วีดีโอ

That is probably because you didn't measure any temperatures in the air to properly estimate for the refraction that is bonkers close to earth. This is from a plane, and has more predictable refraction values. Don't compare the 2.

Why wouldn’t they? The gravity of the earth pulls the large bodies of water towards its center. And because of the water’s composition, it’s able to conform with the Earth’s curve.

As with all flat earthers, none of them can do mathematics, is it not obvious that inaccurate data will provide spurious results?

Agreed, however I haven't discussed this with another atheist that thinks that way nor do I know any. I am sure there are some, but it isn't the usual. Perhaps a definition of a particular god being discussed would clear up confusion? My take is the simple notion that there is insufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of any claimed god. The lack of evidence is telling, but not conclusive. Thank you for the comment.

Of course not.

Flat earthers can't do mathematics or science, deal with it

@@DarrenSaw Do you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If you do, help answer that question. How can a high pressure system stand with a low pressure system? Go ahead and tell us about "gravity" lol....we have a down because of magnetism, not your crazy definition of "gravity". Good luck getting your brain to make twists and turns, vacuum chambers have over 6 foot concrete and metal to keep the vacuum and they can only get to 7 tors, space is zero and we go there with tin cans lol....live in your math fantasy....Q

I accept what the data says, my eyes sees, and what is the only logical explanation. But hey. Can you explain what he did wrong in this video? (I already know that you can't)

Odd comment.

@@allgreymatters9341 It was an odd video. Both parties read something in a book that they believe because other smart successful people believe it as well. There are very few people that actually have an experience, so few in fact that as of 2021 neither party has definitive recreatable proof of their theories. Imagine actually wanting to know the truth and having to endure closed minded people battling out the 2 stupidest theories that could be imagined.

@@mikew4777 Well I just have to disagree. Every "recreatable" evidence presented by the flat earth club demonstrates exactly what is expected on our globe earth. Every time. But really, the point of this video was in response to the logic being used to justify a bible verse interpretation.

Find a new school

and the Vikings were in the Americas hundreds of years before Colombus

@@laurentpenot2656 So were the indigenous people. The way this is taught in school is ludicrous.

@@allgreymatters9341 sure. we are all thirsty for Truth 😞

There is no real flat earth model, or any flat earth model.

I still don’t understand where you are trying to go with this. I justify NOT causing harm because I have empathy for the feeling and needs of others, and a realization that my actions affect the physical world around me. Some don’t, I agree. Evolution of a species even demands it, at least generally for the purpose of survival. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean here?

For you to be right, in that “validating life and moral standards” are founded in logical fallacies, it would first have to be demonstrated that there is some agreed upon foundation for absolute morality.

​@@allgreymatters9341 So, since you've said you're still lost, let me try to make a more formal approach here, so that your brain my be able to recognize my argument see if it can come up with a counter argument as to how I'm wrong. My proposition (P): mainstream atheist philosophy is MORE absurd than religion and IF mainstream atheists care about being rational they will have to change their beliefs. Note: I'm NOT saying atheism is wrong, its actually correct and rational. I am specifically exposing mainstream atheist thought as absurd. Defining mainstream atheism (MA): By MA I mean the philosophical viewpoints that are asserted to be rational amongst popular atheists AND WHICH are supported by a large portion of the atheists in the world. These points include (1. Life is worth starting in the context of a secular world) (2. Its bad to cause harm to someone because of empathetic feelings and because its against survival) (3. Human beings should continue to exist). Good reason to take (P) seriously 1: Absurd thought/ideas/philosophies warrant NO respect because their propositions and conclusions are invalid, full of irrational thinking, bias, and not related with reality. Thus an absurd philosophy is one that is to be ignored and/or ridiculed. Good reason to take (P) seriously 2: Mainstream atheism advocates a moral system based on absurd logic. The mainstream atheist idea that harm is bad because somebody or a majority FEELS uncomfortable seeing or doing it is absolutely foolish logic. Just because something makes someone uncomfortable DOES NOT mean it ought to be avoided. Its like theists asserting "I'm not comfortable with a world without god, therefore god is real and ought to be respected. Good reason to take (P) seriously 3: mainstream atheists assert humanity should continue, yet give no logical reason to do so. Life doesn't justify itself, to continue to live life requires a logical justification, otherwise the imperative is death. Mainstream atheists refuse to apply the SAME scrutiny to the justification of bothering to live and to life itself that they apply to religion. NOTHING is justified without good reason for it. Religion has none, and I would argue, science and reason dictates life has none either. This is just a draft and a start, please use LOGIC AND REASON to respond. The merits of life according to religion has been demonstrated to be absurd because there's no god or real spiritual power, NOW its rational for any intelligent man to apply a critique toward LIFE itself, to see if it has any rational merit to it.

