Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: turbonium1
I'm still waiting for anyone to address the VSI reading about 5 feet per minute during every flight, ever done....

When the VSI reads 0 feet per minute over a 6 hour flight, you would be about 1800 feet higher in altitude over a round Earth. But the altimeter doesn't change at all, it is the same altitude throughout the 6 hours of flight.

'Trust your instruments'.

I do, indeed, trust the instruments. They measure descent, ascent, and level flight. They measure altitude, as well.

What about you?

How is altitude measured by a plane? And how would you use this measurement to prove your correct?

Okay, let's say a plane flies 6 hours at an altitude of 38,000 feet. The altitude of a plane is based on sea level being 0 feet.

The VSI reads 0 feet per minute over the 6 hours flight, altitude of 38,000 feet.

As the plane descends to landing, the VSI reads the descent in feet per minute, and the altitude lowers steadily, at the same time.

The VSI measures correct descent in feet per minute, the altimeter matches the VSI's descent rate, until landing down.


Which means there are about 1800 feet of 'missing curvature' that you STILL need to account for..


I'm the only one here trusting what the instruments read, so what about you?

A VSI tells you about changes in air pressure as you rise and fall. That air pressure is based on the point you are in now, not some distant point along the Earth's curve.

www.boldmethod.com...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: turbonium1
I'm still waiting for anyone to address the VSI reading about 5 feet per minute during every flight, ever done....

When the VSI reads 0 feet per minute over a 6 hour flight, you would be about 1800 feet higher in altitude over a round Earth. But the altimeter doesn't change at all, it is the same altitude throughout the 6 hours of flight.

'Trust your instruments'.

I do, indeed, trust the instruments. They measure descent, ascent, and level flight. They measure altitude, as well.

What about you?

How is altitude measured by a plane? And how would you use this measurement to prove your correct?

Okay, let's say a plane flies 6 hours at an altitude of 38,000 feet. The altitude of a plane is based on sea level being 0 feet.

The VSI reads 0 feet per minute over the 6 hours flight, altitude of 38,000 feet.

As the plane descends to landing, the VSI reads the descent in feet per minute, and the altitude lowers steadily, at the same time.

The VSI measures correct descent in feet per minute, the altimeter matches the VSI's descent rate, until landing down.


Which means there are about 1800 feet of 'missing curvature' that you STILL need to account for..


I'm the only one here trusting what the instruments read, so what about you?

Your wrong look up how a plane determines altitude. A plane uses air pressure to determine how high the aircraft is flying. Meaning that in order to show zero in climb or decent it has to fly along a path with the same air density.

So again explain how this instrument proves anything according to your theory. If the only determination of altitude is based off air density how would this differ following a curve or maintaining a straight course? One other thing could you explain why air gets thinner the higher we go? With gravity this makes sense but without it I'm curious what you think is happening

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
A VSI tells you about changes in air pressure as you rise and fall. That air pressure is based on the point you are in now, not some distant point along the Earth's curve.

www.boldmethod.com...

Yes, and if you read the comments, you can see that some people talk about pilots sometimes "chasing" a particular VSI model that features an accelerometer because they are not accustomed to its sensitivity...

...Which brings me to a point I made a while earlier that pilots and autopilots are constantly making small adjustments to the controls (in all directions of flight, up, down, and other) in order to keep at level and true flight. If all of those instantaneous control adjustments (up, down, and other) are added up over a long period/long distance, it could be seen that to follow the VSI to keep a constant altitude, the plane will follow the curvature of the air pressure above the curved Earth.

So while a pilot does not need to "mindfully" dip the nose in order to follow the curvature of the Earth, that curvature would show itself in the sum of the component adjustments a plane makes in the normal course of flying level over a long distance.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Impressive replies, as usual.

Well done.

Why? There's no point debating you, you're a troll.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
So while a pilot does not need to "mindfully" dip the nose in order to follow the curvature of the Earth, that curvature would show itself in the sum of the component adjustments a plane makes in the normal course of flying level over a long distance.

Look at the example of an orbit and to simplify assume the orbit is circular. There is centripetal acceleration due to gravity, and all you have to do to maintain the circular orbit is to offset the centripetal acceleration with sufficient velocity. There's no nose to point up or down for objects in orbit, they merely need to offset centripetal acceleration.



