The flat earth conspiracy

originally posted by: neutronflux

Why would it be measured by the VSI if the pilot or the automatic pilot is set to fly at a specific altitude based on barometric pressure

Again. If the controls are set to maintain a specific altitude by barometric pressure, and the power settings and vertical settings are set to maintain that altitude. why would there be any readings on the VSI? When the VSI helps prevent ascending and descending from the desired altitude.

Because, as I explained to the 'pilot', any pressure gradient is hundreds, or thousands, of feet 'thick', and planes are well within one layer, for most of the flight, or even the entire flight.

How can you adjust to an 8 inch per mile 'curvature', within a single gradient, thousands of feet 'thick'?

It's impossible, of course. That's why the 'pilot' didn't answer that, and left the forum.


Even if the atmosphere 'curved' around Earth, 8 inches per mile, it wouldn't work, because each pressure gradient is hundreds or thousands of miles thick.

Get it?

a reply to: turbonium1

Because, as I explained to the 'pilot', any pressure gradient is hundreds, or thousands, of feet 'thick',

Wrong.
What a surprise.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Another source....

A variometer – also known as a rate of climb and descent indicator (RCDI), rate-of-climb indicator, vertical speed indicator (VSI), or vertical velocity indicator (VVI)

Snip

Newer variometer designs directly measure the static pressure of the atmosphere using a pressure sensor and detect changes in altitude directly from the change in air pressure instead of by measuring air flow. These designs tend to be smaller as they do not need the air bottle. They are more reliable as there is no bottle to be affected by changes in temperature and less chances for leaks to occur in the connecting tubes.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Again. It woks off pressure. Not actual measured distance from the ground. So if an airplane is maintaining altitude by barometric pressure, and there is no change in altitude to change barometric pressure, then the VSI is going to stay steady.

Please see my last post, explaining why this doesn't work..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

Because, as I explained to the 'pilot', any pressure gradient is hundreds, or thousands, of feet 'thick',

Wrong.
What a surprise.

Your latest lie isn't a surprise, at all. That's why you never source any of your bs claims. Show me you're not lying, with sources, to prove you aren't lying about this....

a reply to: turbonium1

Sure. As soon as you explain how, on a flat world, the elevation of Polaris can correspond to the latitude of the observer.
A simple sketch would suffice.

a reply to: turbonium1

What are you ranting about. If the plane is set to fly to a certain altitude by corresponding pressure, and the vertical speed indicator which also works by pressure is working to keep that altitude. Why would it accumulate some enormous error? If a plane / jet is maintaining its set altitude, why would the vertical speed indicator that is using the same reference air pressure as the altimeter register a vertical climb.

The pressure at 30,000 feet above sea level is the same if a jet was going over an ocean, the Grand Canyon, the Himalayan mountains, or the Dead Sea depression.

If a jet is maintaining 30,000 feet of altitude, why would the vertical speed indicator read any increase of altitude regardless of any model.

a reply to: turbonium1

And here’s your list...

riginally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Another thread that contradicts you imagined workd view.

What's up with those satelites?!?!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have any credibility, looking forward to you posting on ATS at “ What's up with those satelites?!?!” To tell everyone how you think Starlink satellites are not really in orbit around earth.

Or do you finally understand tickets really do place man made satellites in orbit around earth.

Starlink Mission
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

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.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

What are you ranting about. If the plane is set to fly to a certain altitude by corresponding pressure, and the vertical speed indicator which also works by pressure is working to keep that altitude. Why would it accumulate some enormous error? If a plane / jet is maintaining its set altitude, why would the vertical speed indicator that is using the same reference air pressure as the altimeter register a vertical climb.

The pressure at 30,000 feet above sea level is the same if a jet was going over an ocean, the Grand Canyon, the Himalayan mountains, or the Dead Sea depression.

If a jet is maintaining 30,000 feet of altitude, why would the vertical speed indicator read any increase of altitude regardless of any model.

Level flight means exactly that - a flight on a level path, within the air.

Planes do NOT fly in a curved path, in air.

Air pressure is based on gradients, or levels, each level is hundreds, or thousands of feet, 'thick'.


