The flat earth conspiracy

Planes measure air pressure to find level flight in air. Altitude is set at sea level, 0 feet altitude, or the altitude of ground before takeoff, etc. In air, altitude compares ground level at takeoff, to the air pressure in flight, with other instruments used to confirm it.

Altitude does not measure the surface of Earth below, which you seem to believe. The surface below has mountains, valleys, and so forth, which are constantly changing during a flight. It only matters the plane is flying higher than any mountains, or buildings, which is not a concern because they usually fly at cruising altitude.

I certainly don't think a plane could measure 'curvature' over the plane's length, that's why I brought it up earlier on, in fact.

If you agree on that, then you should know the ground itself is not measured in flights, either. No instruments on planes measure the surface, unless by radar, or lasers, for research, etc.

A pilot relies on his instruments being accurate, throughout the flight. Having accurate measurements during a flight is obviously crucial, because his/her life, other lives, depend on it.

It's well understood that if instruments on a plane fail to work, measure falsely, or such, the pilot will attempt to land somewhere, by sight alone, if possible, in certain cases. If they don't know their altitude, the airport tower may guide them in, but it is still risky, of course.

Planes have instruments for very good reason, that's why accurate measurements are so critical.

So when you go off saying how planes are measuring level flight, as NOT BEING LEVEL, somehow, which is so ridiculous to even suggest, let alone to claim it is actually true!

The whole point of these instruments is for accurate, correct measurements, during flights.

We know that, of course. Even YOU know that, I'm sure.

What scares you about that being true, when it IS true, is that ALL of it was a lie, and you can't believe they would do such a thing, on such a scale.

All that matters to me, is the truth. It is certainly overwhelming to some people. I get it.

But I won't say it's not true, or deny it is true, or silent about it.

and we are back to turbo trolls aircraft delusion - what a surprise

its almost as if - it cannot answer questions

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
and we are back to turbo trolls aircraft delusion - what a surprise

its almost as if - it cannot answer questions

Anyone claiming plane instruments measure level, when it is NOT level, would fit as being delusional, or perhaps beyond that.

A claim that requires magical non-existent forces don't support anything, hoping it could exist, and work like you want it to, is very much delusional, as well.


The list goes on and on...

a reply to: turbonium1

This has been addressed numerous times...

So. More intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!
Flat Earth Claim

Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

Does a jet aircraft need to constantly adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth?
Flying - Flying the Plane
Wednesday, 11 February 2015 16:51

www.askcaptainlim.com... rth.html

Hi Johnson,

This is an interesting question. A plane will fly at a constant altitude and will follow the curvature of the earth and would not gain altitude during a level flight.

For instance, if a plane is cleared to maintain 35,000 feet, by regulations, the pilot must maintain that level based on a standard barometric pressure setting (29.92 inHg or 1013 millibars) Hence it would stay at that altitude (FL350) because the pilot is either controlling the plane manually or has engaged the autopilot to achieve that.

There are two basic instruments that enable this procedure - an altimeter and a vertical speed indicator (VSI). The VSI provides short term changes in pressure and indicates whether the plane is climbing or descending. These changes will give an indication to the pilot so that he would level the plane to maintain 35,000 feet. He will adjust the controls very slightly by use of the elevator and trims. This can be performed automatically by the autopilot as well. As such, the flight controls are constantly moving very subtly to maintain the correct attitude.
You said that, if the plane was trimmed for a straight and level flight, it would ‘gain altitude’ while flying as the earth surface ‘fell away’ due to the curvature of the earth. Well, that would probably happen in a perfectly motionless atmosphere where the plane would fly dead ahead, and over time gain altitude (provided it has sufficient thrust) as the earth curves away from under the airplane.

In reality, a constant altitude must be kept using the standard pressure and that means a fixed distance to the earth center of gravity is maintained, making the path of the plane a curved one.

So, a plane is not flying a straight line - geometrically speaking!

a reply to: turbonium1

So cough up the money. Charter a flight to fly a “level” flight to see what happens.

Looking forward to you posting video of your chartered flight. And you finally meeting your own requirement to prove something is real by proving your own existence by video.

There is no video of you posting. So by your own logic you don’t exist.

As I said, when you require magical non-existent forces to argue something, it's simply a worthless, invalid claim.

