Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

a reply to: turbonium1

The term as I posted it is correct, but the use in aviation is not the same as you are trying to make it out to be. A descent is a lowering of altitude when you're talking about aviation, or downward movement if you prefer. Whether you are over a sphere, or over a flat surface, if you fly in a continuous descent, as you describe, you are going to hit the ground.

In either a spherical model or flat model, if your VSI is reading a continuous descent, you're in a lot more trouble than figuring out whether you're on a globe or not.

Maybe you should go take some flying lessons, or talk to a flight instructor about what "descent" means in a plane, and try to figure that out first, before you try claiming that your VSI should show a continuous descent if you're flying over a globe.

originally posted by: roguetechie
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.

These people might post a definition of a word, say 'you need to learn' it, then, soon afterwards, end up looking like arrogant fools...

I have no time for such 'word games;, either!

a reply to: turbonium1
This video was posted recently, and explains with a toy train example, as with an aircraft, why following a circle is not like a descent, because distance to the center of the circle remains constant. Did you watch it yet?

a reply to: turbonium1

As opposed to the person who makes ridiculous claims, has them proved wrong over and over, then pretends it never happened.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

The term as I posted it is correct, but the use in aviation is not the same as you are trying to make it out to be. A descent is a lowering of altitude when you're talking about aviation, or downward movement if you prefer. Whether you are over a sphere, or over a flat surface, if you fly in a continuous descent, as you describe, you are going to hit the ground.

In either a spherical model or flat model, if your VSI is reading a continuous descent, you're in a lot more trouble than figuring out whether you're on a globe or not.

Maybe you should go take some flying lessons, or talk to a flight instructor about what "descent" means in a plane, and try to figure that out first, before you try claiming that your VSI should show a continuous descent if you're flying over a globe.

A continual descent over a sphere is NOT the same as a continual descent over a flat surface.

A spherical surface is not the same as a flat surface.

These are two, very different, surfaces - one flat, one curved.

A flight path is essentially flying in a arc, above the actual sphere, matching it. A circle, partially completed.

Flying in an arc cannot be done without a constant descent.


So tell me all about learning what I'm talking about, from a flight instructor, maybe take a few flying lessons, and someday, I'll be half as smart as you are, right Professor!?!

I am aware of what a descent is, and what it is NOT, and how it is used within aviation is 100% correct, in its use, and in definition. A descent lowers the altitude in a flight. This is true. A plane has never descended during a flight without lowering its altitude, at the same time. I've been telling you exactly the same thing, all along....to no avail.


I'm currently working with an old field/navy pilot. He said the one thing he has never understood, after all these years, was how he had his planes always flying level, at altitude, over thousands of flights, over long distances, and has never figured out how come he didn't have to descend, to account for Earth's curved surface!!

I explained why that happens, afterwards. He said that would make sense, but he's struggling to grasp the whole concept, as yet.

The pilot on this thread didn't address the problem, either. He claimed that pressure gradients are curved like Earth is, which 'set' the flight path to the curvature of Earth, somehow. A 'level' flight is 'level' to Earth's curvature, because of these 'curved' pressure gradients!

But there are no pressure gradients which could even do such a thing, being one gradient covers a vast region, and a plane is a speck within a given layer. The pilot has never answered it.


I understand the issue. I know the purpose of those specific instruments, and how they measure it, where they measure it, what they indicate, and what they do NOT indicate.

Prove me wrong, if you can, or accept the reality.

Yes, yes, you know all and are smarter than all of us, and haven proven it over and over in every topic. Like I said before, done this ride before. You have fun patting yourself on the back again at how you proved you're smarter than everyone again.

originally posted by: roguetechie
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.

Lol a stupid comment. Of course you correct downwards all the time. Ive spoken of bow wave earlier.

Hey forget on projects. Let me know when you can do geometry right.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

A descent is a descent, regardless of if the earth is flat or not. If you're flying over a sphere, you descend to land. If you're flying over a flat earth, you descend to land. If you descend in either case, you are going to impact the ground. You can point the nose up or down, and not climb or descend.

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?

Correct on both counts.
Compared to space yes the plane is descending all the time, but the VSI and Altimeter essentially are reading the height of the air column above it and in level flight over a curved surface, this is not changing, so the VSI AND ALTIMETER WILL STAY PUT EVEN IF THE PLANE IS DESCENDING COMPARED TO SPACE.
This to help you out with the most simplistic explanation.

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

What the VSI measures is atmospheric pressure, ON THE PLANE ITSELF, when in flight, at the specific moment.

Show me how the VSI would measure atmospheric pressure based on a 8 inch per mile squared curvature, 38,000 feet below it, which 'calibrates' it to read 'level' flight as being 'level' over curvature.....


