Experiment & Questions

[North Shore]

Jeebus on a bicycle! Is this still going on? And now the flat-earthers are in on it, too! Next y'all'll be talking about variable tailwinds...

[Learning2Fly]

Jeebus on a bicycle! Is this still going on? And now the flat-earthers are in on it, too! Next y'all'll be talking about variable tailwinds...

Yes sir, can you explain this stuff?

We have all of these expensive and accurate flight instruments plotted on a graph that do not support your member's theory of climb profiles.

These Flat Earther's have some interesting points.

You look out your window and see easily 75 miles of horizon, it's flat. Over ocean and lake especially without terrain 'distortion'. You should see 3.7 miles of curve at
the extremes of your view.


Most photos taken use fish-eye lens that naturally curve the photo.

Another good point is the Chicago skyline. This news caster says the photo is mirage. Many people have done experiments on land and on water
to prove it's not a mirage.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbn9BBppR5g[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o37t6iBS_q4[/youtube]

[Chris M]

Oh for **** sake... You're going to pull out that arguement? That isn't how "Seeing the curve" works.

For the sake of brevity:

Learning2Fly: Do you believe the planet is a big ball-shaped object or a big flat disc-ish thing?

[Learning2Fly]

Oh for **** sake... You're going to pull out that arguement? That isn't how "Seeing the curve" works.

For the sake of brevity:

Learning2Fly: Do you believe the planet is a big ball-shaped object or a big flat disc-ish thing?

Nevermind seeing the curve, I plotted aircraft data that doesn't agree with you.

What's your answer?

Are the instruments wrong?

Should the climb be curved, or straight?

You are contradicting your quote from page 5.

[North Shore]

The scientists, and a whole lot of people who are a lot smarter than me, tell me that the earth is round (Ok, oblate spheroid) so that's good enough for me.
As for the flying thing, since my first lesson, I've pushed the power in, accelerated along the runway, reached flying speed and pulled back, climbed to an appropriate altitude, levelled off, flown to my destination, pulled the power back and landed. With minor fluctuations, the airspeed and altitude have been pretty much within the parameters for the phase of flight. Again, good enough for me..

[digits_]

Since the world is quite large, you don't notice the corrections required to follow the curve of the earth.

No corrections are required to follow the curve of the earth. The plane follows a path of constant pressure and gravity. Shape of earth does not matter for that.

[Tips Up]

Just in response to the photo of the airliner and a pretty picture from the internet.
Most people don't realize how large the earth is compared to the altitude of a passenger aircraft hence the common pictures on flat earth websites asking why no dip seen from that altitude. Concorde's ceiling was 18 kilometres, and reports are inconsistent. Some couldn't see the curvature, even though they were looking for it. Some pilots thought they could see it. U2 pilots could generally see the curvature at 23 kilometres, and SR71 pilots could definitely see it at 26 kilometres. It's easy to think we're really high up, but comparatively we're just skimming the surface.
I realize it doesn’t answer your technical questions but those have been answered. So far in 20 yrs of actual flying with those crazy instruments I haven’t shot into space nor off the edge of the world. Nor did the SR71 guys.

The attached drawing is to scale, but the images of the jetliner and ISS are NOT to scale

96448E4E-A720-4DA2-A163-F623753C54B1.jpeg (87.58 KiB) Viewed 1991 times

[Learning2Fly]

The scientists, and a whole lot of people who are a lot smarter than me, tell me that the earth is round (Ok, oblate spheroid)
...
Again, good enough for me..

They tell you, but they can't show you. Is that good enough?

Have you read the details from the beginning of this thread about gravity, the ADI, the curved climb vs. straight climb, no stick inputs vs stick inputs required?

Many things are not adding up here, and now I'm seeing a bunch of frustration in these responses after posting the graphs.

If you can't explain it, maybe what we've been told isn't accurate?

[digits_]

Have you read the details from the beginning of this thread about gravity, the ADI, the curved climb vs. straight climb, no stick inputs vs stick inputs required?

Have you?

[North Shore]

[digits_]

Yeah but you see North Shore, the moon landing was fake as well, so that evidence isn't admissible

[Learning2Fly]

NASA has NEVER shown an image of the earth that was not CGI or composite.

It's clearly printed on their website.

By 2002, we finally had enough data to make a snap shot of the entire Earth. So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space.

Source
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/ab ... immon.html



We have never seen an image of the Earth from space.


Cloud patterns are copied

[Learning2Fly]

Have you read the details from the beginning of this thread about gravity, the ADI, the curved climb vs. straight climb, no stick inputs vs stick inputs required?

Have you?

The clouds don't move in that "live feed". Clouds are ever-changing, over minutes of time.

I'll look for the time-lapse showing the identical cloud patterns.

Also wondering why the car hasn't melted. Temperatures in that region of space are intense

[Chris M]

Well other than the fact that I never mentioned gravity in my previous response, a few screenshots of a spreadsheet aren't enough for me to agree or disagree with you. The lines you've drawn are quite useless to me as in scale at least they are grossly misrepresentative.

The spreadsheets don't appear to show anything surprising. And without knowing what you mean by "If you account for gravity and the curvature of the Earth" I'm not able to sort out your conclusions. The animation screenshots are exactly what I would expect to normally see on any "highway in the sky" type of representation.