What is this 'gravity equipotential' supposed to be?

Nothing but an invented force, making planes fly around a curved Earth, and measure level flight, somehow, which is not so accurate, but it happens to instruments on planes, because measuring level proves Earth is flat, and that's not good!


I really like his explanation of flying slowly in a constant pitch, not even measured as a descent on the VSI.

After 6 hours flying, 1800 feet of descent isn't measured on the VSI? That's a good one!

The VSI measures descent, or ascent, in Feet Per Minute.

To account for 1800 feet of 'curvature', the VSI would CERTAINLY measure this descent, smooth or not smooth, constant or not constant, gentle or not gentle. Such terms are used to imply nothing is going to be measurable on a flight, which is absolute crap.

1800 feet of descent is significant. If a plane was 1800 feet higher or lower than believed, that would not be a good thing!


I'd like to know how the magical force will hold planes to Earth's 'curvature', when it doesn't even exist, no proof it exists, yet holds planes to Earth's 'curvature', somehow!

Something else - there are no pilots who adjust flights for 'curvature', by 'pitching down gently' through flights. It is not taught in flight schools, nor is there any documentation for it, in operation manuals, of any sort of aircraft.

He is full of bs, of course. Shameful, indeed.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

After 6 hours flying, 1800 feet of descent isn't measured on the VSI? That's a good one!

Why would it if the jet is set to fly at a specific altitude?

a reply to: turbonium1

Excellent experiment, now while you've got that flashlight lighting up a part of your coffee table, lay your face (or a camera) on the table and find any spot not directly lit up by the flashlight where the light from that flashlight can't be seen. Thank you turbonium1 for providing a simple experiment that proves how idiotic the flat earth faith is.

Apollo 8 was sent to study and take pictures of the moon’s surface. It was the first time humans had ever laid eyes on the blue planet from the vast blackness of space, and astronaut William Anders snapped the only colour photo of the spectacle.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

After 6 hours flying, 1800 feet of descent isn't measured on the VSI? That's a good one!

Why would it if the jet is set to fly at a specific altitude?

Because the plane is flying level, while at cruising altitude, for those 6 hours.

We would always have to adjust the altitude of flights, if we flew over a ball shaped Earth.
For a curved flight path, to remain at the same altitude, throughout the flight, we would have to constantly fly in a descent.

When some of you keep on trying to shrug it off, as a 'minor' adjustment, I've shown you that this 'minor' adjustment is an 1800 foot mistake, when you start to land down again.

Think about all of you who claim it is such a small, trivial, minor adjustment, pilots don't have to adjust anything in a flight, other than minor 'tweaking', during the flights, or 'pitching down at a slow, constant rate' throughout flights, which is a new one, because I'm not aware of any pilots, or any documents, stating that all planes must fly while 'pitching down at a slow, constant rate throughout the flight', until this guy came up with it, or another guy did, and he repeated it. But if that claim only started recently, and there are no actual documents on it, specifically saying that planes must 'pitch down slowly, at a constant rate throughout the flight', or words to that effect, then we obviously know it is absolute BS.

There would certainly have to be all sorts of documents that explain how airplanes must 'pitch down slowly, constantly throughout the flights', in fact, it seems like EVERYONE should have heard about this, by now, that they REQUIRE planes to always 'pitch down' in flights.

The claim of planes always flying while they 'pitch down', is made up, it doesn't exist in reality, it is pure nonsense, a deliberate lie that is used by some of these 'pilots', who have likely been paid well to say this bs, because to outsiders, to anyone who doesn't know who to believe, they find a pilot, maybe a few pilots, all claiming planes simply have to 'pitch down slowly, constantly during flights', to fly around the ball shaped Earth.

Anyone dropping in would believe these pilots, over someone who doesn't fly planes, which is the very reason they prop up some goofball pilot, who doesn't care about lying, he just cares he will be well paid to say it. Or whatever it may be, to lie, they are clearly liars.

Maybe they don't actually claim something, it's merely implied, strongly, and repeatedly, which appears to be a claim, but is not, because of legalities, etc., some lawyers probably tell them what they can say, what they cannot say, what is a lie, what is simply implied, but never said, so it's not a lie, it merely is 'interpreted' that way, or may not be....