​@@allgreymatters9341 Quote: *"For you to be right, in that “validating life and moral standards” are founded in logical fallacies, it would first have to be demonstrated that there is some agreed upon foundation for absolute morality."* Response: 1) No, I just have to make a rational argument. 2)I can correlate your reasons for your supposed moral standards DIRECTLY to logical fallacies. For example, you think harming someone is bad because you feel bad about doing it, that's appeal to nature & appeal to ego. You also think that evolution requires cooperation for survival, therefore we should be cooperative. That's appeal to nature because there's no logical reason to respect evolution's imperatives. Evolution is a DEscriptive fact, not a PREscriptive one. 3)There is an agreed upon standard of morality/oughtness, its a concept called OBJECTIVE VALUE. Objective value, by nature, is an ought.

Do you require some external source of morality to determine what is right and wrong? Would your nature change if there was no "moral standard" described in the bible? (Or whatever source of morality you claim is derived externally from humanity)

@@allgreymatters9341 Wait a minute, do you agree or disagree with what I've said? Also why are you indirectly assuming I'm a christian, how is that rational? If you were smart you would be asking: "what is your philosophical belief about morality"? Its not rational to assume your enemy is always a christian, you need to recognize that there're different groups in the world. You need to realize that there is philosophical division within the atheist spectrum.

@@FinalFantasy8911debater I didn’t assume your philosophy, thus the “or whatever external source…” addendum. And I asked you directly if you require an external source of morality (which you have ignored), as your initial post implies that you do and I want to clarify it. Additionally, to be clear, I don’t think of you or anyone else as an “enemy” unless they are attacking me in some manner. So I ask again, do you require an external source of described morality or can you tell right from wrong intrinsically? (If you require an external source) would your nature change without an external source?

​@@allgreymatters9341 Quote: *"I didn’t assume your philosophy, thus the “or whatever external source…” addendum."* Response: You indirectly assumed I was a christian because you FIRST suggested I followed the bible, and then afterwards suggested I may have followed some other source. AGAIN, you could have asked "what's your moral philosophy", if you were trying to be neutral, but instead your brain went to "prepare to attack christian mode" instead. Thats' irrational bias. Quote: *"And I asked you directly if you require an external source of morality (which you have ignored), as your initial post implies that you do and I want to clarify it."* Response: Oh really!? Quote me, in my first comment, where I suggested I followed an external source. Your claim of that is factually wrong. See you're irrationally assuming again. Your brain went to "prepare to attack a christian". I don't believe in morality because its factually unfounded in the secular worldview. I believe in intrinsic value, which is founded in science and reason, not subjective opinion. So I believe in an external source for value, which is science and reason, both which are external/objective because they're intrinsically existent separate from a brain. Now do you confirm or deny my original comment?

Sure, but you can spin anything. Call it "parable", like Jesus supposedly used in so many verses.

math is descriptive not prescriptive of reality. Show where it goes wrong and we can talk, or stay in the intellectual dark ages. Either is fine with me.

@@allgreymatters9341 your word hooey does not impress me - research the meaning of "systemic feedback" within the context of science and your bogus math proofs.

I guess I'm not following. Perhaps an example?

@@allgreymatters9341 so essentially I was explaining to him that the death of a certain character in the show may have been Rewritten. And I explained to him things like nobody ever bringing up the character's death and things such as the people who supposedly killed him never said anything about killing him that that was a pretty big hint to the fact that they might not have killed him in the first place and then he may have survived and there could have more Nuance of the situation than him simply dying.

@@GhostDrewSenju I find it pointless to debate about fiction, because it could be written however the author wants it. I do see some utility in it as practice though, as in what evidence was presented and is it valid, etc.

@@allgreymatters9341 yeah and that is a point that I mentioned. Is that considering the difference or change in the story that is is %100 possible that there could have been a retcon in the story. However he insisted that it wasnt a valid take and stuck with a point that had no real evidence behind it. Just like you said in the video it calls under the refusal of nuance rather than one being ultimately correct.

