get off again, hopefully at my intended destination.
Possible reasons are assumptions until they are shown to be true. I don't know the numbers of people where flights over Antarctica would facilitate trade that would be beneficial to both the airlines and the travelers. I'm inclined to think there are enough to justify it, given that it's the shortest distance between many points on "the globe"
Btw - nearly all the flights between Australia and South Africa have stopovers that are way out of the way on the Globe projection. Must cost airlines a fortune.
I can't be bothered to download things if you can't be bothered to discuss the topic you raised in your own thread. If all you've got is "watch these videos" or "read this book" then all you have is a case someone else made.
That thread "NASA and Facebook Tricked you" - has a video in the opening post. So initially the thread was about the video. If I recall, you didn't even want to watch it. Then the subject turned to flat earth. I did the best I could at that time with the knowledge I had at that time to answer various points brought up by different posters here, yourself included. Again, it is rather dishonest of you to characterize my statements as "all I've got is watch these videos or read this book". That is simply not true.
And in honesty, Tango - I don't see what you have about videos - and an unwillingness to watch them - especially when they are short like some of the ones showing the sun shrinking I have linked to.
And another point - if I recall one of the reasons I brought up Dubay's 200 proofs is to SUIT YOU - because YOU didn't want to watch videos. Now you are mis-characterizing that.
I never introduced the strawmen of the sun going under the earth, I specifically asked about what your flat earth model believed the sun did. Since the sun going under the earth would result in the whole of the earth being dark at once such a theory would be easily disproven, and hence I asked you what you believed the sun did.
You introduced the idea of the sun going "under the earth" in posts 187 and 192 of that thread.
Further, the FE model has a much closer and much smaller sun. One has to accept the premise of this for it to even be possible for night and day to occur over a flat plane. Light and lensing effect also affect how the sun shrinks as it sets (moves away) - and even at times appears to grow as it sets. This has to do with the amount of water is in the atmosphere you are looking through to see the sun. I have linked examples of this (non-FE videos), as well as an FE video by Rob Skiba that details the effect in that very thread in post 197. Did you even watch it?
Text too long - see part 2 of response.
