Electromagnetic or electrostatic forces are a much more likely explanation for the behavior of the sun and moon's circling the earth. It even works in favor of a spherical earth as it gives a more practical means of how objects remain affixed to the spheroid globe.

That one professor Robitaille who ripped Mr. Dave to shreds, while not a geocentrist or flat earther, has some very solid evidence for the sun being electrical in nature and not the huge fusion engine claimed by modern science.  Mr. Dave ripped him for his theories, and he proceeded to take him apart and expose the fact that Dave has no idea what's he's blustering about.

As for Mr. Dave humiliating David Weiss, he deliberately created that perception because, rather than actually arguing point by point, he would spout off a concatenation of 50 ideas which remained unproven and which he took for granted, and repeatedly engaged in mockery and derision while doing it, and then if Weiss couldn't respond to every one of them, he was seen to have "lost" the point.  It was smoke and mirrors.  I wrote about this same tactic before when the representatives from the Kolbe institute debated those atheists.  They employed the same tactic, just rattled off at high speed a concatenation of unproven and contested points and then claimed victory.  Each of the points would have required 30 minutes to do justice to and to make an adequate refutations, but by simply piling them all on, they gave the impression of winning the point simply by stating them.  It's a very dishonest sophistic debating tactic.

If I had the time, I'd do the analysis by pointing it out piece by piece and exposing the tactic, but it's very obvious what he's doing.  I likened it on that other thread to the modern forum of "debate" in schools that caused me to walk away from college debate in disgust.

That one professor Robitaille who ripped Mr. Dave to shreds, while not a geocentrist or flat earther, has some very solid evidence for the sun being electrical in nature and not the huge fusion engine claimed by modern science.  Mr. Dave ripped him for his theories, and he proceeded to take him apart and expose the fact that Dave has no idea what's he's blustering about.

As for Mr. Dave humiliating David Weiss, he deliberately created that perception because, rather than actually arguing point by point, he would spout off a concatenation of 50 ideas which remained unproven and which he took for granted, and repeatedly engaged in mockery and derision while doing it, and then if Weiss couldn't respond to every one of them, he was seen to have "lost" the point.  It was smoke and mirrors.  I wrote about this same tactic before when the representatives from the Kolbe institute debated those atheists.  They employed the same tactic, just rattled off at high speed a concatenation of unproven and contested points and then claimed victory.  Each of the points would have required 30 minutes to do justice to and to make an adequate refutations, but by simply piling them all on, they gave the impression of winning the point simply by stating them.  It's a very dishonest sophistic debating tactic.

If I had the time, I'd do the analysis by pointing it out piece by piece and exposing the tactic, but it's very obvious what he's doing.  I likened it on that other thread to the modern forum of "debate" in schools that caused me to walk away from college debate in disgust.

This video from the "What on Earth Happened?" Series really got me interested in the electric universe as the more plausible explanation rather than the Pythagoraean one we've been sold for 600 years.

https://tv.gab.com/channel/yafer/view/what-on-earth-happened-part-x-602962980ad6f0deab1657e4

A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?

If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable? Or do they need to fly to a major hub, such as London, in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example: all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.

Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.

If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africe?

It seems odd that they would waste fuel (as Lad points out) by going so very far North to either London or Dubai (at least on a globe map.)

On a flat earth map, it makes perfect sense.

BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC progarmming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanation

If what you hypothesize about unfilled flights were true, wouldn't the airlines be more likely to stop off at another major city in either South America or South Africe?

It seems odd that they would waste fuel (as Lad points out) by going so very far North to either London or Dubai (at least on a globe map.)

On a flat earth map, it makes perfect sense.

BTW, it takes a big hit to one's ego to break away from the MC progarmming and be considered an "oddball" for seeing the falsity of globe earth and going back to the simple Biblical explanation

Yeah, I don't buy that those bizarre (on a globe) routes are driven by economics.  It would appear that JUST getting from there up to Europe is as long a distance as if you had just flown straight across over the Ocean.  So what would they be saving by flying to Europe first?  And there appears to be enough demand where they could mostly fill a flight non-stop across the Ocean.