I'm still here. I'm thinking about a video on the topic of death... But honestly it's difficult for me to produce them.

@@allgreymatters9341 why on something so macabe?

@@thegoblin957 It isn't so bad. I think death is misunderstood.

//We all don't remember being inside our mother's womb, that does not mean womb don't exist.// Agreed. But the time to believe it exists is when there is evidence to support that belief, otherwise it is just a guess. You can guess millions of things, but that doesn't mean the guesses are right. //Science and technology has not fully developed to say that God does not exist. // I don't understand the point. "Science and technology" have never had goals of disproving a particular god's existence, as proving a negative is pointless. The burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim. If you claim a god exists, that is an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence to support the claim. If you don't have that evidence why would you expect anyone to be required to prove you wrong? //All atheist do have some assumptions and some facts to prove that God dont exist. // So this is simply false. I am an atheist and like many other atheists I don't make assumptions about any claimed gods as true or false, and I don't claim to have facts to disprove a god either. The default position of a thinking atheist is that we would not assume a claim to be true without evidence to support the claim and that our position is null/neutral until proven. I do have to assume that since there are so many conflicting claims about gods that most of them must be false as there can only be one truth. //I believe that there is an omnipotent power that control all these and created whole world.// What you believe is irrelevant. But you should ask yourself if your beliefs are the result of reliable methods in regards to knowing things. What reliable methods have you used to come to your beliefs? Can they be tested by others for confirmation? I believe that there are many claims of many gods, none that are backed up by anything I can confirm. I will say that I find it highly unlikely that any of them do exist, because all of their attributes (invisible, untestable, unfindable etc) are the same as "something that doesn't exist". I also find it telling how the goalposts continue to move: gods that lived in the mountains moved to the skies when we climbed the mountains. Gods in the skies moved to the heavens when we were able to explore the skies, etc.

@@allgreymatters9341 1)You said people can guess million things, "there is no god" is one among million guess. As you couldn't prove non existence of God rather made some counter arguments that usually every atheists makes. You talk about scientific evidence/proven facts at the same time if someone ask you to scientifically prove that "God doesnot exist" you say it's not my job is like an oxymoron. 2) science is not about proving God. What is science?! Anything and everything is a subject matter of science. People study about plants, animals, ocean, ghosts, phobias, humans, history, god and what not. Recently I watched a video where NTD explained "nothing". It's interesting. Moreover as uh stated atheist don't believe until something is proven seems like "waiting for something to happen". Science talks about soul and mind but it's unable to prove where is soul and mind located?! Nobody has ever seen it!! Yet everyone including science believe but there is no proof whether it exists or not?! So, you don't believe that uh have mind and soul?! Faith in God is deep feeling that cannot be expressed in words. I believe in God, body, soul and mind without being scientifically proven. 1)Is it the same science that told there was 9 planets and now stated that there are only 8 planets?! 2)Is it the same science that decades before believed that there is no sound in outerspace and then said there is sound in outer space because Nasa now have records. 3)Its the same science that once told lightening will never hit same spot twice rejects it now and I can keep on writing. So, science is proving something at time and disapprove it later. So basically atheists don't have anything to hold on for much longer.. 3) All religion are known as "faith". Faith is not dependent on scientific proofs or facts or evidences. It's the belief in unseen. I am a mothesist person. God is Unique One of absolute Oneness, i.e., single and indivisible with absolute and permanent unity and distinct from all else, who is unique in His essence, attributes, names and acts, the One who has no second, no associate, no parents, no offspring, no peers, free from the concept of multiplicity or divisibility, and far from conceptualization and limitation, and there is nothing like Him in any respect. Ultimate Source of all existence, the Uncaused Cause who created all things out of nothing, who is eternal, absolute, immutable, perfect, complete, essential, independent, and self-sufficient; Who does not need to eat or drink, sleep or rest; Who needs nothing while all of creation is in absolute need of Him; the one eternally and constantly required and sought, depended upon by all existence and to whom all matters will ultimately return. 3)He begets not, nor is He begotten (He is Unborn and Uncreated, has no parents, wife or offspring). 4. And there is none comparable (equal, equivalent or similar) to Him. 4) my belief is irrelevant because of no confirmation by others?! Millions of people are believing in my faith. So how can uh say there is no confirmation When the religion I follow has scientifically proven facts?!

