It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 78
14
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh look, you're trying to beat a very dead horse again. What did that poor horse ever do to you?
We've been over all this before. You were wrong then, you are wrong now, you need to stop trolling us all.



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Again - a plane reaches 35,000 feet cruising altitude, for example.

The plane flies level, for 6 hours, at cruising altitude.

If Earth had curvature, the plane would be 1800 feet higher than the altitude measured on board the plane.

But the plane is at correct altitude, as it then lands down to Earth.


No curvature to account for, then.


Do you get the point here?


What are you calling "flying level"? Flying at the same altitude?

A plane measures its altitude by monitoring the air pressure. That measurement of air pressure is based on how much air/atmosphere is pushing down from above the plane.

That atmosphere could be a shell of a layer surrounding a spherical Earth and the pilot would fly though it by following an ever-so-curved path while keeping the altimeter reading the same altitude. That would amount to what you are calling "flying level."



posted on Mar, 16 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

We've been there. We've done that.

It doesn't take.


And remember, the Earth is "variable", so pilots never really know where they are anyway.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/16/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
What are you calling "flying level"? Flying at the same altitude?


Essentially, flying level means flying in neither in an ascent, nor in a descent.

Flying level IS a flight at the same altitude, as well.

Instruments on board planes measure for both level flight (ie: the Vertical Speed Indicator), and for altitude (ie: the altimeter).


originally posted by: Box of Rain
A plane measures its altitude by monitoring the air pressure.


Yes, this is known as pressure altitude, or indicated altitude. There is also true altitude (using sea level as 0 feet), which may be different than indicated altitude. Because weather conditions vary, the barometric pressure can vary as well, and give inaccurate altitude readings. That's why pilots depend on other instruments, current weather reports, etc. to confirm the true altitude of his plane, during flight.


originally posted by: Box of Rain
That measurement of air pressure is based on how much air/atmosphere is pushing down from above the plane.


No.

The barometric pressure measurements ARE NOT based on "how much air/atmosphere is pushing down from above the plane"!!

Barometric pressure is generally divided into pressure 'gradients' - imaginary 'layers' within the atmosphere, stacked upward.

Planes measure barometric pressure the same way we measure it at sea level, or atop Mt. Everest, in other words. It has NOTHING to do with 'pushing down from above'.

Barometric pressure is measured around the plane. As we measure it around us, on Earth.


originally posted by: Box of Rain
That atmosphere could be a shell of a layer surrounding a spherical Earth and the pilot would fly though it by following an ever-so-curved path while keeping the altimeter reading the same altitude. That would amount to what you are calling "flying level."



What is a 'shell of a layer'?

Assuming you mean the imaginary lines dividing pressure gradients, then....

This was essentially the same sort of 'answer' I was given from our pilot chum, many months ago.

And I told him - as I'll tell you now - that those layers of pressure, within the atmosphere, even if they DID curve above Earth, with 'gravity' holding air around Earth's 'curvature' - do NOT solve your problem...

Because - a single pressure layer covers at least 100's, or 1000's, of feet, in altitude. A plane that flies at a specific altitude, will always fly within a specific pressure gradient. Assuming the gradient follows Earth's 'curvature', a plane would fly several hours, within the same layer, or pressure gradient. It is impossible for a plane to measure for any 'curvature' of atmosphere during flight, therefore.

The pilot didn't address my point, and left the forum, soon afterwards, I believe.


And still no answer, today.



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Box of Rain

We've been there. We've done that.

It doesn't take.


And remember, the Earth is "variable", so pilots never really know where they are anyway.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You can try to muddy the waters with comments taken completely out of context, but it's a sad way to defend a hopeless argument.

Your pilot didn't even try to address my point, and you sure haven't, either.


Why don't you simply try to address my point?

Saying 'been there, done that', or 'flogging that dead horse', is all nonsense, as it has NOT been addressed in any way!

But if you think it's been addressed, simply point out where it was addressed, or even give us all a brief recap, if you prefer.


Please tell anyone who wasn't here at the time, how you 'resolved' the problem, it should be easy if it's all 'been there, done that'!!



