Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

The air pressure around a plane is measured for level flight, and it remains level throughout the flight, if possible.

How would a plane possibly even MEASURE for a level flight, with a curved surface below?

Thanks to your magical non-existent force called 'gravity', which solves all problems with ease, this imaginary super force, is said to be 'equipotential'.

Whoever comes up such crap, should win awards!


What the f&(& is 'the gravity equipotential' supposed to be? Who discovered it? Any evidence it even exists, and if there IS evidence, where is it?

Any documents that would support the claim? No.

If this claim WAS supported with documentation, and/or past examples, or whatever, it would have been referenced within their own documents, with a footnote.

Everyone knows that, even Wikipedia.



Simply because some goofball makes up something about a non-existent magical force, you believe it!

When you believe in a magical cartoon force like 'gravity', the greatest con of all time, holding up countless lies, without even existing at all, then you'll believe all the rest is true, of course!


Why wouldn't you believe a magical non-existent force, that allows our instruments to read level flight, because everyone thinks level is measured by air pressure around the plane, but nobody knows, when it reads level, it is NOT level. It really means level - to Earth's curvature!

And it's all thanks to 'gravity', which makes instruments read level, while nobody ever realizes that it doesn't really 'mean' level!


How sweet!

If you believe that accurate altitude is measured by taking the air pressure reading, alone, what is the air pressure at 30,000 feet? And what is the air pressure at 30,125 feet? At 30,400 feet?

Do you think they measure accurate altitude by only using air pressure readings? What sources do you have on that?


How do you think level flight is measured?

a reply to: turbonium1

The air pressure around a plane is measured for level flight

Hell no. Air pressure is measured to measure air pressure that is converted to an altitude. The altimeter doesn’t give a rip what altitude the plan is flying. It might give a warning if it has the capability of some programmed set point is reached.

Then change in vertical clime is measure by a change in pressure. The plane itself doesn’t care if the air pressure changes that can be used to convert to a change in vertical climb.

You

The air pressure around a plane is measured for level flight, and it remains level throughout the flight, if possible.

This sentence is absolute gibberish.

Air pressure doesn’t maintain level flights. The pilot controls the plane to maintain flying in an air pressure band that corresponds to an altitude.

Pitch controls how “level” the actual plane is. A plane can have a slight up pitch, but can maintain an altitude. Why?

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

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...

This is a fact, I have personally flown small planes and they teach you about power control pretty much from Day #1. You climb & descent mostly by changing the power setting (which changes when you make other configuration changes such as increasing flaps).

Now, how is a pilot supposed to tell that a TINY fraction of the elevator trim has to do with the curvature rate as opposed to all of the other forces acting on the airplane? They couldn't possibly.

You

How would a plane possibly even MEASURE for a level flight, with a curved surface below?

More gibberish.

The only time a plane measures the actual distance to the ground is if it is equipped with some sort of radar altimeter. Most planes use an altimeter that only measures air pressure. The plane doesn’t fly to maintain perfect parallel in reference to the surface of the earth. If that was true, flying over the Rocky Mountains would be chaotic. So much simpler to control a plane to fly at a specific atmosphere pressure that doesn’t care about how curved the earth is. Or how much the land rises or falls.

How “level” a plane is controlled by pitch.

f the pilot does not adjust the engine power by increasing the throttle setting, the aircraft's airspeed will decrease. The amount of decrease will depend on the amount the nose was raised compared to the cruise attitude, and what the power setting is. When flying light aircraft, power is usually increased to full for any extended climb.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(aeronautics)#Pitch_(nose-up)_attitude

If you want to increase attitude while climbing, not slow and stall out falling to the earth, you need to increase power. It’s like pulling away from the earth’s surface is fighting a force trying to bring the plane down. And it takes more power to increase altitude because you are fighting a downward force.


Then rest of your post? Meaningless and incoherent.

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you believe that accurate altitude is measured by taking the air pressure reading, alone, what is the air pressure at 30,000 feet? And what is the air pressure at 30,125 feet? At 30,400 feet?

Do you think they measure accurate altitude by only using air pressure readings? What sources do you have on that?


How do you think level flight is measured?

Ok. 1942 B-17 Flying Fortress. What instrument other than the Altimeter indicated the plane’s altitude.

a reply to: turbonium1

How Do Airplanes Know Their Altitude?

www.aircraftcompare.com...

The primary altitude measurement device for a pilot is an altimeter. The altimeter measures the atmospheric air pressure outside of the airplane and gives the pilot an idea of how high they are flying. It’s up to the pilot to calibrate the altimeter because atmospheric pressure changes often due to the weather.

