I just read all 59 pages to be sure

Monoliths*, the "i" isnt flat

I already posted a myth buster picture meme that showed the flat horizon at 70,000 ft.

You're never gonna convince me and you're never going to wake up.

so believe whatever you want, just try to find a a better way to deal with your anger and rage. You really need to chill out, seriously.

...and individual pictures are subject to lens distortion, just like you always tell us.

Explain how daily flights make it to JNB from SYD on your mythical flat Earth.

Why would I "chill out?" You're still spreading lies.

In both the myth buster altitude test and Red bull jump from space - the camera inside the vehicles are using a normal lense and show the clearly flat horizon

and then switch to a very wide angle lense to trick you, its plainly obvious once you chill out, relax, start to process information properly, start to think critically and realize goverment military space fantasy propaganda is not actual science.




https://www.quora.com/Do-airplanes-fly-faster-at-higher-altitudes

“As altitude increases, air temperature decreases. The speed of sound in air varies directly with temperature, so as temperature decreases, so does the true airspeed associated with a given Mach.
As aircraft climb to the transition zone at a constant indicated airspeed (the speed shown on their instruments), their true airspeed (actual speed through the air) increases. This is because as air gets thinner it has less impact on the sensors that drive the airspeed indicators, so for a given indicated airspeed, true airspeed increases with altitude. So, Yes.”

You've failed at proving anything is a lie, all you've done is lie yourself, dodge and rage. You have absolutely no credibility. Please take your anger from having battered wife syndrome and try to direct it toward something positive.

GL2U




its actually the "eye" in illuminati, that higher levels of freemasonry have known the truth

and not knowing this truth is why life is out of balance.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 10 2017 08:11am

If I recall correctly, the Red Bull jump from space had a very distorted camera, including your favorite shot of curvature from ground level.

The mythbusters didn't use a normal lens, you can clearly see curvature even at 10,000 feet, which is not perceptible to the human eye yet. And while HE saw curvature at 70,000 feet, it was obvious that the curvature in the camera view was exaggerated.



http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-airways-777-plane-blown-across-atlantic-supersonic-speeds-by-freak-jetstream-1482875 <-- a Boeing 777 managed to eclipse the sea-level speed of sound at high high altitude, crossing the Atlantic with a record tailwind. Its ground speed? 745 mph. Still not even in the ballpark of 1000+.

Now keep in mind, it didn't break the sound barrier at altitude, broad nosed aircraft aren't built to manage the immense stresses an aircraft undergoes when it exceeds the sound barrier. But a trans-Atlantic RECORD of 745 mph for a subsonic aircraft (which all modern airliners are)? It is beyond safe to say that ordinary air traffic from SYD to JNB is physically impossible with current airliners.

While true airspeed increases relative to indicated air speed, the maximum MACH speed the aircraft can fly at does not. Your typical commercial jets are rated to about 0.9 MACH. In other words, they can't exceed about 9/10 the speed of sound at whatever altitude they are currently at. Speed of sound at sea level is about 760 mph, and it decreases with altitude. That means that a 747 is not rated for an airspeed faster than about 680 mph at sea level, and less than that at higher altitudes. At 30,000 feet the speed of sound is about 680 mph, so a 747 can't exceed an airspeed of about 610 mph. As altitude increases, the maximum possible airspeed for an aircraft decreases. Higher altitude means the jet can fly cheaper, NOT faster.

Proof that "Mach" isn't a higher speed at higher altitude if as air gets thinner it has less impact on the sensors that drive the airspeed indicators, proof that thin air doesn't need to meet the impact of mach at low altitude, proof that the plane is just normal in every way, proof of altitude, altimeter/speedometer/odometer gauges, proof of jet steams speeds at all altitudes......
I could go on but your going to dodge them all choosing to lie to yourself by just spewing what your told to think, stay small, keep proving you are a victim of wife battered syndrome.

Please Explain why a flight from Bali to Los Angeles had to make an emergency stop in Alaska, stop dodging.

This video shows how there is only one non stop of these "special" flight that Helios worships talk about in their echo chamber and like 30 multiple stop flights that make no sense, seems very like these non stop flight dont actually exist or use a special plane that flies at higher altitudes.




This post was edited by card_sultan on May 10 2017 11:16am

Not true - Nasa claims to fly their "planes" at 17,500 mph in low earth orbit with no fuel - so debunked

Do you even read your own posts?



Do you understand what you actually posted there? It says that at higher altitude, temperature decreases. When temperature decreases, so does the speed of sound. Your own post states that Mach is a lower speed at higher altitude.
Jesus, I can't make this shit up.


Because it was the closest airport to their flight path.

What's the problem?


Yeah, because the number of flights isn't governed by laws of physics, but laws of supply and demand. Many more people fly just between Australia and US or Chile and US, than between Australia and Chile. There are not enough people flying from Sydney to Santiago to run more than 1 flight.
The 30 multiple stop flights are possible ways of getting from Sydney to Santiago, but each leg is a separate, independent flight. I can make a route showing how to fly from San Francisco to LA in 10 stops if I wanted to, but it doesn't mean you actually NEED to make 10 stops for the journey.

And no, the actual real non-stop flight doesn't use any special aircraft. But you are welcome to prove otherwise.

This post was edited by russian on May 10 2017 12:13pm

Quantification of "mach" at lower altitudes: http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm
Proof of why this is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound



...and as I hope you can figure out, as you increase altitude, you decrease the air's density. When you decrease the medium's density, you slow the speed of sound.
I suppose I should make sure you understand that the speed of sound is mach 1.0.

Before I address the remainder of your points, I want to be sure I am not going to waste my time. Do you accept this as proof that the speed of sound at high altitude is lower than at sea level? Yes or no?