Locally the earth is flat - the usefulness of Euclid's geometry shows that. On the other hand "spherical-earthers" are dead wrong in the large (although this approximation has it's uses for navigation). "Oblate-spheroid earthers" are mostly concerned with targeting ICBMs, tiny effects of gravitational fields and the like, but they are at least aware they too are dealing with an approximation.
Except for high performance aircraft, most planes have their center of gravity forward of the center of lift. The tail actually pushes down in flight to compensate to avoid having the plane go nose down. Once trimmed, it's this balance the does the work of maintaining level flight, not pilot actions. Whether the Earth below was curved or flat would make no difference. Basically, if the plane did try to rise out of trim, this would induce a trend to reduce airspeed and reduce lift, and in conjunction with the forward C of G would draw the nose down slightly as the tail loses sufficient downward push to compensate. With the nose now drifting down, plane would pick up speed and tail increases it's downward push, bringing the nose back up again. These compensating trends keep the plane pretty level without much intervention. Updrafts and changes in wind direction are what require the most attention during basic flight.
Jumping back in. Why does NASA give a flying fuk about matching "people's expectations?" NASA should be concerned about being honest and forthright. The NASA guy admitted to creating a flat map and then wrapped it around a ball to match people's brainwashed expectations. Huh? Open your eyes, dude! You been deceived. Ok, goodnight. Will pick this up tomorrow.
Then explain blimps.
This guy wrote:
Except for high performance aircraft, most planes have their center of gravity forward of the center of lift. The tail actually pushes down in flight to compensate to avoid having the plane go nose down. Once trimmed, it's this balance the does the work of maintaining level flight, not pilot actions. Whether the Earth below was curved or flat would make no difference. Basically, if the plane did try to rise out of trim, this would induce a trend to reduce airspeed and reduce lift, and in conjunction with the forward C of G would draw the nose down slightly as the tail loses sufficient downward push to compensate. With the nose now drifting down, plane would pick up speed and tail increases it's downward push, bringing the nose back up again. These compensating trends keep the plane pretty level without much intervention. Updrafts and changes in wind direction are what require the most attention during basic flight.
In your own words then, high performance aircraft don't have to go through this trimming process. It looks to me that if this aircraft does not nose down on the globe, then it will gain altitude on the globe model. Correct? That is what it looks like logically. Assuming perfect calm and no wind.
On a flat earth, it's much easier to see that no compensation is necessary. Just my two cents.
Not a pilot wrote:
This guy wrote:Except for high performance aircraft, most planes have their center of gravity forward of the center of lift. The tail actually pushes down in flight to compensate to avoid having the plane go nose down. Once trimmed, it's this balance the does the work of maintaining level flight, not pilot actions. Whether the Earth below was curved or flat would make no difference. Basically, if the plane did try to rise out of trim, this would induce a trend to reduce airspeed and reduce lift, and in conjunction with the forward C of G would draw the nose down slightly as the tail loses sufficient downward push to compensate. With the nose now drifting down, plane would pick up speed and tail increases it's downward push, bringing the nose back up again. These compensating trends keep the plane pretty level without much intervention. Updrafts and changes in wind direction are what require the most attention during basic flight.
In your own words then, high performance aircraft don't have to go through this trimming process. It looks to me that if this aircraft does not nose down on the globe, then it will gain altitude on the globe model. Correct? That is what it looks like logically. Assuming perfect calm and no wind.
On a flat earth, it's much easier to see that no compensation is necessary. Just my two cents.
Ya know, I'm seeing cracks in the globe earth model. Not so certain anymore, not saying that I'm a flat earther. Gotta give LQ kudos here, he scored points with the above scenario.
It is daytime where I am. It is tomorrow where I am. Wonder how that works. What a mystery.
You are aware that a photograph of the Earth which is flat does not mean the Earth is flat.
Models wear make-up during a photo shoot, so as to conform to an expectation of beauty. By your logic people who model are not real.
Wake up. Nice switch going on the offensive by calling people sheep. Strengthens your conspiracy cred.
Whether Newton's gravity exists, or not, or is explained by other forces, is a sideshow. It's not a question that needs to be decided.Newton gives us a set of formulas, and what matters is how well these formulas work for the purposes it is used. If the formulas break down, then they need to be replaced. Flat Earthers don't actually show us the formulas failing, and they don't provide us with improved formulas. They usually work, but Einstein found some rare exceptions. Einstein gets credit, only because he gave us new formulas which both: explain the old observations, and the new ones.
Bad Wigins wrote:
rekrunner wrote:As an aside, I can't believe that in order to buy into flat-earth, we have to dismiss gravity as a myth.
While the FE knuckleheads here do that, it isn't necessary. All your blathering about Newton only begs the argument that Einstein proved him wrong and that gravity doesn't really exist, since it is just curvature of space.