Flight Instruments

www.faa.gov...


Altimeter
The altimeter is an instrument that measures the height of an aircraft above a given pressure level. Pressure levels are discussed later in detail. Since the altimeter is the only instrument that is capable of indicating altitude, this is one of the most vital instruments installed in the aircraft. To use the altimeter effectively, the pilot must understand the operation of the instrument, as well as the errors associated with the altimeter and how each affect the indication.

Yes it is round.
a dound disk.

a reply to: buddha

a reply to: muzzleflash

cool never thought of that one, when i was young i always wondered why i couldnt see Northern Ireland on the ferry journey till i was over halfway there from Scotland, realised later it was because of the curvature of the Earth.

so for this reason i have found it hard to accept flat earth theory, even in my way of thinking that anything is possible and deserves consideration.

but hey still possible in some abstract way

originally posted by: turbonium1

When I hear pilots talk about 'curvature', they always claim to be authorities on 'curvature'. Of course, they always claim 'curvature' does exist!

The supporters of a ball Earth cheer, when their pilots say it is true.

Good one.

We don't call it "curvature"...Its called navigation...Lots of "curvature" in navigation...lol I use to fly on some trips along the fat part of the earth near the equator going from CA to HI to Guam to Japan and over a couple of days we would fly about 20+ hours in the air, but flying from Japan to CA going over the north pole it would take us 11 hours to get back. This is the reason why many flights fly northern routes to shorten the distance from one side of the ball to the other. I have also flown around the world heading west out of CA and I kept going west all the way back to CA from the other direction...lol

So you didn't answer a few questions for me.

1. What happens when you fly to the edge of the flat surface?
2. What is on the other side?
2. Is earth the only celestial object that is flat or is everything flat?

originally posted by: turbonium1
The air pressure around a plane is measured for level flight, and it remains level throughout the flight, if possible.

How would a plane possibly even MEASURE for a level flight, with a curved surface below?

Who says it is level flight?

If you took a basketball and moved a little plane around it but you kept exactly 1 inch away from the BB surface would the airplane show 1 inch above the surface all the way around?

originally posted by: turbonium1
If you believe that accurate altitude is measured by taking the air pressure reading, alone, what is the air pressure at 30,000 feet? And what is the air pressure at 30,125 feet? At 30,400 feet?

Do you think they measure accurate altitude by only using air pressure readings? What sources do you have on that?


How do you think level flight is measured?

The reality is we don't really care what the true altitude is. We could fly GPS and fly a no sh!t true altitude but we don't. We fly pressure altitude called indicated and it varies crazily.

In the picture below all three planes would read 6000 ft on their altimeter while their true alt would drastically be different.



So in aviation it is more important that planes are on the same page with each other so that separation is maintain, if not you would have one plane reading 6000 and another reading 7000, but they are exactly at the same altitude and can hit each other. To do that planes need to have the same pressure dialed in whether it is sea level or a standard 29.92.

I said

The air pressure around a plane is measured for level flight

originally posted by: neutronflux
Hell no. Air pressure is measured to measure air pressure that is converted to an altitude. The altimeter doesn’t give a rip what altitude the plan is flying. It might give a warning if it has the capability of some programmed set point is reached.

Then change in vertical clime is measure by a change in pressure. The plane itself doesn’t care if the air pressure changes that can be used to convert to a change in vertical climb.

Air pressure doesn’t maintain level flights. The pilot controls the plane to maintain flying in an air pressure band that corresponds to an altitude.

Pitch controls how “level” the actual plane is.

"Air pressure is measured to measure air pressure.."? Yikes!

And I'm specifically referring to what MEASURES for level flight, as I've already told you.

The VSI measures descent, ascent AND level flight, using static pressure...

Vertical speed indicators (VSI) measure the change in static pressure due to a change in altitude and present this information as the rate of climb or descent. Because the pointer on the VSI instrument face responds to the difference in pressure between two areas in the instrument, there is often a lag of six to nine seconds for the pressure differential to be established before the VSI can show the actual climb or descent rate, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. Instantaneous vertical speed indicators (IVSI) contain accelerometer-actuated air pumps to reduce the lag time inherent in simple VSIs.

VSI or IVSI displays vertical speed in feet per minute with the largest numbers representing thousands of feet per minute (fpm), and smaller increments as hundreds of feet per minute. When the aircraft is flying straight and level, the VSI needle rests at the “9 o’clock” position pointing to zero. As the aircraft climbs, the needle moves upward to show the direction and rate of climb; when the aircraft descends, the needle moves downward to show the direction and rate of descent.