@@roadlesstaken6006 That is a lot to unpack, and I am willing to but lets take it one piece at a time. //1)You said people can guess million things, "there is no god" is one among million guess. As you couldn't prove non existence of God rather made some counter arguments that usually every atheists makes. You talk about scientific evidence/proven facts at the same time if someone ask you to scientifically prove that "God doesnot exist" you say it's not my job is like an oxymoron. // Yes, "there is no god" is something that we can guess but it is a null position. However, if I posit that notion as a claim I would need to back it up. Let's look at it another way: If I claim that pink unicorns exist you would expect me to demonstrate that claim to be true. It would not be your responsibility to demonstrate my claim as false, as how does one prove a negative? Or perhaps I am wrong and you know how to do so... then answer: What scientific method would you use to prove that my pink unicorns don't exist?

You had been unable to answer my questions instead you are making counter questions. This is known as "Whataboutism". OK.. Now the subject is "pink unicorn". Whether unicorns existed or is it a mythical creature is still unknown. Many claims that unicorns where usually rhinoceros. Because the words like "pink", "unicorns" etc are english words that had evolved over years. What are the words that those people used for it or what animals they where referring to are still unknown for modern men because its lost in time. Even i too agree with that. But still you can't deny that they never existed. People still believe in Darwin theory of evolution. But recently a huge human teeth and skull was identified in Russian denisova cave. Even before identifying skull many people believed about gigantic human beings that once lived in earth and still believes in it. Faith does not need any scientific proof. Every human beings whether atheists or theists or agnostics etc do believe in unseen, unheard or not scientifically proven facts. Can uh prove me scientifically that tomorrow both of us will be alive with 100% gurantee?! Still we all had many works undone, many things unspoken and many things planned for future without full knowledge about future. So why are uh planning things for tomorrow if its not scientifically proven whether uh will live tomorrow?! Look at the wedding planners?! Constructions sited?! To do lists etc?! All made for future without knowing future?! Why can't uh prove me scientifically that uh will be alive tomorrow?! So directly /indirectly we all do believe in things that are unseen/unheard but with a belief. God is unseen, unheard and not scientifically proven. But believers can feel him/it like their soul and mind.

@@roadlesstaken6006 No. How it works is, this is my venue and if you want my conversation you get to play by my rules. I will not respond to lengthy bloviation when you are making fallacy after fallacy. That being said, again, lets start with the first point from your previous response. Here it is: //1)You said people can guess million things, "there is no god" is one among million guess. As you couldn't prove non existence of God rather made some counter arguments that usually every atheists makes. You talk about scientific evidence/proven facts at the same time if someone ask you to scientifically prove that "God doesnot exist" you say it's not my job is like an oxymoron. // You are asserting that someone should be able to disprove a claim using scientific methodology, thus shifting the burden of proof. I am simply asking what reliable method should/could be used to accomplish this. The claim can be of your choosing of something that may or may not exist. Pink unicorn, fairies, any particular god or type of god, whatever. So the question is: What reliable scientific method would you use to disprove the existence of a claimed entity? Failure to answer the above question will result in non-response from me.

You're doing them wrong

Excuse for what? Every one I have examined shows exactly what we expect to see, as long as you correctly identify objects shown and do proper math. Show me one with confirmed landmarks that we shouldn't see from a known location and I'll listen.

He can't analyze those, they destroy his fake ass globe.

@@subvertedworld Bring it. Do you have something compelling to share or just hot air as usual?

@@allgreymatters9341 I added what I wanted to. Your fake spinning ball is easily smasheed just by the imagery from jtolan alone. Your lisp won't turn earth into a pear no matter how much spittle you get on a microphone.

@@subvertedworld So nothing but ad hom attacks. Typical.

Exceptions to what exactly? The fallacy is still the fallacy. If I claim that faeries don't exist and I back it with the fact that there is no good evidence supporting their existence, the use of the lack of evidence is valid but not conclusive. It would be a fallacy for me to claim conclusively that they don't exist, although I can certainly say that it seems unlikely, similar to an infinite number of other possible claims that are made without evidence. Perhaps I am missing your point?

