Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Wrong. There's a difference between pointing the nose and descending. You can point the nose without climbing or descending. Over a sphere or a flat earth, if you fly at a constant descent, you're going to crash.

Not so.

If you fly over a sphere, a constant descent is required to maintain the same altitude.

On a flat Earth, a constant descent WOULD end in a crash to the surface.


They are different surfaces, and require very different flights.

You do realise that you are now proving my contention that you a) are a troll and b) have long since lost this argument?

a reply to: turbonium1

artificiall horizon self correct in flight

flat earthers misunderstand the geometry of a circle

a reply to: ErosA433

You are talking of some dude here. Tho as far as I am aware any Institute of Engineers, be it aeronautical, mechanical electrical or whatever will not offer you a membership, unless you have a university degree in that particular discipline.

a reply to: turbonium1

Then it wouldn't be a descent.

1. an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling.
"the plane had gone into a steep descent"
synonyms: dive, drop; More

www.dictionary.com...

You descend by lowering your altitude. If you lower your altitude, you eventually impact the ground. It helps if you know what the word means before trying to throw it around. It doesn't matter if you are talking about flat earth, or spherical earth, a descent would result in the aircraft impacting the ground. What you're describing isn't a descent, because the aircraft remains at the same altitude regardless of if it's flying a curved path or not. If they remain at the same altitude, they are not descending.

a reply to: Hyperboles

They'd also strip your membership for trying to say something dumb like you have to constantly correct downwards to maintain level flight in an aircraft...

Because frankly if you can make it through high school science and still believe that, you shouldn't be allowed near any projects of any kind.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You descend by lowering your altitude. If you lower your altitude, you eventually impact the ground. It helps if you know what the word means before trying to throw it around.

Exactly!

originally posted by: turbonium1
A sphere is a curved surface. A plane has to fly a curved path to follow above the surface, to maintain the same altitude.

Why would such a descent 'impact the ground' when it holds the same altitude above the sphere, throughout the flight?

Zaph is right that you need to learn the meaning of descent, which is losing altitude. Technically it's not losing altitude relative to the ground, but to the center of the earth in the round earth model, so you're right that the surface isn't relevant to the altitude indicator. You fly at 11000 feet above sea level, and over the sea the surface is 11000 feet below you, but over a 10,000 foot mountain the surface is only 1000 feet below you. The distance to the center of the earth and atmospheric pressure are both about the same in both cases. For a round earth, the level of constant atmospheric pressure is a curved path at roughly the same distance from the earth's center.

The surface is not relevant, whether it is curved, or not curved, mountainous, or the Grand Canyon, an ocean, or a desert.....

Correct. Then why do you contradict yourself and imply a constant altitude implies anything about the shape of the surface? It doesn't.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Assume the VSI measures 0 feet per minute over the entire 6 hours, and the altitude remains at 38,000 feet, throughout the same 6 hours.

It is only possible for this to work flying over a flat Earth. It is impossible to explain over a round Earth.

By your own admission this tells you nothing about the shape of the surface. Distance to the surface likely varies in such a scenario, but the distance from the plane to earth's center remains about the same, which is a factor in determining the air pressure will be about the same, which is what produces the altitude indicator reading.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Then it wouldn't be a descent.

1. an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling.
"the plane had gone into a steep descent"
synonyms: dive, drop; More

www.dictionary.com...

You descend by lowering your altitude. If you lower your altitude, you eventually impact the ground. It helps if you know what the word means before trying to throw it around. It doesn't matter if you are talking about flat earth, or spherical earth, a descent would result in the aircraft impacting the ground. What you're describing isn't a descent, because the aircraft remains at the same altitude regardless of if it's flying a curved path or not. If they remain at the same altitude, they are not descending.

Indeed, it does help if you know what the word means before you start throwing it around.

And after you post the definition of the word, you should definitely understand what the definition states.

So [descent is..

an action of moving downward, dropping, or falling.

That is exactly what I meant by a plane in descent - A PLANE MOVING DOWNWARD, DROPPING, OR FALLING.

Descent, by your own definition, does not refer to a lowering of altitude. In fact, descent is simply an action of downward movement.

Again, as I said earlier, a descent around a sphere, at altitude, will NOT crash to the surface. It will maintain the same altitude throughout. Because a descent is simply an action of downward movement.

Over a flat surface, a descent WOULD end in a crash to the surface.

A descent DOES lower the altitude of planes, because the surface is flat, not curved. A descent over a sphere MUST be done, just to remain at the same altitude. A descent rate greater than the curvature allows for, obviously leads to a crash, of course.

You know what, I've ridden this ride before. It's not worth it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Which part? The ascent or the descent?