I don't know if that pilot you quoted is directly lying, or not, but I certainly know his claims are absolute garbage, without a shred of proof to support them, and I don't care WHO says it, if he's a pilot, or 'experts' in the field saying it, simply because the only issue here, is the claim itself.

The last 'pilot' who came here didn't stay very long. After I explained to him that pressure gradients above the Earth, which he claimed kept planes to 'curvature', clearly cannot work that way, because a single gradient may extend thousands of feet 'high', and no less than a couple hundred miles, for sure.

That made his claim about gradients keeping planes to 'curvature', totally impossible. If a plane could vary over a thousand miles for half a flight, there is no way to account for it, during flights.


Of course, the pilot never replied to me on that. He fled the entire forum, in fact, and has never returned.

If I did what this pilot did, when challenged on a point, and fled the entire forum, you would spout on about it forever.
But when your pilot fled off, for good, right after I explained to him why his claim didn't work, why do you not say he is running away from the forum, like a scared chicken??

If you were after the truth, you wouldn't ignore it, either side. You would want to know why any pilot, would flee from someone who is NOT a pilot. And you would understand how liars are cowards, who run away if they get caught in a lie...even if the liar is a pilot. Perhaps he came to understand his mistakes, or that his claim could no longer work, so he fled. I hope that he came to know the truth of it, which is the Earth is indeed flat, and instruments prove it, thousands of times each day.

So the 'gradient' excuse died off.

Now, the last resort is always when I see your magical, non-existent force, once again, rear its ugly head. This solves all your problems, when you finally realize you cannot resolved them in the real world, with real evidence, or proof.

Once again, I am going to make it very clear to you that arguing for 'gravity', is not an argument at all. Gravity is a fantasy tale, where a magical force exists, under Earth, and yields it's endless magical powers outward, and all of your problems are fixed, whatever the problems are. If your problem is that planes measure level flight, and remain there, while at altitude, and there is no possible way for this to work if Earth was a ball, then you clearly have a big problem.

So that's when 'gravity' comes to your rescue, once again. 'Please, Mr. Gravity, can you make planes fly in a curved path, while the plane's instruments are measuring it as a LEVEL flight? You can? Thanks again, Mr. Gravity!'

Thanks for making up another fantasy tale, where the leading role is played, like always, by the famous 'Mr. Gravity'.


I cannot understand why you accept such garbage, as true. This is a pure invention, a fantasy tale, and I can't believe someone could NOT see it, to actually ACCEPT it as if true, knowing it is a lie, or knowing there is no proof of it existing.


Go ahead, then. Stay in denial, ignore the truth, because that's obviously what you want to do!

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

Excellent experiment, now while you've got that flashlight lighting up a part of your coffee table, lay your face (or a camera) on the table and find any spot not directly lit up by the flashlight where the light from that flashlight can't be seen. Thank you turbonium1 for providing a simple experiment that proves how idiotic the flat earth faith is.

If you are that desperate to twist it into an argument of exactly these objects, instead of grasping the actual point here, then think of the Sun as a flashlight hitting a basketball court, or half a court, which is in pitch black.

Now, lay your face on the basketball court, and find out if there's light on the whole court, from the flashlight.

And now, I thank YOU, for proving, once again, just how utterly idiotic the round earth arguments are.

Something you might have learned from this, is that when a flat surface is much, much larger, than a light that hits the surface, it will NOT light up the entire surface at the same time. As I told you, many times.

A large enough surface, with a much smaller light source, does NOT light up the entire surface at one time, in any one position above the surface. No matter where you put the light source, it will never hit more than a part of the surface, and will not light up the rest of the surface, either.

Do you finally understand it? That a flat surface like Earth, which is much, much larger than the light source above it, the Sun, will never light up the entire surface of Earth at once, just like the flashlight above the basketball court does not light the entire court, either.

It is a very simple concept. However, if you keep refusing to look clearly at it, what it means, for a flat Earth, then one day, you might know it's much, much better, than living in denial, and lies.

So do you accept the basketball court analogy, now? Be the first of your group to stand up, and admit that your argument doesn't work! Since it does not work, anyway, and of course, nobody from your camp will try and scold you, for admitting it. No, they'll all go on, and pretend that it never existed, was never your argument, by their eternally ignoring the problem.