The instrument case for both a VSI and IVSI contains an aneroid (or diaphragm) vented to the aircraft’s static system. A calibrated orifice in the sealed instrument case causes the pressure inside the case to change more slowly than the pressure inside the aneroid:

When the aircraft climbs, the static pressure decreases, which allows the pressure inside the case to compress the aneroid and move the pointer upward to show a climb. Conversely, when the aircraft descends, the static pressure increases, allowing the aneroid to expand and move the needle downward to show a descent. When the aircraft levels off, the pressure inside the case equals the pressure inside the aneroid and the indicator points to zero.

www.mcico.com...

Static pressure
The static pressure is obtained through a static port. The static port is most often a flush-mounted hole on the fuselage of an aircraft, and is located where it can access the air flow in a relatively undisturbed area.[1] Some aircraft may have a single static port, while others may have more than one. In situations where an aircraft has more than one static port, there is usually one located on each side of the fuselage. With this positioning, an average pressure can be taken, which allows for more accurate readings in specific flight situations.[1] An alternative static port may be located inside the cabin of the aircraft as a backup for when the external static port(s) are blocked. A pitot-static tube effectively integrates the static ports into the pitot probe. It incorporates a second coaxial tube (or tubes) with pressure sampling holes on the sides of the probe, outside the direct airflow, to measure the static pressure. When the aircraft climbs, static pressure will decrease.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's funny that in a discussion about level flight, and how it's measured, you completely ignored the one instrument which MEASURES for level flight (the VSI), didn't mention ANYTHING about measuring for level flight, and went on about what controls level flight!

I'm sure you just forgot the main points I brought up, right?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Now, how is a pilot supposed to tell that a TINY fraction of the elevator trim has to do with the curvature rate as opposed to all of the other forces acting on the airplane? They couldn't possibly.

Pilots don't even ACCOUNT for any supposed 'curvature', don't measure for any supposed 'curvature', do not learn about any supposed 'curvature' in pilot training, or in ANY flight school. Why would something so incredibly important and significant as 'curvature', never even be MENTIONED? Any idea?

Because 'curvature' doesn't need to be mentioned? Because pilots don't need to know about 'curvature', when flying planes? Because pilots adjust airplanes for 'curvature' during flights, somehow, and without ANY IDEA they are constantly adjusting for it?

No. How about this - 'curvature' is never mentioned in flight schools or pilot training, because if it WERE mentioned, they WOULD need to account for it, they would have to explain what the rate of 'curvature' was around Earth - 8 in. per mile squared. They would have to explain how it is never measured, never adjusted for, yet somehow, exists.

Like anything fake, it is simply ignored, because it cannot be accounted for, being fake. Do you seriously think they would NEVER even MENTION 'curvature' in flight schools? If it actually DID exist, 'curvature' would be one of the most CRITICAL issues to know about, to account for, to measure for in ALL flights..

Planes don't measure level flights to fly over curved surfaces, they fly level over LEVEL, flat surfaces.

originally posted by: neutronflux
The only time a plane measures the actual distance to the ground is if it is equipped with some sort of radar altimeter. Most planes use an altimeter that only measures air pressure. The plane doesn’t fly to maintain perfect parallel in reference to the surface of the earth. If that was true, flying over the Rocky Mountains would be chaotic. So much simpler to control a plane to fly at a specific atmosphere pressure that doesn’t care about how curved the earth is. Or how much the land rises or falls.

How “level” a plane is controlled by pitch.

Yes, you already mentioned that, and I told you it wasn't the point.

Of course planes don't (and/or don't need to) measure the actual distance to the ground, I never said they did.

I said you cannot fly level over a ball, a curved surface, which is true. It has nothing to do with measuring the surface, or whatever.

originally posted by: neutronflux
If you want to increase attitude while climbing, not slow and stall out falling to the earth, you need to increase power. It’s like pulling away from the earth’s surface is fighting a force trying to bring the plane down. And it takes more power to increase altitude because you are fighting a downward force.

Your magical, non-existent super-force, called 'gravity', which cannot even hold mosquitoes down to Earth's surface?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
We don't call it "curvature"...Its called navigation...Lots of "curvature" in navigation...lol

That's a good one! Everything is just called "navigation"! Flying over the ocean, or the Rocky Mountains, or whatever, is all called "navigation"! Lots of "curvature", lots of "mountains", lots of "oceans", in NAVIGATION!