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You can try to muddy the waters with comments taken completely out of context, but it's a sad way to defend a hopeless argument.
It is in context. Navigation in air, or sea, utilizes lines of latitude. You claimed that the fact that the elevation of Polaris above the horizon corresponds to one's latitude is because the Earth is "variable." Lines of latitude are equidistant, not "variable." www.abovetopsecret.com...



Saying 'been there, done that', or 'flogging that dead horse', is all nonsense, as it has NOT been addressed in any way!

You are mistaken. It has been addressed.

edit on 3/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, it's been addressed. You just refuse to change your mind, no matter what vast array of facts are deployed that prove you wrong.
I have a theory about why you are trying to keep this pitiful excuse of thread going. It involves you and a bridge.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You are looking at it backwards as always. Its not how much atmosphere is under the aircraft that causes the pressure readings, it’s the atmosphere above. A jet probably can fly at 40,000 feet and not worry about hitting a mountain. There is a constant amount of atmosphere weighing down on the jet at 40,000 feet. There will be a essentially constant amount /height of atmosphere from the 40,000 feet mark to the atmospheres boundary at the eadge of space.

So, what abnormalities are you stressing about, and are such abnormalities with in the accuracy of the instruments? Or accounted for by instruments out of calibration?

Please provide specific real world measurements.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Another example.

You can lay on a stack of five boards and have 10 boards stacked on you. Or you can lay on a stack of eight boards and have 10 boards stacked on you. You still only have the weight of ten boards pressing down on you no matter how far you are off the ground between the two scenarios.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Whole page on altimeter accuracy and error




Altimeter Errors:

www.cfinotebook.net...


Now, what specific real world reading can not be accounted for using the above link?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Whole page on altimeter accuracy and error




Altimeter Errors:

www.cfinotebook.net...


Now, what specific real world reading can not be accounted for using the above link?


Oh dear, and all of the pics on that site show a FLAT ground! Do you know what Turbonium will make out of this??!

* Obviously /s. So obvious, I have to write this down. It is with a /s flag, everyone!


Wasn't there an error on Turbonium where he/she said that you would have to press the pilot stick always a little bit down to negate the "ascending effect"?
There is no ascending effect, as the plane is coupled to earth via gravity, so that there is always the centripetal force to keep the plane flying around the globe on its' flight level (until secondary effects like up/down-winds, fuel shortage, etc. come in play).

Turbonium is the fastest goal-mover on this side of the forums, people...



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope




as the plane is coupled to earth via gravity


You forget that Turbonium does not believe in gravity......



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Or line of sight communication?



Line-of-sight propagation

en.m.wikipedia.org...

It is important to take into account the curvature of the Earth for calculation of line-of-sight paths from maps, when a direct visual fix cannot be made. Designs for microwave formerly used ​4⁄3 earth radius to compute clearances along the path.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Quite.

There is no point arguing with him/her.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Good catch. Lol.

Asked a pilot once, how high he could fly.
He answered: "I don't smoke before flying, but it's fine to have a couple of drinks, you know, to steady the nerves."
He also said: "Show me a pilot that doesn't drink: and I'll show you a #y pilot".
Ok-ok: only the second one is true.


Anyone else remember this classic?




posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 04:16 AM
link   
flat earth cultists - once more " planning " an " expedition "

source

what can possibly go wrong ????????????



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




what can possibly go wrong ???

The same sort of thing as with the $20k laser gyro?
The same sort of thing as with the curvature experiment?

Wait...what?

All we have to do to shut this debate down once and for all is get the distance of the coast of Antarctica.


Damn, I would love to be on that trip. Circumnavigate Antarctica. If I say the Earth is flat can I go too?

edit on 3/19/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
flat earth cultists - once more " planning " an " expedition "

source

what can possibly go wrong ????????????


Logan Paul thinks that the moon 'emits its own light'???
Gawd, where do these muppets come from?



posted on Mar, 19 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
flat earth cultists - once more " planning " an " expedition "

source

what can possibly go wrong ????????????


sounds good to me...

at the very least there will be a few less stupid people on the planet



edit on 19-3-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

This is great, another batch of flat earthers will accidentally prove the earth is round and then have to sit around trying to explain how the irrefutable proof they discovered themselves is wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join