Planes do not measure 10000 feet by air pressure, within a pressure gradient that might be 400-500 miles 'thick'.

And air pressure can change during any one flight, when at altitude. Air pressure varies at the same altitude, it is not used as any sort of 'gauge'.

A plane would have to constantly descend about 5-6 feet per minute on flights, to follow 'curvature' at altitude, this would measure as a descent of 5-6 feet per minute on the VSI.

It cannot measure level flight, as something else, it's nonsense, in utter desperation.

These instruments measure level flight, because it IS level flight. It is NOT a curved flight, measuring as level, this claim is utterly ridiculous. Funny, how absurd it has become!

a reply to: turbonium1

Do please explain to us why it is impossible for a plane to constantly adjust for a curved surface below it. You are aware that planes can go up and down right?

Do tell us why a radar altimeter is incapable of measuring the distance directly below the plane.

You can add these things to the long list of things you fail to explain, like how you can light a basketball court with one light so that the edges are fully light but the centre is completely dark, or why I was able to see the ISS at the same time as someone 20 miles away, or why you have not bothered to read any of the links that more than adequately answered your ridiculous questions.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Do please explain to us why it is impossible for a plane to constantly adjust for a curved surface below it. You are aware that planes can go up and down right?

Do tell us why a radar altimeter is incapable of measuring the distance directly below the plane.

You can add these things to the long list of things you fail to explain, like how you can light a basketball court with one light so that the edges are fully light but the centre is completely dark, or why I was able to see the ISS at the same time as someone 20 miles away, or why you have not bothered to read any of the links that more than adequately answered your ridiculous questions.

I'm saying that they DO NOT adjust for any supposed 'curvature' of Earth, because 'curvature' doesn't even exist, to begin with.

How could you measure for 'curvature', when flying over a mountain range, with it's vastly different, changing, unknown altitudes, just in itself? Are you serious? It's a moot point, anyway, knowing what instruments they DO use on planes, is what matters here. Nice try, though.

I've explained how these instruments are measuring the Earth as a flat surface.

A level flight, or a straight and level flight, means it is level, it's an absolute fact.

Level is the optimal path to fly, because it has the least air resistance possible, being the most fuel efficient path of flight, as we all know.

Any deviation from level flight is not optimal, and not used in flights, whenever possible, anyway.

Flying level is the ideal path to fly, that's why they fly level most of the time, and to suggest it is NOT a level flight, when it's actually MEASURED as level, by their own instruments, which they KNOW are the correct measurements, that when instruments read level, it IS level, there is no point in saying otherwise, because it is simply nonsense.

When you have to resort to saying level does not mean level, you've really hit rock bottom. No doubt.

a reply to: turbonium1
You

Level flight means exactly that - a flight on a level path, within the air.

Your the one creating your own reality. Your the only one claiming level flight. Maintaining altitude does not necessarily mean level flight. Every flight I have been on has had turbulence. And it always seems I have to walk up hill to get to the bathrooms in the back of the plane. Or it always seems the drink in my cup is at a slant and vibrating,


You

Planes do not measure 10000 feet by air pressure, within a pressure gradient that might be 400-500 miles 'thick'.

There’s a classic Turbo statement totally void of fact and science.

You

A plane would have to constantly descend about 5-6 feet per minute on flights, to follow 'curvature' at altitude, this would measure as a descent of 5-6 feet per minute on the VSI.

No. It would only have to maintain the more general slope of an arc 30,000 feet above the earth by maintaining the altitude of 30,000 feet.


Again. You ignore how VSI works.

www.skybrary.aero...

In a simple VSI, a barometric capsule is contained in a sealed case. The capsule is fed with static pressure from the pitot-static system, while the case is also connected to that system through a calibrated nozzle. The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case. Thus, if the aircraft climbs (or descends), the pressure within the capsule will decrease (increase) while that within the case will decrease (increase) at a lower rate due to the presence of the nozzle. Movement of the capsule is translated into movement of a needle by a mechanical system.

The pressure at 30,000 feet is 4.36 absolute pressure PSI.The automatic pilot is set to 30,000 feet. Since the jet doesn’t measure actual distance but pressure equivalent. It really does try to maintain an outside pressure of 4.36.