Just eyeballing it from this link here, the flight up to Europe from South Africa is longer than what the direct flight across the Ocean would be.
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze

So let's say it's because they can only fill half a plane.  Why would you fly a half-filled plane up for a stop in Europe that's farther away than if you had just gone direct with the same half-filled plane all the way across the Ocean?  You'd have to have a scenario where you could maybe fill the plane to Europe with 10% people who wanted to go to South America, and 90% with people who wanted to go to Europe.  But then in Europe you could combine them with more people who want to go to South America  But I just can't buy that you could only fill a tiny proportion of people on a plane from South Africa to South America.  Sure, maybe if someone just wanted to go to Buenos Aires.  But if you combined all the people that wanted to go to South America even if once there they had to connect to a different city, it would certainly make economic sense for there to be a fair number of flights down there that just went directly across the Ocean.  I could see it where some go up to Europe.  But who the heck would want to get on a plane for over 30 hours for what should be closer to an 8-10 hour direct flight?

Judging by the distances, it really should be like a 6-7 hour flight across the Ocean (it appears similar to travelling from the East Coast US to Europe.  Searching across all African designations to all in South America, I could only find one that shows it taking a weird dip route South toward Antarctica and making it list as a 14-hour trip, so double what I think it should be.

If you try Cape Town to Brazil on that flight link ... you can find dozens of regular flights, nearly all through Europe and some even through the Middle East.

Here is the only one I could find that allegedly flies directly across the Ocean.

from LAD to GRU

So I go to click on that to book a flight for one adults, and it shows a ticket price of $4,000.

Who the heck is going to spend $4,000 on that ticket?

FEs have found an occasional flight that claims to violate FE model, and have booked them, and every single time they've gotten cancelled.

If I saw a fare for $4,000 when I could book one through Europe for $1,000, guess which one I'm going to book.

Although that one MIGHT be doable? ... if you look more at a "polar projection" type of map:

If you try Cape Town to Brazil on that flight link ... you can find dozens of regular flights, nearly all through Europe and some even through the Middle East.

Here is the only one I could find that allegedly flies directly across the Ocean.

from LAD to GRU

So I go to click on that to book a flight for one adults, and it shows a ticket price of $4,000.

Who the heck is going to spend $4,000 on that ticket?

FEs have found an occasional flight that claims to violate FE model, and have booked them, and every single time they've gotten cancelled.

If I saw a fare for $4,000 when I could book one through Europe for $1,000, guess which one I'm going to book.

Although that one MIGHT be doable? ... if you look more at a "polar projection" type of map:

I think a reasonable explanation would be that it is certainly more profitable for the airline to fill seats. By flying through Europe or the Middle East the airline would be able to pick up more passengers. I doubt there is a huge interest in direct flights between Brazil and South Africa. It also stands to reason that $4000 would be an understandable price for some wealthy costumers who wanted a nonstop flight between the two places.  Incidentally, some friends of ours recently paid approximately $4000 for round trip tickets for travel from Australia to the USA via Europe!

Again, there may be something to that with regards to FE but there is also another explanation.

Flights from anywhere to Vegas are extremely cheap.  Why?  Volume.  Supply and demand.

Flights which are difficult to fill are very expensive and if they don't sell enough seats they may be cancelled or the airline will simply lose money on it.

But perhaps if the flights would be priced reasonably, then they could fill the plane.  Heck, if I lived in South Africa and wanted to go to South America, I'd definitely try to fly up to Angola and then connect over there, thereby cutting 15-20 hours of my travel time ... if it were reasonably priced.  I would think there would be high demand if it were reasonably priced.  Let's say a normal ticket would be $1,000 (for a flight they expect to be nearly full), then they could make the same margin if the Angola flight were just a quarter full at $4,000.  So the price is a vicious circle that way.  Question is why there isn't enough demand for such a flight to be able to bring the price down to reasonable levels when the only other alternative I have found is to double your flight time by going through Europe.  Although maybe there's something we don't know about Angola or the airline, where perhaps there's a 10% chance of getting murdered in Angola ... or the pilots are incompetent.  Who knows?

But I found it shocking that it's the ONLY flight I could find that allegedly crosses the Atlantic from South Africa to South America.  There are tons of flights to South America that fly through Europe.  That suggests that there's definitely a market for a decent number of direct flights across the Atlantic.  Heck if I were a billionaire, I would see that as a huge business opportunity to fill the gap.