This diagram while very simple, is a concept I think you can understand but i think it's beyond the capacity of many flat-earthers to comprehend, and this is why there will never be any end to the so called "debate". They will apparently argue forever that the direction of the arrow and the circular curved path are in conflict with each other, but nothing could be further from the truth and this is based on centuries old physics. The arrow shows an "instantaneous" direction at a given point in time, say 3pm exactly. At one thousandth of a second after 3pm, the arrow is already in a different direction, because the acceleration from gravity is constantly changing the direction of the object (satellite, or planet, or moon, etc). So an instantaneous direction tangential to the circular orbit doesn't result in a straight line flight, it's curved. This happens without pointing anything down. Most flat earthers whose youtube videos I've watched will never, ever get this, and the few of them that might have the cognitive ability to understand it if you explain it long enough may not even want to get it, because they are in love with their conspiracy theory.

There are some more complications with aircraft flying through an atmosphere like lift, thrust, drag, etc, but just as there is no conflict with an orbital object flying in an instantaneously tangential direction yet following a curved path of the circular orbit without pointing anything down, even after accounting for these complicating factors, there's no reason a plane can't similarly follow a circular path without making any downward adjustments. This includes not making any net downward adjustments as you seem to suggest, over the course of making many small adjustments.

Of course I don't expect this argument to work with flat earthers who don't believe in satellites and I don't understand how they can not, when they can see the ISS flying overhead.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The ISS is just another one of those somethings in the sky. Like the Sun and stars and planets. No one knows what they really are. Perhaps they are gods.

a reply to: Phage

Looks like a tie fighter... so StarWars is a reality

ISS lunar transit

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This includes not making any net downward adjustments as you seem to suggest, over the course of making many small adjustments.

Thanks. This makes sense.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes thank you!

This is what I've been trying to say the whole time.

It's why I kept hammering on the whole down is always down thing, which you finally explained in a way people could understand thank God.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes the pilot or the auto pilot has to mindfully dip the nose down as, the nose tilts up following a curved path, due to the bow wave on the nose

a reply to: Hyperboles

No ... They do not

Stop saying that, it's not true. It's just not, and it never will be.

Notice that Soylent when given that extraordinary good explanation by Arbitrageur, he actually accepted it.

This is because rational people are capable of accepting that they might be misunderstanding something.

Edit: Also bow wave? F***ing really?!

originally posted by: Hyperboles

Yes the pilot or the auto pilot has to mindfully dip the nose down as, the nose tilts up following a curved path, due to the bow wave on the nose

This is far too silly, suspiciously so…

I think you’re doing shtick, and trying to be humorous. Performance art? Provocateur? FlatEarther with a crisis of faith? Other? C'mon, fess up.

I mean, just to say it, basically ignores aerodynamics entirely. I mean... tongue in cheek, 10 minutes designing aircraft on something as silly as Kerbal space program will show you how dumb the "need to constantly pitch down" is.

The F16, is a aircraft that is inherently unstable, and typically deviations from 'perfect' conditions can and will cause the aircraft to exacerbate the situation until it is not really an aircraft but rather a nicely shaped tumbling object. It only works by using a fly-by-wire system to control certain aspects of its flight controls. The stick is digital in those things, not analogue.

Hyperboles, the system is generally much to complex to break it down to a "Need to pitch down" as i and others have already said. To suggest it, totally removes the "I am a pilot" statement from anything remotely truthful. An actual pilot would understand that 1) an aircraft can be setup to hypothetically do loops constantly if need be and 2) The number of forces acting on the aircraft and the manner in which they act is being ignored or over simplified in all of the models you have discussed.
As i stated previously. Given the other statements you have made in the past, and the manner in which you approach discussion... if there was a discussion of engine-rooms in ships, I am sure you would chime in to say you are an engineer of the merchant navy also.

a reply to: ErosA433

You're making me think about when We'd use paper clips and etc to build paper planes which did just that as kids! (Endless loops)

a reply to: ErosA433

What I was always emphasising on is basic aerodynamics my dear watson. Its used in aircraft design. but forget it, none of you are aircraft designers or pilots or engineers. If its ways above your heads, forget it
You all think auto pilot altitude mode is a load of crap, eh

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Hyperboles

No ... They do not

!

Once again, yes they do. how many times being a pilot do i have to repeat myself.

a reply to: Hyperboles

Do they have to point the nose down more often than they have to point it up?

a reply to: Rollie83

Lol again are you seriously trying to teach me.
what crap are you teaching your students. You should be pulled up before the FAA, IMO

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Rollie83

Lol again are you seriously trying to teach me.
what crap are you teaching your students. You should be pulled up before the FAA, IMO

Again…yes, I’m trying to teach you, but not with much effort any more. I reckon you’re gripped with pre-conceptions that prevent your assimilating better information. As always, good luck to you.