If a VSI works by “ The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case.” and the jet is flying to maintain a “static” pressure of 4.36 to maintain 30,000 feet, why would the VSI read any change in vertical speed? As long as the jet stays at 30,000 feet regardless of any model? Or at a static pressure of 4.36.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1
You

Level flight means exactly that - a flight on a level path, within the air.

Your the one creating your own reality. Your the only one claiming level flight. Maintaining altitude does not necessarily mean level flight. Every flight I have been on has had turbulence. And it always seems I have to walk up hill to get to the bathrooms in the back of the plane. Or it always seems the drink in my cup is at a slant and vibrating,


You

Planes do not measure 10000 feet by air pressure, within a pressure gradient that might be 400-500 miles 'thick'.

There’s a classic Turbo statement totally void of fact and science.

You

A plane would have to constantly descend about 5-6 feet per minute on flights, to follow 'curvature' at altitude, this would measure as a descent of 5-6 feet per minute on the VSI.

No. It would only have to maintain the more general slope of an arc 30,000 feet above the earth by maintaining the altitude of 30,000 feet.


Again. You ignore how VSI works.

www.skybrary.aero...

In a simple VSI, a barometric capsule is contained in a sealed case. The capsule is fed with static pressure from the pitot-static system, while the case is also connected to that system through a calibrated nozzle. The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case. Thus, if the aircraft climbs (or descends), the pressure within the capsule will decrease (increase) while that within the case will decrease (increase) at a lower rate due to the presence of the nozzle. Movement of the capsule is translated into movement of a needle by a mechanical system.

The pressure at 30,000 feet is 4.36 absolute pressure PSI.The automatic pilot is set to 30,000 feet. Since the jet doesn’t measure actual distance but pressure equivalent. It really does try to maintain an outside pressure of 4.36.

If a VSI works by “ The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case.” and the jet is flying to maintain a “static” pressure of 4.36 to maintain 30,000 feet, why would the VSI read any change in vertical speed? As long as the jet stays at 30,000 feet regardless of any model? Or at a static pressure of 4.36.

It remains at 30000 feet while flying LEVEL. Not in a curve, not in a descent, which is required if planes actually had to follow above, along with, any sort of curved surface of Earth.

The VSI reads level flight as 0 feet per minute, no ascent, nor descent, then. It cannot measure 0 feet per minute if it's i a descent of 5 or 6 feet per minute, which you would need to follow any 'curvature' below.

These instruments measure level, AS level. It is NOT a curve, reading as 'level', on the instruments, that's totally ridiculous.

If you cannot accept instruments on planes are even measuring accurately, you're just blowing smoke.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

It remains at 30000 feet while flying LEVEL. Not in a curve, not in a descent, which is required if planes actually had to follow above, along with, any sort of curved surface of Earth.

Man your argument is F’D up.

The jet doesn’t give a crap about 30,000 feet in the example provided. It cares about flying to the pressure it (sensors) thinks (calibrated) corresponds to 30,000 feet.

Altimeter

In aircraft, an aneroid barometer measures the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft. Air pressure decreases with an increase of altitude—approximately 100 hectopascals per 800 meters or one inch of mercury per 1000 feet near sea level.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

The only thing the jet sensors is maintaining is the “static” pressure of 4.36 which corresponds to 30,000 feet. And this is were you hope the altimeter is calibrated correctly.

You are the only one saying a jet is flying level. That is your made up BS argument.

Please cite or quote a source what level flight is. I think it’s a made up BS argument you made up.

Again.
“ Your the one creating your own reality. Your the only one claiming level flight. Maintaining altitude does not necessarily mean level flight. Every flight I have been on has had turbulence. And it always seems I have to walk up hill to get to the bathrooms in the back of the plane. Or it always seems the drink in my cup is at a slant and vibrating,

You

The VSI reads level flight as 0 feet per minute, no ascent, nor descent, then. It cannot measure 0 feet per minute if it's i a descent of 5 or 6 feet per minute, which you would need to follow any 'curvature' below.