Any sources you have, would be great....


I'll wait...

VSI essentially measures the rate of change of height of the air column above the VSI. Earth is curved, so is the atmosphere.
8 in per mile squared? Hey for curvature just consider a circle . For the earth every 1.5 miles of flight over the surface, the curvature is 1 mile as compared to space. So compared to space the object/ Plane has to descend 1 mile for every 1.5 miles flown. Remember my earlier post about flight starting at the north pole and flight path exactly parallel to the horizontal radius of the earth at the equator.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: turbonium1
This video was posted recently, and explains with a toy train example, as with an aircraft, why following a circle is not like a descent, because distance to the center of the circle remains constant. Did you watch it yet?

It is nonsense.

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

Your video claims that a descent will not get planes any closer to the CENTER of the sphere! Truly a revelation!

The CENTER of a sphere has nothing to do with it. A plane is flying over the surface of a sphere, not the center!

The principle features of a spherical surface apply to ANY sphere, of ANY size.

That's what you don't understand.

A tiny model plane over a basketball easily illustrates the basic principles REQUIRED in following along a path above ANY sphere. The model plane must point it's nose downward, in order to follow above the giant beach ball. It cannot be pointed level over the ball at any point, nor is it even possible to be level to a curved surface. A ball has no flat surfaces to be level with.

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

A descent is a descent, regardless of if the earth is flat or not. If you're flying over a sphere, you descend to land. If you're flying over a flat earth, you descend to land. If you descend in either case, you are going to impact the ground. You can point the nose up or down, and not climb or descend.

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?

Correct on both counts.
Compared to space yes the plane is descending all the time, but the VSI and Altimeter essentially are reading the height of the air column above it and in level flight over a curved surface, this is not changing, so the VSI AND ALTIMETER WILL STAY PUT EVEN IF THE PLANE IS DESCENDING COMPARED TO SPACE.
This to help you out with the most simplistic explanation.

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

What the VSI measures is atmospheric pressure, ON THE PLANE ITSELF, when in flight, at the specific moment.

Show me how the VSI would measure atmospheric pressure based on a 8 inch per mile squared curvature, 38,000 feet below it, which 'calibrates' it to read 'level' flight as being 'level' over curvature.....


Any sources you have, would be great....


I'll wait...

VSI essentially measures the rate of change of height of the air column above the VSI. Earth is curved, so is the atmosphere.
8 in per mile squared? Hey for curvature just consider a circle . For the earth every 1.5 miles of flight over the surface, the curvature is 1 mile as compared to space. So compared to space the object/ Plane has to descend 1 mile for every 1.5 miles flown. Remember my earlier post about flight starting at the north pole and flight path exactly parallel to the horizontal radius of the earth at the equator.

No sources, then?

A curved atmosphere is above a curved Earth, and the plane follows the curved atmosphere, without measuring a descent, because the VSI doesn't measure curved atmospheres above curved surfaces, it measures 'level' as a non-level flight, but nobody knows why.

A plane cannot fly above a curved surface without a constant descent. Your supposedly 'curved atmosphere' does not account for a physical action of a plane pointing downward to follow around a spherical surface.

The VSI measures precise pressure differentials inside the plane for an ascent. a descent, or neither one.... which means it is in level flight.

If there WAS a 'curved atmosphere', with 'curved' pressure gradients, it would not matter to what the plane is doing. A gradient, whether curved or not, is much too vast an area to indicate how a little plane within the area is moving.

It's reality, not fantasy.

a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise you're contradicting everything you said before right?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise you're contradicting everything you said before right?

No, it's the same as I've told you many times before, which you have always failed to address.

I've seen contradictions on your side, over and over again, but that's not headline news, obviously.

a reply to: turbonium1

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

Yes, however the planes length is too short compared to the circumference of the earth to make it matter.


such a simple reason shouldn't be so hard to understated.

a reply to: Hyperboles

Wow, so now we have a bow wave AND a drop of 1 mile for every 1.5 miles of flight...

No wonder you "severed ties" with the marine engineering association...

I wouldn't trust you to "engineer" me a pool floatie or a bath tub rubber duck.

Thank God no one lets you anywhere near anything resembling real engineering at this point, you are genuinely a hazard to everyone who might ever be forced to depend upon something you design!

People like you get people killed with your completely unfounded arrogance!

a reply to: InhaleExhale

That's one of about a thousand issues with that one thing he says yes...

If it weren't for his own words in stuff he's posted offsite making it completely clear that whatever career he had at one point has long since circled the toilet bowl, I'd feel very compelled to do some research and make sure anyone even THINKING about hiring him saw these posts.