I guess flat surfaces are called "navigation" too, right?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I use to fly on some trips along the fat part of the earth near the equator going from CA to HI to Guam to Japan and over a couple of days we would fly about 20+ hours in the air, but flying from Japan to CA going over the north pole it would take us 11 hours to get back. This is the reason why many flights fly northern routes to shorten the distance from one side of the ball to the other. I have also flown around the world heading west out of CA and I kept going west all the way back to CA from the other direction...lol

There is a "fat part of the Earth"? I bet America's the fattest country, right?

Why would you not fly over the north pole both times, then? Unless you had to fly to HI, or something, it makes no sense.

You seem to be implying that this shows the Earth is a ball, then? If so, you are wrong. Look at a flat Earth map, like the Gleason map, which is fairly detailed, and see where HI is from CA, and where Japan is from HI and CA. You'll easily get my point, I'm sure.

Same with going west from CA, and back to CA - you are flying in a full CIRCLE, over the flat Earth, continually going west.

It's often thought - as I once did - that we couldn't fly 'around the world' in one direction on a flat Earth. Because we don't think of how Earth looks on a flat surface, and that going in one direction - west or east - is actually going in a CIRCLE, over a flat surface. Look at the map to see what I mean.

We measure directions on Earth by the magnetic North 'Pole', which is actually the CENTER of Earth. The North is our only 'barometer', to base the other directions on. There is no West, no East, no South, measurement - only the North. By amazing coincidence, the North happens to be the only POINT on Earth, at the exact CENTER of Earth, as well! On a flat Earth, it all makes perfect sense. One point, at the exact center, is used for "navigation" of Earth. On a ball, North is the same as South, even the same as East and West, too. There's two points at best - North and South - which are not even points, on a ball surface. How does a compass read North, if you're on the other side of a ball-shaped Earth? I suppose compasses go straight through 12,742 km of solid rock, etc. to the magnetic North Pole, where it measures North from underneath !

Which one makes sense, and which one doesn't make any sense? It's blatantly obvious.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So you didn't answer a few questions for me.

1. What happens when you fly to the edge of the flat surface?
2. What is on the other side?
2. Is earth the only celestial object that is flat or is everything flat?

1. Nobody has ever flown to the edge of Earth, that we know of, although I believe it's been attempted many, many times before, without our knowledge. Apparently, it is an extremely difficult challenge, because it always has extreme winds, no visibility, or barely so, over a very large area, covered in ice and snow. If anyone has made it all the way through, they would find the great barrier of Earth, the Firmament, same way Von Braun found out the Firmament existed, when his rockets slammed into it, over and over again.

2. I would love to know what is on the other side, if anything does, that is. There is an ancient Buddhist map of the flat Earth, which shows 'continents' beyond Earth, which is very fascinating to me, because if it's true, how did they know about it? Why would they show land, and what appears to be continents, beyond Earth, if they don't exist?
Nobody knows, it's one of our greatest mysteries.

3. We should start with what 'flat' refers to - the SURFACE of Earth is flat, it doesn't refer to the entire planet, as 'flat', like some sort of giant 'pancake' shaped object. Being flat only refers to the surface of Earth, we can obviously see it's incredibly deep below the surface, so it's not entirely flat, anyway. You'd like to think it was pancake-shaped, since it would support your argument of nothing else being 'flat'.

We don't even know the entire shape of Earth, and cannot know it, unless someone figures out how to bore a hole through the Firmament, which holds the waters above Earth, and it would cause a second Great Flood, only worse. Maybe the only possible way would be going underneath the Earth, but it's not likely, either. The deepest part of the ocean is 36,200 feet, and the deepest we've ever dug into the ground is 40,230 feet. That is deep, by most standards, but it's only a pothole in Earth, in relative terms.

Your argument is that if Earth is 'flat' (assuming it was) , then why would everything else above the Earth be 'round' in shape? I call it the 'one universal shape' argument. It's easily dismissed by Saturn, the only object that has rings around it. Of course, they are now claiming that three other 'planets' also have rings - which nobody else has ever seen, of course. They made it all up, like usual, to support their countless other lies. There is no proof, nobody else sees it, and never will see it.

It also assumes every other object is round in shape, so why wouldn't Earth be round, too? Again, it is easily dismissed by Earth, the only object with life, and no other objects have life. By your argument, Earth wouldn't have life, since all the other objects have no life! But of course, the Earth IS very, very different, from all other objects - wouldn't it also make more sense that Earth was the only one with a flat surface, to HOLD that life on? Unique with having life, and unique with having a flat surface FOR that life, would make perfect sense, and a hell of lot more sense than having a BALL Earth to live on, that's for sure! The stars are not all round, they have many shapes, and the moon appears to be disk-shaped, not round, either. There is only one face of the moon we ever have seen, if it was actually a sphere, we would see much more of the moon than we can see.