@@allgreymatters9341 No, you got my point perfectly. I was curious if in all cases an argument from ignorance was fallacious and therefore invalid. I was recently in a discussion with someone using their god to justify behaviour I found repugnant, so without much thought I replied “your god doesn’t exist; grow up”. I in turn, I was called out for the fallacy and needed to provide evidence of non-existence. It got messy, but I explained that I take a pragmatic approach and the confidence of my claim is proportionate to claims made about faeries and goblins, all for the same reasons. He kept nailing me on positive claims require evidence to be valid. (Philosophy 101) Certainly, without evidence it is reasonable to operate on the presumption that something doesn’t exist. I thought maybe I was losing my mind.

@@ClanMacAoidh yes, asserting a positive claim comes with the burden of proof, but in your case it serves as a distraction for your interlocutor since they can’t backup their claim either. Every theist I have discussed religion with seems to be hung up on a logical fallacy that they are unable or unwilling to see past and it is nearly impossible to get them past it just by arguing with them. I have found it easier to become productive using street epistemology techniques. Check out Anthony magnabosco’s channel if you are unfamiliar with SE.

@@ClanMacAoidh the position I take as an atheist is simply that I am not convinced of the existence of any gods claimed by theists, due to lack of evidence for those gods. Bring testable extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim and I could be convinced. Whether or not I would find that god worthy of worship is another matter :)

@@allgreymatters9341 It was a painful exchange. He was so hung up on demanding evidence for non-existence even after I admitted and acknowledged I couldn’t provide it and expecting it was an exercise in futility. Yet, that was his angle. I suspect theists that glom on to the evidence for non-existence know deep down that they hold an irrational belief and hinging everything on the burden of proof for non-existence is a way to take the heat off themselves by turning the tables on the opposition they get criticism from. Luckily, the exchange didn’t go far, as it dissolved into me “getting destroyed”....like a chess board by a pigeon. I have binge watched Magnabosco’s videos, but it’s been a while since. I like the SE approach and have adopted what fundamentals I have learned from it in every day discussions. I really appreciate your replies. I didn’t have any expectations of getting one, so it’s an honour to receive feedback.

Yes, flightaware. It gets data directly from radar information. As a pilot I can tell you that every time I have compared the data on flightaware to my actual flight path it represented it PERFECTLY. Do you have confirmable data that it provides incorrect information? Please site a source if so, and I will provide a retraction video if it can be confirmed. Or are you positing that it was incorrect just on this one flight?

Perhaps that could be derived from looking in one particular direction. Seems consistent in any direction though, no?

If you can show a flat earth model that consistently works out mathematically with our observations of Polaris from various viewing locations I would love to see it, and will post a video describing it. From what I can tell, there is no model that works.

Sure the pics are great. The assertion that they demonstrate a flat earth is irresponsible.

@Jimmy Ray No, explore other ideas. But let's do it in a responsible way. If your approach is to only see what you want to see and reject all other evidence contrary to your agenda, that is irresponsible.

@@allgreymatters9341 hahaha => lets be responsible ? like the nazies (nasa) ? like hitler , like lets all get double , triple , quadruple vaccinated ??? (wich aren't vaxines , more like experimental gen therapies). like bill gates and Epstein ? like Hollywood etc. etc. etc. ??? 🤣🤣🤣 it's all abouth perspective and " not " throwing the kid out with the bathwater 😉 there are more devious plans on the globalists agenda , like this oekrainian war for example , like climate lockdowns (not to forget they are the cause most of those big fires around the world , they were planned) !!! not to mention opperation Bleu beam is now close on there agenda as well !!! (fake alien invasion) ! they have stolen trillions from all the people around the world . you might be just as wrong as he is 😁😁😁 what i do know that things are not what it seems , time and space are an illusion ! and we are being manipulated at a very big scale ! you'd beter be aware of what's to come or face the consequenses when the shift comes , and it will be in a timelaps of a decade to maximum 3 decades if your lucky ! Lies abouth CO2 => it's the poleshifts that will cause danger (+ there vicious technologies will be weaponised to do harm on us plebs) ! these are psychopaths who want to dominate the world and will have help from mother nature ! wake up or face the consequences 😲 good luck 😉

Insane and perfectly accurate. It’s damn flat

"There is no evidence that the FSM exists, therefore it does not exist": Fallacy, perhaps the evidence has not been discovered. "yes, but also there is no evidence against the FSM, so it does exist": Same fallacy and also shifting of burden of proof of a claim. If you claim something exists it would be up to you to demonstrate the claim to be true, not mine to demonstrate it can't be. "the evidence against the FSM is that there is no evidence" This is somewhat true but not enough to bring us to 100% certainty.