A smart FEer would say that the roundness apparent on the Earth is really just the curvature of the space around it. Much like looking at it through a fisheye lens, the Earth is flat but it can look curved when viewed through space. That could be extended to the moon, the sun and all the other planets too. If you landed on them they would also look flat.
That's what I would say if I were a FEer, but in fact both Einstein and Newton are bunk. Gravity is real and has one overall direction, south toward the bottom of the universe. Anyone who doesn't believe the universe has a bottom is using cracked metaphysics. Everything in a finite 4-dimensional universe has a top and a bottom, a front and a back, a left and right side, a beginning and an end.
But neither Newton nor Einstein realized that gravity always points toward the south of the universe.
It follows from general relativity though, if all space is curved, then the bottom of space must be concave up, proving that it is bowl-shaped.
fun topic wrote:
Ya know, I'm seeing cracks in the globe earth model. Not so certain anymore, not saying that I'm a flat earther. Gotta give LQ kudos here, he scored points with the above scenario.
You've said some variation of this 100 times under 80 names, and it's still not funny.
It's hard to combat all the science challenges, but let's take a look at what's wrong with Brian Mullin's physical discussion:1) The 1000mph spinning is really an unnecessary complication in the whole scenario, as both airports, and the plane, are all moving at the same speed at the start and the finish. We only need to analyze the relative changes in speed. The only minor effects from the earth spinning is 1) velocity changes due to conservation of angular momentum, as the plane ascends and descends, and 2) a slight loss of gravitational (or whatever -- doesn't matter) pull due to the opposite, upward acting centrifugal force. At an angular speed of 1 revolution per day, practically speaking both effects are negligible, and can be ignored. They are both easily modeled and can be included if you insist, but this adds no value and overly complicates the example.2) Any "spinning" velocity (differential or not) of atmosphere can also be ignored, as the plane has the active ability to overcome the wind, by throttling up, throttling down, turning left, or right, or climbing and descending. The plane is able to maintain a constant ground speed velocity and altitude regardless of the atmosphere and wind. This would only be relevant in a discussion of fuel economy.3) Without offering an explanation, he argues that the plane needs to slow down to execute a 90 deg. turn from an East to South direction. I guess any pilot can confirm, that the plane can turn from East to South while maintaining a constant 600mph speed. Or it can slow down -- it really doesn't change or add anything to the problem.4) He argues that his Vpe' while turning must remain at 1200mph, explaining it cannot slow down because of the rotation of the earth, in the east direction, and says this is crazy. He's half right. In his example, the velocity in the east direction will start at 1200mph (300+900) and when the turn is complete, the component in the East direction will be the 900mph (0+900), just as fast as the target airport is moving East, that he assumed due to the earth spinning, while the plane's own velocity will be completely in the south direction.5) He assumes that, left alone, the plane will continue to fly in a tangential direction if we leave the wings and the nose pointed in a straight position. We can see this doesn't hold, for example when the plane has no velocity. We quickly see the altitude does not depend on nose orientation. The altitude is determined by the balance, or imbalance of the downward forces, due to gravity (or due to electricity, or bouyancy -- doesn't matter), and the upward forces on the wings. Any increase in altitude will require actively increasing the upward force. Without changes in the upward force, the downward forces will continue to keep the plane at the same altitude, regardless of nose position.6) It's curious that continual nose-pointing downward seems to be an issue, but to solve the issue, we use a flat earth model that would require continual nose-pointing left, or right, to maintain the same latitude.7) When you consider the angle caused by 8" per mile, repointing the nose every mile is something so small, it will pass undetected by any human.
Legit question wrote:
For Real? wrote:I went to Kayak and entered information for a flight from NYC to London.
Here is the link:http://www.kayak.com/flights/JFK-LGW/2016-02-10/2016-03-09
NYC to London ->6.5 hours nonstop
London to NYC -> 8.5 hours nonstop
One of these things is not like the other. Your move buddy.
See Brian Mullin's "Balls Out out physics. Planes flying on a spinning ball"
Fast forward to 11 min mark and play until the end. The globe model falls apart. Then get back to me.
http://youtu.be/DGE2-USFbwo
Legit question wrote:
How planes fly over our flat earth:
"If the Earth was a sphere, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes by dipping their nose downward to account for the curvature of the Earth. At a normal cruising speed of 500 mph, a commercial airplane pilot would would have to repeatedly dip the nose of the plane downwards and descend 2,777 feet every minute or the plane would quickly fly into space. Airplane pilots never perform this action. Gravity doesn't solve this problem because gravity could supposedly pull the entire plane down but could not pull the nose downward more than the rest of the plane. So, even if gravity could somehow keep the plane at the same altitude around a spinning ball, the nose of the plane would eventually be pointing towards space.