You argument is totally dependent on ignoring how a VSI works. It is an argument total void of facts.

Again.

If a VSI works by “ The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case.” and the jet is flying to maintain a “static” pressure of 4.36 to maintain 30,000 feet, why would the VSI read any change in vertical speed? As long as the jet stays at 30,000 feet regardless of any model? Or at a static pressure of 4.36.

You

These instruments measure level,

WTF? What instruments? Your argument is totally void of fact.

And Altimeter as cited works of” an aneroid barometer measures the atmospheric pressure from a static port outside the aircraft.”

A VMI works by “ The nozzle restricts the passage of air so that there is a time delay between a change in static pressure and that pressure being experienced within the case”

Altimeter works off pressure around the jet.

The VMI only registers if there is a change in pressure internal to itself to a reference pressure across a flow restricting nozzle.

Those Instruments do no measure level, and your argument is based on total falsehoods and BS on your part.

a reply to: turbonium1

So. You cannot cite actual sources. You literally make up BS.

I have been getting more curious about this FE thing, Only since this thread is still around and we still have the top brains in ATS picking away at one posters claims.

I’m not sure what you fear from one posters information. Especially if it is as obvious as it seems to be that our earth is round. So my curiosity is peaked.

I googled your request for a Polaris measurement on a flat earth and found this.

a reply to: Observationalist

1) Chicago is not 1,784.35 miles from the north pole.

2) Remember, one's latitude corresponds to the elevation of Polaris. In Chicago, it's about 42º above the horizon, the same as the latitude of Chicago. In Orlando it's about 28º above the horizon, the same as the latitude of Orlando. I made a sketch to illustrate the problem on a flat world. No need for a video, no need for trigonometry, it's self explanatory.

I’m not sure what you fear from one posters information.

Fear? No, mostly amusement but the denial of facts does have a troubling aspect in a larger sense. And there is the motto of ATS to consider.

a reply to: Observationalist

Does the video cover why Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon with the same magnitude of brightness until it disappears below the horizon when people travel from the north hemisphere across the equator into the Southern Hemisphere.

Please use geometry to show how on a flat plane a point high above that plane would disappear below the edge of that plane because of prospective.

Google still works.


I’m not impressed however. They have to take down so many “assumptions” to make it fit.
Once you ditch Heliocentric model, then sure you can do anything. I say prove the geocentric model fist.

Edit: this was a reply to a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: Observationalist

I am not not going to be click baited into watching a YouTube video.

The set up.

Does the video cover why Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon with the same magnitude of brightness until it disappears below the horizon when people travel from the north hemisphere across the equator into the Southern Hemisphere.

Now explain.
Please use geometry to show how on a flat plane a point high above that plane would disappear below the edge of that plane because of prospective.


Did you miss the part that Polaris does not change in brightness, but disappears below the horizon.

Why wouldn’t you be able to see Polaris from Melbourne Australia with a good telescope. Hint. The cure of the earth blocks it from view.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Observationalist

I am not not going to be click baited into watching a YouTube video.

The set up.

Does the video cover why Polaris gets lower and lower on the horizon with the same magnitude of brightness until it disappears below the horizon when people travel from the north hemisphere across the equator into the Southern Hemisphere.

Now explain.
Please use geometry to show how on a flat plane a point high above that plane would disappear below the edge of that plane because of prospective.


Did you miss the part that Polaris does not change in brightness, but disappears below the horizon.

Why wouldn’t you be able to see Polaris from Melbourne Australia with a good telescope. Hint. The cure of the earth blocks it from view.

Your response is like a kid sticking his fingers in his ears, and screaming I don’t want to hear, I don’t want to hear. The only reasons a kid does that is because he fears he might not have an answer to the question. Or the evidence he has falls short of what the question requires and would rather ignore it so he can keep his reality secure.

I’m not saying it’s true just because it’s on YouTube. And you won’t become a flat earther from watching it. It’s information, it can’t hurt a solid glob earth theory.

Read my comments, I watched it and I’m less convinced of a FE, just because of the length he has to go to take down all the “assumptions” just to begin his proof.

It’s okay, I’m not a Flat Earther.