@@allgreymatters9341 btw I used the FSM as an example. Thank ya.

@@allgreymatters9341 "The only evidence that the FSM does not exist is that there is no evidence". To me makes no sense ,I find just idodic to say ,because I or someone could say "there is Evidence ,and that is that there is no evidence against the FSM". And it , the other person just said "that....there is no evidence". And Vise versa. I have a hard time with this senario. Your thoughts on this.

@@cuscoflagawareness6613 I understood FSM as an example and responded as such. Personally, I'm fond of FSM :) We are talking about claims. I can claim millions of random things and it is up to me to demonstrate them to be true. The standard of evidence that would convince you of the truth of each claim may vary depending on how extraordinary the claim is. The claim that "I am sitting in front of a computer typing this" isn't particularly extraordinary, so a small amount of evidence would probably satisfy you. If I make the claim that "I am typing this on my phone in free-fall while skydiving" it might require stronger evidence to convince you of the truth of that claim. Lack of evidence doesn't prove it false however. The time to believe a claim is when sufficient good evidence has been produced to support it. Personally, I find the lack of evidence for the FSM telling and that lack of evidence puts me in a position of "unlikely to be true", but I can't be 100% certain since proving a negative is problematic. The other side of that is that it is difficult to be certain about the truth of ANYTHING.

@@allgreymatters9341 ok this is was a nice conversation. Just because there is no evidence for you skydiving and typing this ,that doesn't mean its untrue, regardless of being absurd, in order to be disproved there would be "negative evidence " not no evidence at all. "The evidence against FSM, or bigfoot etc. Is that there is no evidence". Is not valid because, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Search this if you fancy. ⬆️

Sure, but there are open source versions of this type of software that you can examine yourself (like space engine), and they return the same results. I tell you what, if you can find a situation in stellarium that is inconsistent with real life observations of celestial objects as far as where they should be I'll retract the video.

Why are you certain the speed of sound would imply a limitation on the velocity of objects such as earth?

@@taylorjeremy71 do you actually understand the point the op was making? The entire comment makes no sense. “Earth does not move” is a claim that he calls a “fact” without backing it up then goes on to say that claim destroys a “1000mph spinning ball Earth”, which in itself demonstrates a misunderstanding of what it means to have an object the size of earth rotating at 1 rotation per day. And if you want to insult me, make fun of the proper speech impediment, I have a lateral ‘s’

@@taylorjeremy71 I don't find you qualified to give an opinion on my state of mind. Are you here for anything constructive or just for insults? Did you find an error in my video? Do you just believe what JTolan publishes without scrutiny because it agrees with your worldview? I don't remember making a claim in this video other than that the information JTolan was publishing is incorrect. I'm the one analyzing the information presented and giving it the "peer review" that good science requires, and sharing my findings. What have you done besides making fun of my speech impediment?

@@taylorjeremy71 I can see how you might derive that as a strawman, but the intention was to try to figure out why the op was using "speed of sound" in the first place, as it really is irrelevant and shows a lack of knowledge of what it is to move on a globe. I don't see how this makes me either a liar or totally nuts, and I continue to find you incompetent to judge my mental state. If you are only here to opine about me and not engage about the content of the video then kindly show yourself out as it bores me. If you are a globe denier that actually wants to discuss reality, I welcome you to bring it.

@@MatrixRevealed22 I removed your other spam/nonsensical comment. What motion heliocentric motion are you struggling with specifically?

It's good to see you have even less, if you believe the flat earth folks.

@@allgreymatters9341 so what would happen if a plane gets to a altitude of 40,000 feet and then just keeps the plane level and no longer going by altitude meter? Would the plane be gaining altitude or fly into space and yes it's a plane it can't go to space I know! What do you think would happen

As a professional pilot I can tell you exactly what will happen. At the point where the airplane no longer has enough air to generate enough power and lift to sustain the trajectory you are requesting it will either stall and descend or just descend.

@@allgreymatters9341 so it will gain altitude?

I've never been in a plane so I'm just asking

Congratulations!