Again, this can be tested yourself - get on a small airplane and level it out in the air and pay no attention to the horizon as you just maintain that exact same angle. After about 45 minutes, if the spherical model is correct you should have to make a correction of nearly 6,000 feet to return to the same altitude; instead you will remain perfectly level with the ground.
You're either outing yourself as a troll or you've never flown, been in, or seen an airplane. That's not how airplanes work. If you set everything on an airplane at a certain setting and just let it go, it would not keep the exact same angle or altitude and the angle of its path from the earth is not exactly the same as the angle of its nose. There are air currents and stuff. Holding a plane at a certain angle requires constant adjustments. An airplane is not a laser. "the nose of the plane would eventually be pointing towards space". Come on, seriously?
Found my diary:
" The mystic Barrier! All accounts without exception, from the days of Ross to the present time, had spoken of this remarkable natural formation with apprehensive awe. It was as though one could always read between the lines the same sentence: 'Hush, be quiet! the mystic Barrier!'
"One, two, three, and a little jump, and the Barrier was surmounted!"[
Not a pilot wrote:
It looks to me that if this aircraft does not nose down on the globe, then it will gain altitude on the globe model. Correct?
Correct, they do indeed have to alter direction. That's why they have an altimeter.
Bad Wigins wrote:
But neither Newton nor Einstein realized that gravity always points toward the south of the universe.
It follows from general relativity though, if all space is curved, then the bottom of space must be concave up, proving that it is bowl-shaped.
We get it. You're trying to be funny. Maybe it was the first time, but not the 100th time.
Felix Baumgartner, FTW.
https://lockerdome.com/footballfunnys/6170046938490177/8445914138437908
Legit question wrote:
Are you calling Captain Cook and Captain Ross full of shit too?
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.â€
Your uncle was not in the same area as Captain Cook or Captain Ross. Try again.
On October 5th, 1839 another explorer, James Clark Ross began a series of Antarctic voyages lasting a total of 4 years and 5 months. Ross and his crew sailed two heavily armored warships thousands of miles, losing many men from hurricanes and icebergs, looking for an entry point beyond the southern glacial wall. Upon first confronting the massive barrier Captain Ross wrote of the wall, “extending from its eastern extreme point as far as the eye could discern to the eastward. It presented an extraordinary appearance, gradually increasing in height, as we got nearer to it, and proving at length to be a perpendicular cliff of ice, between one hundred and fifty feet and two hundred feet above the level of the sea, perfectly flat and level at the top, and without any fissures or promontories on its even seaward face.
The FlatEarthers would have you believe that the above quotes were taken verbatim from the from the actual journals of Cpts Cook and Ross. Nothing could be further from the truth. These records were intentionally falsified by the Illuminati, who are the real force behind the spherical earth cover up - not NASA. If you are ever privileged enough to see the actual records, you will find that both Ross and Cook did not find an "ice wall" stopping further exploration. Instead, both men and their crews described encountering an impenetratable barrier that was a clear, transparent, hard surface that "stopped the ocean and extended skyward as far as the eye could see." One would expect that this is similar to a polyurethane-like substance, which was not known to humans at the time and was thus unexplainable by either captain. The barrier further extended along the end of the oceans laterally and neither captain was able to find an end. The barrier seemed to be straight in the longitudinal direction, but further exploration revealed that there was actually a slight inward curve to the barrier, almost as if it the barrier would ultimately form a circle that encompassed the known world. But, both captains knew this was impossible and must be a perspective trick of some sort. However, the most inexplicable retraction from both captain's logs is the description of the creatures that they saw on the other side of the barrier. Both men described seeing many very large creatures, who "were very large and dwarfed even the size of our own vessels." These creatures had very long fingers and the men reported that the creatures were "tapping on the barrier as if to attract our attention." Upon returning to port, several members of each captain's crew reported seeing men in dark cloaks with odd insignia entering the captain's chambers and working on correcting the captain's journals. [source: anonymous illuminati whistleblower]
For all you sheep who believe the Spherical Earth nonsense and the easily debunked FlatEarther theory of the great ice wall, you should know that the space we know as earth is but a terrarium in the living room of an alien species. We are but the pets of an unknown and superior sets of beings.
How do you flat earthers explain that all rivers flow toward the equator? This couldn't happen if the earth was FLAT.
ridiculous wrote:
How do you flat earthers explain that all rivers flow toward the equator? This couldn't happen if the earth was FLAT.
The Nile river flows north and away from the equator.
Legit question wrote:
ridiculous wrote:How do you flat earthers explain that all rivers flow toward the equator? This couldn't happen if the earth was FLAT.
The Nile river flows north and away from the equator.
Ya, it's almost like he was making a joke.