There's a point when someone's arrogance becomes a legitimate danger that cannot be ignored, Hyperboles is definitely at that point.

a reply to: turbonium1

For a troll you are dementedly determined. That or you are trying to prove a point.
I think the other posters need to stop rising to the bait you keep leaving out in the form of idiocy.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It is nonsense.

A plane must follow above the SURFACE of a sphere. And must descend to follow the 'descending' surface, which ALL spheres have..

originally posted by: turbonium1
Ascent or descent is measured by pressure differential, within the VSI's diaphragm.

It is measured within air, uses air pressure to measure ascent, descent, and level flight of a plane.

Once again, this has NOTHING to do with the surface, far below the plane. Your endlessly claiming it.... is total nonsense.

You say it has nothing to do with the surface, but then you say it has everything to do with the surface. You are the biggest debunker of yourself with your own contradictions.

The CENTER of a sphere has nothing to do with it. A plane is flying over the surface of a sphere, not the center!

Again all this emphasis on the surface now, when before you were going out of your way you say it has nothing to do with the surface. You are contradicting yourself. By the way the surface of a sphere is above the center of a sphere so if a plane flies over the surface it's also flying over the center. If you deny that you must be trolling.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You do realise you're contradicting everything you said before right?

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My comment about the word games and semantics thing was in a similar vein.

Unfortunately, they're actually not trolls though. They genuinely think that they have knowledge that somehow everyone else is too stupid to see.

The spatial reasoning deficiencies are just one symptom of many, with the actual cause being their total inability to see the big picture when it comes to any phenomena or system. They literally CANNOT consider multiple factors at the same time, if you think about it does this not describe their arguments and "solutions" disturbingly well?

They see each individual part or phenomena as it's own discreet "thing" which is why they seem entirely incapable of seeing how their ad-hoc explanations contradict each other or outright paint them into corners.

On YouTube there's a commenter people call "independent variable John" whose currently going by the name quantum eraser who incessantly copies and pastes this bizarre ransom note style screed about the scientific method independent and dependent variables and how "models" are pseudoscience.

And when you really break down what he's saying, it's the same thing we're dealing with here! He believes that because he's incapable of understanding that the scientific method is about isolation and changing of one factor at a time specifically so we can see how this affects everything else.

Instead he believes that any science that actually deals with ANYTHING at a systems level is pseudoscience.

Flatties are the hypothetical 1 dimensional person trying to interact with and make sense of a 3d world.

They will never get anything so long as they stay 1d

If the Earth were flat then a circle route versus a straight point to point path would not be shorter.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

A descent is a descent, regardless of if the earth is flat or not. If you're flying over a sphere, you descend to land. If you're flying over a flat earth, you descend to land. If you descend in either case, you are going to impact the ground. You can point the nose up or down, and not climb or descend.

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?

Correct on both counts.
Compared to space yes the plane is descending all the time, but the VSI and Altimeter essentially are reading the height of the air column above it and in level flight over a curved surface, this is not changing, so the VSI AND ALTIMETER WILL STAY PUT EVEN IF THE PLANE IS DESCENDING COMPARED TO SPACE.
This to help you out with the most simplistic explanation.

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

What the VSI measures is atmospheric pressure, ON THE PLANE ITSELF, when in flight, at the specific moment.

Show me how the VSI would measure atmospheric pressure based on a 8 inch per mile squared curvature, 38,000 feet below it, which 'calibrates' it to read 'level' flight as being 'level' over curvature.....


Any sources you have, would be great....


I'll wait...

VSI essentially measures the rate of change of height of the air column above the VSI. Earth is curved, so is the atmosphere.
8 in per mile squared? Hey for curvature just consider a circle . For the earth every 1.5 miles of flight over the surface, the curvature is 1 mile as compared to space. So compared to space the object/ Plane has to descend 1 mile for every 1.5 miles flown. Remember my earlier post about flight starting at the north pole and flight path exactly parallel to the horizontal radius of the earth at the equator.

No sources, then?

A curved atmosphere is above a curved Earth, and the plane follows the curved atmosphere, without measuring a descent, because the VSI doesn't measure curved atmospheres above curved surfaces, it measures 'level' as a non-level flight, but nobody knows why.

A plane cannot fly above a curved surface without a constant descent. Your supposedly 'curved atmosphere' does not account for a physical action of a plane pointing downward to follow around a spherical surface.

The VSI measures precise pressure differentials inside the plane for an ascent. a descent, or neither one.... which means it is in level flight.

If there WAS a 'curved atmosphere', with 'curved' pressure gradients, it would not matter to what the plane is doing. A gradient, whether curved or not, is much too vast an area to indicate how a little plane within the area is moving.

It's reality, not fantasy.

Am a Pilot and an Engineer. Just ponder on all my posts and you will understand about the curvature and why the earth isn't flat