Umm, it's not an appeal to authority when it's simply straight up evidence.
Your so called evidence is entirely based on your appeal to authority.
Is trusting a pilot to safely get all the passengers from A to B using all of their skill, training, and tech an "appeal to authority"?
Trusting a pilot to get you safely to your destination proves nothing more than having faith in your pilot to follow navigation channels and flight instructions of handling and maintenance.
What would be a non-appeal to authority?
Only things you can verify for yourself?
Yep.
Things which you can verify after being told, then you can appeal to your own knowledge based on what you found to be correct.
Other than that you are reliant on a story which you do not know whether it is fiction or non-fiction.
That means you would have to know exactly how to fly and navigate a commercial airliner and actually do it yourself.
Anyone would have to learn how to navigate an airliner to fly i themselves if they wanted to be a pilot.
If pilots and airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid model as they claim they do and all references they have show that they do, that's referred to as evidence. Apparently you have no idea what evidence is.
Evidence of what?
They're flying, so tell me what they're doing in the plane to fly over a globe, like you say.
Tell me how they know.
So the question remains, if you believe contrary to the evidence, what is your evidence to counter?
Water level.
That's all that's really needed.
"Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
There is no fact of a spheroid model of Earth to get you from A to B.
Water level is more than enough to counter that nonsense.
Got it. So you concede the fact that you have no evidence to counter that airlines use the WGS-84 spheroid model. Check.
Yes, I do. Water level.
What flat earth model/maps/tech/navigation do airlines use if you don't believe they use the WGS-84 spheroid model?
An Earth that allows it, which is not a spinning globe.
That's not counter evidence. That's you just appealing to your own opinion. Your argument is basically, "Because I said so..." That is pathetically weak. Evidence is required - Directly countering the fact that airlines use the WGS-84 model for navigation.
No. I'm appealing to legitimate physical, observable, testable and repeatable data that water conforms to any container it is n and it is level and always finds its level, because the Earth is not a spinning globe we supposedly walk/run/sail or fly upon.
You're more than entitled to that, as you know.
I'm more than entitled to treat the global model how I see fit, which is to see it as absolute and utter nonsense for many many reasons.
Of course you're "entitled" to believe what you want. But when belief is counter to evidence, therein lies a problem. What evidence do you have that airlines are not using the WGS-84 spheroid model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact they airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Once again, there is no fact of a spheroid Earth and water level dismisses the spheroid model very easily.
Planes fly point to point with minor deviations due to weather patterns.
They don't follow a curve they follow a set altitude in general, unless taking off, gaining the required altitude and reducing altitude due to weather issues or other deviation reasons, otherwise they stay at a set altitude and do not account for curvature, just as submarines do not.
Soooo, you carry on telling me they fly by using a globe and I'll keep telling you it's fantasy.
Again, what evidence do you have that they don't use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model?
Water level.
Ummm, again, "Water level" has nothing to do with the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B. You need to provide evidence that they don't. Even though all references point to the fact that they do. Stomping your feet yelling "water level" has nothing to do with the systems and models used in modern air travel/navigation.
I'm not yelling for water level, I'm simply telling you water level is there for all to see, test and repeatedly test which shows we do not walk, run, sail or fly on or over a spheroid Earth.
I've provided evidence that they do.
No, you haven't. You've appealed to authority, nothing more.
You obviously have no idea what evidence is.
Clearly you do not.
Now it's for you to provide evidence that they don't.
Water level.
That's not evidence against the fact that airliners use a spheroid model of earth to get you from A to B.
Water level says they don't. As simple and as easy as that.
Try and stick to the actual topic and show us what flat earth maps/navigation airliners use. Btw, ships travel on water, planes fly in the air.
Correct, ships do travel on water and planes do fly in air....but none of them do this on or over any oblate spinning spheroid.
See how this works? Evidence is required, not you just saying "it's fantasy". You have to do better than that.
I have.
No you haven't. What evidence have you provided that counters the fact that airliners use the WGS-84 spheroid globe model as referenced?
Water level.
What flat earth maps do they use?
Whatever they use.
What flat earth routes do they use?
It depends on the terrain.
Water or ground if they can avoid going over mountains and hills, etc.
Do they use the map in your avatar?
I don't know what map they use. One that navigates the known parts of Earth, which none of it being an oblate spinning spheroid.
There's gobs of evidence that they don't. Flying times alone, well documented, prove they don't use your avatar map. So which one do you claim they use?
There's no real proof of anything to do with a spinning global Earth.
Any so called evidence is nothing more than story telling.
Evidence is required. If you have none, well, then you just simply concede the point.
I won't be conceding any point.
Water level is more than enough to keep any point against a global spinning Earth nonsense, valid as a legitimate argument.
You have nothing.
Opinion or belief has no place here. Just evidence.
Opinions and beliefs have places everywhere, just as much as potential truth's.
The issue arises when investigating/debating them.