I dislike negative Gs. Profoundly so.

a reply to: Phage

They both can suck.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
You know what, I've ridden this ride before. It's not worth it.

I think this ride has finally broken down.

a reply to: roadgravel

Nah.
It just turned into a merry-go-round.

(Round. Get it?)

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Zaph is right that you need to learn the meaning of descent, which is losing altitude. .

You and Zaph both have to learn 'descent' is not the equivalent to 'losing altitude'. Descent CAN be a loss of altitude, while a descent can also have NO loss of altitude.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Then why do you contradict yourself and imply a constant altitude implies anything about the shape of the surface? It doesn't.

No, I did not imply anything, I said it.

I said constant altitude is one, of two, critical measurements, indicating the flat surface.

The other critical measurement is - level flight.

Planes fly level, or mostly so, during their flights. The VSI measures for any sort of pressure differential, indicated within the instrument's diaphragm. When a plane ascends, or descends, or level flight, it does not matter what the altitude is, nor what the surface is below the plane. Why? Because the VSI measures a descent, ascent, and level flight within the atmosphere, by what the plane itself is doing at the specific moment

A level flight, and constant altitude, can only work if the surface below is flat, overall.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
By your own admission this tells you nothing about the shape of the surface. Distance to the surface likely varies in such a scenario, but the distance from the plane to earth's center remains about the same, which is a factor in determining the air pressure will be about the same, which is what produces the altitude indicator reading.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: roadgravel

Nah.
It just turned into a merry-go-round.

(Round. Get it?)

I started to use that term in the post but just went with ride. Maybe Wack-A-Mole between rides.

Farewell.

Should you wish to return, and act like the mature adults you believe you are, let me know..

a reply to: turbonium1

Descent, as it relates to aviation, means to lose altitude. That's it. When you talk about a plane being in a descent, you are talking about a plane losing altitude. There are no other definitions when it comes to aviation.

Here is the easiest way to debunk a flat Earth...
Flush a toilet in Canada then go to Austrailia and flush a toilet take notes on the direction the water circles...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Here is the easiest way to debunk a flat Earth...
Flush a toilet in Canada then go to Austrailia and flush a toilet take notes on the direction the water circles...

Sorry but that's a common myth about the direction of rotation in toilet bowls or sinks being related to the hemisphere. Toilets may have aimed water nozzles to force a particular direction of rotation, but even in draining a sink, the direction would tend to be more random and not influenced by hemisphere. The Coriolis effect requires a much larger body of water than a toilet or sink to develop a reliable direction of rotation.

Much easier and more reliable is to verify that below a certain latitude you can no longer see the northern star Polaris which is visible in the northern hemisphere, and conversely the southern cross star formation visible in the southern hemisphere isn't visible at higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere.

Coriolis Force Effect on Drains

The notion that the Coriolis force determines which direction water spirals down drains is one of the most prominent scientific myths...

the Coriolis effect is so small that it plays no role in determining the direction in which water rotates as it exits from a draining sink or toilet. The Coriolis effect produces a measurable influence over huge distances and long periods of time, neither of which applies to the typical terrestrial bathroom...

If water enters in a swirling motion (as it does when a toilet is flushed, for example), the water will exit in that same swirling pattern.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The toilet thing would be pretty cool though if it were true.

Other than that though, I'll agree with the rest of you that this isn't amusing or worthwhile anymore.

Ultimately people who think they can refute science with semantics and word games get boring really quickly.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Descent, as it relates to aviation, means to lose altitude. That's it. When you talk about a plane being in a descent, you are talking about a plane losing altitude. There are no other definitions when it comes to aviation.

You're argument is the only thing in a 'descent', crashing to the ground.

The definition of descent YOU POSTED is the correct definition.

It doesn't matter to me if you keep moving the goalposts, changing your argument, conflicting with your original posts, etc.

What matters to me is truth, facts, proof, and evidence. And one fact is the definition of descent is a downward movement.

When 'lowering a plane's altitude', that is a 'downward movement', and is a 'descent'.

When in level flight, there is no change in altitude, no descent, or ascent. 'Level' flight means just that - a level flight is flown, above the surface. It doesn't matter what the surface is, or is not, because 'level flight' doesn't have anything to do with the surface below.


The term 'descent' is used to describe a 'lowering of altitude', it means a downward movement.

A plane lowering its altitude is in descent, over a flat surface, so the terms have become very much synonymous, within the aviation field, among others.

You don't fly around a ball without a descent, or 'a downward movement', if you prefer.

Think about how a plane could fly in a CONSTANT descent, to maintain altitude, without even knowing it, without a single instrument measuring descent, which is impossible, since descent is required flying over curvature....