I know all of the scams, and ploys, and runarounds, and ignorance, that you side will try to use, I can almost predict which one you will first go with, and the second one, and we all know what the last one will be - a GRAVITY argument! Specifically invented powers, which are assigned to solve each specific problem, using one or more specific magical powers, depending on the case. Most only need one magical power, though some need a combination of two or more different powers, at the same time, but since magical powers are unlimited, all problems are solved with it, in a snap!

I've seen so much of it over the years!

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Because the plane is flying level, while at cruising altitude, for those 6 hours.

A pilot doesn’t trim a jet and call it good. A pilot, or autopilot, is set to maintain altitude. It doesn’t give a crap about level flight during take off, during terbutaline, during storms, head winds, tail winds, and landing.


So why would a jet or airplane gain altitude If it’s flying to maintain a specific altitude?

Altitude does not measure the surface of Earth below,

Aircraft don’t measure distance to the ground. They maintain altitude by using a corresponding barometric pressure. If a jet is maintaining a specific altitude, why would it not follow the curve of the earth?

Again...

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

Now. This thing about prospective.

When traveling from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, the North Star keeps getting lower on the horizon. Then finally disappears below the horizon.

Your argument of prospective is crap.

Again. Show using a geometric proof a point high above a flat surface will disappear below the “edge / horizon” because of “prospective”

The reason the North Star cannot be seen from Melbourne Australia is because of the earth’s curve.

a reply to: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1



If the sun circled the earth. And if the sun traveled East to West over North America. It would have to travel west to East over Russia. Or the opposite direction of what is witnessed in North America. Then travel south to north over Africa.

Double post

a reply to: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

The launch of Sputnik should meet all your requirements.

The orbit was tracked by transmissions.

The orbit of Sputnik was seen from earth.

The rocket that placed Sputnik was photographed from Montreal.

www.space.com...

Again, you miss the whole point. Show me a rocket FROM EARTH that flies up, until it is a speck above us, and no more excuses.

Again.

So. You are being purposefully intellectually dishonest. AGAIN!

Sputnik meets all your requirements.

Rocket seen over Montreal that deployed Sputnik.



Check.

How would a camera in Russia film the entire flight of the rocket that deployed Sputnik into space if it’s flight path to place the satellite into space was over Montreal?

It shows your argument is crap, and has a total disregard for the physics of placing a payload in orbit.

Then your logic is crap. We don’t have a video of you posting. By your own logic you are not real.

Next. Sputnik was seen in orbit from earth by the naked eye. Check.

Then. Then the orbit of Sputnik was verified by its transmission. Check.

Finally. You have no explanation for Sputnik. The object seen orbiting the earth. The object picked up as transmitting from orbit.

You cannot even “debunk” Sputnik. The first man made satellite placed in orbit.

a reply to: turbonium1

Flat earth is a blatant lie. Sorry.

a reply to: captainpudding

a better example and experiment is a sport stadium light - or other array mounted on a pylon [ like raily yard lights ] - they illuminate a given area - and are a known height . using flat tards own claims - you can make calculations where the north pole and alledged " icewall " would be - and hey you can see the light from EVERY point -BEYOND the alledged icewall boundry

this is because flat earth cultists claim a sun height of 5000 km and an radius [ north pole > "icewall " of 20000km ] so just scale correctly - this may need arethmetic skills beyond the capabilities of flat tards - but the average 8 yearold can assist in this regard

hey - another failure for the flat earth model

ETA - for clarity - this is not addressing will the light illuminate a given spot ? - but can the light itself - and the light it gies off - be seen from a gien spot

as an example - i can walk to the end of my street - and see the lights of a reseraunt on a hill 4km away - its my way of telling how sever a powercut is - my town may be in darkness - but if the lights on the hill are still on - its just a minor thing - if they are off - its taken down a huge area - cos different down stations trasformers from the national grid - sere my house and the resteraunt

a reply to: turbonium1

Now find a single light source that can light up only the edges of the basketball court but leave the centre in darkness and unable to see the light at the edges.

Shouldn't be too hard for you, what with your expert knowledge and having seen all the arguments over the years.

Now go read the links you've been given that show you how, when and where to see rockets and their payloads after they have been launched.