I don't know everything. Very far from it. However, I don't live in a black and white world. The fact that I'm ignorant to something or flat out wrong doesn’t mean the flat earth video folks are correct. If you ask me what color the sky is at noon and I say "RED!", it doesn't mean that the guy that says "GREEN!" is correct. There are many far more knowledgeable people than me who've chimed in on this thread and you've either cherry-picked bits of information to obfuscate what they’ve said or used erroneous references to contradict them. These are standard behaviors of anyone looking to prove a conspiracy theory.

I would appreciate if you answer my question about what your beliefs are though, because I have a follow-up question relevant to your original question of this whole thread.

[Chris M]

NASA has NEVER shown an image of the earth that was not CGI or composite.

It's clearly printed on their website.

By 2002, we finally had enough data to make a snap shot of the entire Earth. So we did. The hard part was creating a flat map of the Earth’s surface with four months’ of satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Swiss Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space.

Thank you for re-inforcing my comment about you following typical conspiracy theorist behavior. You utterly ignore context and use a small snippet of information to back your arguement.

What about all of the Apollo mission shots of the Earth? What about the SpaceX Tesla images? No much compositing happening there....

[Learning2Fly]

Well other than the fact that I never mentioned gravity in my previous response, a few screenshots of a spreadsheet aren't enough for me to agree or disagree with you. The lines you've drawn are quite useless to me as in scale at least they are grossly misrepresentative.

Forget my lines, look at your flight instruments.

According to the radius of the Earth, your altimeter should be indicating a change of 150 feet over 15 miles of ground.

Then "someone" said, gravity is pulling the aircraft relative to the curve in level flight.

Then "someone" said, the climb profile would not be straight, but rather curved because of gravity.

Then I posted the flight data graphs that do not support either of the above explanations.

Now nobody wants to talk about the data or flight instruments, they're just telling stories and essentially insulting.

At this point, I'm truly confused about what I've been taught and shown about flight or the Earth. My mind is open as there
are many other aspects outside of our discussion that do not add up.

[Steve Pomroy]

They tell you, but they can't show you.

Sure they can. there is lots of evidence that you can observe yourself to demonstrate the Earth's curvature. There's no need to take anyone's word for it. Watch a ship disappear over the horizon -- from the bottom to the top. Observe the fact that you see different constellation in the summer versus in the winter. Or visit Lake Ponchartrain and see this for yourself:

power-lines.jpg (303.02 KiB) Viewed 1706 times

Have you read the details from the beginning of this thread about gravity, the ADI, the curved climb vs. straight climb, no stick inputs vs stick inputs required?

I've read the whole thread. It's been painful, but I managed to get through it. Your arguments are arbitrary, disjointed, inconsistent, and in most cases not even wrong. If you'd like to have an actual discussion, rather than just talking at the internet, you should start by stating your position and then supporting that position with evidence and/or logical arguments.

Many things are not adding up here, and now I'm seeing a bunch of frustration in these responses after posting the graphs.

What doesn't add up is how anyone in the modern world can come to believe that the Earth is flat. The frustration you're seeing is at least partly because your graphs and related data "analysis" are gibberish. You need to label things properly and clearly define the relationships your'e trying to demonstrate. Oh, and clearly state what conditions and approximations you'r applying to the analysis.

If you can't explain it, maybe what we've been told isn't accurate?

If by "it" you mean the curvature of the Earth, I can explain it just fine thanks. And I don't need to rely on being told -- although it generally helps to build a wider repertoire of knowledge when you can build on the discoveries of others rather that always starting from scratch.

[Learning2Fly]

Thank you for re-inforcing my comment about you following typical conspiracy theorist behavior. You utterly ignore context and use a small snippet of information to back your arguement.

Small snippet?

The entire article is about creating images of the Earth. Why the hell don't we have an entire, single shot image of the entire Earth from satellites
to this date? Why would that guy have to draw the Earth will all of these multi-million dollar satellites and scopes in space?

What about all of the Apollo mission shots of the Earth? What about the SpaceX Tesla images? No much compositing happening there....

Apollo mission shot out of a window , looking out the "back of the craft"?

SpaceX Telsa with tires, seats, other materials that don't melt at 500+'C?

The clouds that don't move?

Sure, not much compositing there. Suddenly, we are getting a live feed of the Earth when all images of the Earth were hand edited just months ago.

[Learning2Fly]

Sure they can. there is lots of evidence that you can observe yourself to demonstrate the Earth's curvature. There's no need to take anyone's word for it. Watch a ship disappear over the horizon -- from the bottom to the top.

Glad you brought that up.

It's perspective, waves blocking, and visibility due to distance - not the curve.

Why can you bring the boat back into view with a zoom lens?

Here's a video disproving your first quote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE[/youtube]

Is the boat really did go over the curve, you wouldn't see it by zooming. Agree?

[Tips Up]

“SpaceX Telsa with tires, seats, other materials that don't melt at 500+'C”

Glad you brought that up because it shows you don’t understand temperature versus heat. Temperature is the measurement of the average kinetic energy within a system. Heat is a change in an object, either positive or negative, transfer of energy. At those levels, individual molecules have a very high kinetic energy but are spaced extremely far apart in almost a vacuum so have very little to no affect on an individual item such as a floating car in terms of generating a positive heat transfer.

Second, if you would like, at exactly noon tomorrow we can do an experiment to show the earth is truly round between myself and Pickering. At high noon, place a stick in the ground and I will do the same. We can measure the angle of shadow cast, which will be different because the world is round, and actually calculate the circumference of the earth pretty close.

Third, I assume all those high altitude pilots and everyone on the ISS has been lying and part of the conspiracy?