So there are your answers...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Who says it is level flight?

The VSI says it is level flight.

a reply to: turbonium1

I really hope you are just messing with people. If not your about 300 years behind the rest of the planet. I would just like to point out to you that the international space station is still in earth's atmosphere. And that wind and fog would not stop it at that height not to mention you can track it on its orbits. So it would have to go over the edge if the earth was flat. And oh yes we have pictures of the other rings so we know Saturn is not the only planet.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: turbonium1

I really hope you are just messing with people. If not your about 300 years behind the rest of the planet. I would just like to point out to you that the international space station is still in earth's atmosphere. And that wind and fog would not stop it at that height not to mention you can track it on its orbits. So it would have to go over the edge if the earth was flat. And oh yes we have pictures of the other rings so we know Saturn is not the only planet.

The ISS is a complete fake, without a shred of valid proof it exists. The only object we KNOW, we SEE, we can CONFIRM, to have rings, is Saturn. No other object has been proven to have rings, ever been filmed by people to have rings, and that's a fact.

I'm only here to show the evidence that Earth is absolutely flat. I know they are all liars, and have proven they are liars.

My favorite case is definitely Saturn, but there are many others as well. The reason I like Saturn is because it cannot be denied to spin and wobble in every video of it, no matter where it was taken, when it was taken, or who shot the video.

All you have to excuse it is the atmosphere, which fails for so many reasons. One - the fact that the atmosphere only BLURS and OBSCURES objects, we know this for a fact, on Earth. Two- Saturn is NOT blurred or obscured in the videos, it is completely visible, every time. That alone refutes the atmosphere excuse, but there's far more that that. Three - the atmosphere has NEVER made stationary objects appear to spin and wobble on Earth, so how could it do something it has never done before? Not a chance. Four - there has NEVER been any explanation for how the atmosphere could create such an effect on stationary objects. Because no object HAS shown such effects, ever.

Even if we assumed the atmosphere could leave objects completely unobscured, and make them appear to spin and wobble, Saturn is still the ONLY object which spins and wobbles. No other object does this. If it WAS an effect of the atmosphere, it would happen with MANY other objects, like stars, and other 'planets'. But no other object spins and wobbles, only Saturn. That completely debunks the atmosphere excuse, once and for all. Any such effects would not apply to a single object, each and every time it's filmed, with no other object EVER showing similar effects.


This isn't being 300 years behind. Thinking Saturn spins and wobbles because of the atmosphere is 300 years behind, however.

a reply to: turbonium1

I guess you've never heard of a mirage.... its an optical illusion that happens due to "atmospheric" conditions....



Ignore the titanic part of the video IF you bother to watch it...

I've seen the CN tower in toronto over the lake from 3-4kms away from the shore line, as large as if it was 1km away.... yet you don't believe stars that are trilliions of miles away can flicker and twinkle... or your wobble with saturn isn't due to the atmosphere?

really...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

I guess you've never heard of a mirage.... its an optical illusion that happens due to "atmospheric" conditions....

Ignore the titanic part of the video IF you bother to watch it...

I've seen the CN tower in toronto over the lake from 3-4kms away from the shore line, as large as if it was 1km away.... yet you don't believe stars that are trilliions of miles away can flicker and twinkle... or your wobble with saturn isn't due to the atmosphere?

really...

I'm aware of mirages, but I'm referring to the effects it has on ACTUAL OBJECTS. The atmosphere blurs and obscures actual objects, it does not make them spin and wobble. Mirages are an effect of objects, imaged elsewhere, a completely different thing than I'm talking about.

Saturn is the only object which spins and wobbles, and that's a fact. Deal with it, or stay in denial, it's up to you.

a reply to: turbonium1

no... saturn doesn't wobble

it appears to wobble and spin because of the atmosphere.... deal with it or stay in denial

what im i saying we know which you'll do...

Hubble has plenty of pics of Saturn... but you don't believe in Hubble LOL

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: turbonium1

no... saturn doesn't wobble

it appears to wobble and spin because of the atmosphere.... deal with it or stay in denial

It's the only object that spins and wobbles, and claiming it is caused by the atmosphere is living in denial. Why can't you show any other object spinning and wobbling, if it's caused by the atmosphere? There should be countless other examples, right? If you believe it's caused by the atmosphere, you should have other examples to back your claim, right? Otherwise, it would be nothing but something you made up, and is complete nonsense....wouldn't you agree?