Saw a thread about Flat Earth earlier on /pol/
I've been reading through and watching a lot of material related to this topic since then. I have two main questions:
1. Does an aircraft need to continually point downard to follow the curve? if not why?
>Tangential Acceleration, atmosphere curved like the earth, who says they don't adjust altitude.
These are a few of the answers I've found, so what's the truth here?
2. Why does an aircraft flying in opposition to the rotation of the earth not reach its destination faster?
>The Coriolis Effect must be considered by snipers and artillery men, or so I've heard.
Does this affect the aircraft? Is there some competing force?
I'm not a scientist/physicist. I only know what I've been taught about the earth and space, but I have always wondered about air-travel. Especially regarding the Coriolis Effect.
The earth is flat, don't listen to the lizard people at NASA
>>711402308
I'll give a bump
>though I know my thread will receive little to no response..
>>711402308
>>711402527
>useless propaganda
as far as I'm concerned
I'm honestly curious as to the answer to those questions.
>>711402731
OP is always a fag, I know
What is the truth when it comes to aircraft flight? Forget the Flat Earth thing; It's a bit of bait.
>>711402956
bump again
>little to no response, as usual
>>711402308
The plane is moving relative to the earth and so is the atmosphere it's flying through. You would have to leave the earths atmosphere before you could take advantage of its roation to speed travel.
Aircrafts constantly adjust their level of flight to compensate for the curvature of the earth. If you've ever looking into how to pilot a plane or into how auto pilot systems work you'd see that this is all accounted for.
>>711403414
Youre right on the first point but not the second. Airplanes dont actually have to adjust for the curvature of the earth because theyre flying through that same atmosphere which is also curved like the earth. A plane doesnt fly into space for the same reason your car doesnt.
Auto pilot does make adjustments constantly though but its due to changes in atmospheric pressure based on altitude.
>>711402308
I'm not really qualified to answer, but I'll give it a shot.
1. This question sort of implies that if the plane didn't point down it would just fly off into space. Planes can't do that. Really large surfaces that curve appear flat when you're as small as we are. Whatever adjustments a plane would have to make would be gradual and small.
2. Maybe it does? If so, it must be a tiny difference.
3. If something as small as a bullet must be taken into account, then something as large as a plane probably needs to be considered as well.
This is the problem with flat earth though. They don't ever try to prove their own model, they just ask gotcha questions and laugh at you when you can't articulate why you think they're wrong.
>>711403414
I think you have q2 first and then q1
what about the Coriolis Effect?
Any aircraft is capable of overcoming the atmosphere and gravity, that's how it becomes air-borne. Why wouldn't it fly into upper levels of atmosphere and stall?
>store front x3
You're saying auto-pilot corrects for this? So pilots back in the day had to do this manually?
I'll look for this.
>>711403858
Pilots dont do it. That anon was mistaken about what auto pilots actually do. They just maintain a position relative to ground which would only change because of pressure.
As far as the coralis effect im not sure why you would think we would feel its effects in any meaningful way. It doesnt work the way you seem to think it does. Everything is relative to your current position whether youre standing still or moving at a million miles an hour through space.
>>711403858
Your arm is capable of overcoming atmosphere and gravity when it becomes airborne, too.
>>711403847
1. I know planes can't fly into space; they would stall. However, they would have to fly a vertically curved path, right? I think it's supposed to be 8" per mile/squared? Again, I'm not a scientist/physicist/(or)mathematician
2. I think it would be a substantial difference. I'll try to pull-up some numbers.
3. I agree. I think it would need to be taken into account, is it?
I'm not saying flat earth is correct. Only that this one tenet of the argument is of interest to me. I will also admit that it does seem a bit fishy to me.
>>711403858
Planes cant just leave the atmosphere. Its a pretty delicate balance between lift and drag and the higher you go the more thin the atmosphere becomes. Every plane at some point would stall save for ones specificly designes to be able to break the earths atmoaphere. All the plane does is level out at a desire and safe altitude and hokd it steady
>>711404533
They dont have to fly a curved path. The atmosphere is already curved with the earth. They fly a straight path. Start thinking in terms of relative positions and gravitys effects and youll realize that no correction is ever necessary.
>>711404539
so considering the levels of the atmosphere. shouldn't the plane be able to fly to the top of the level of atmosphere it's capable of flying in?
I know that's worded strangely.. let me rephrase
shouldn't the plane be capable of "free" movement in the troposphere or maybe stratosphere? How does speed work into this equation?
Are you saying that the "thinness" of the atmosphere "dips" the plane?
and I realize I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm not trying to play Socrates here..
>>711404782
Like I said: I'm not a scientist/physicist/mathematician.. I'm also a burger, if that helps you understand the perspective I'm approaching this with..
What do you mean by relative positions and gravity's affect?
>>711405425
The higher you travel the less atmosphere surrounds you. The pressure differential on the top and bottom of the wing generates lift. So the less atmosphere you have the smaller the pressure differential and therefor the less lift you can generate to counteract the force of gravity.
Most engines also preform less efficiently at higher altitudes.
>>711405425
Im saying a plane is only capable of fighting gravity, not eliminating its effects all together. The earths gravity is still having a pull effect counter to the planes push effect that allows it to become airborn. The reach an equlibrium at a given altitude based on thrust and the design of the plane itself and then the path the plane travels is "stright" relative to itself and the earth. A godlike observer looking at the plane from outside the earth would see a spinning planet and a plane appearing to travel a curved path. But the plane relative it itself and the earth is flying "stright".
>>711405777
I think I can picture this.
but what about the old war planes that fly way up, until they stall?
I'll admit, I've only ever seen this in movies. Is this a real possibility?
>>711406053
Every plane stalls out because the engine cannot get enough oxygen or because the atmosphere is so thin the wings no longer create enough lift to keep it gaining altitude. Most plans fly at a level well below their limits but alsothin enough to not have to over stress their motors with drag
>>711405982
So the equilibrium is the lesser effect of gravity at a certain altitude and the "thinness" of the atmosphere?
Coupled with the aerodynamics of the plane itself: why some aircraft can fly much higher than others.
so what about the Coriolis Effect?
>store front x2
>>711406053
I would hazard that would just be momentum carrying the plane upwards, especially if its an older model of airplane. I don't know of any plane wing that can generate lift at a 90 degree angle to the upper and lower slope of the wing but I could be wrong.
As an example I can throw a discus 300+ feet away from myself by taking advantage of the lift the disc generates. At the same time there is no way in hell I could throw a disc 300+ feet straight up into the air
>>711406384
this is where I get mixed up..
the aircraft is capable of flying to higher altitude, to the point it stalls. Aircraft stay below this line. But they are kept below this line by an equilibrium?
Is it only possible for an aircraft to reach the stall point if a pilot pulls back on the stick and floors it? Seriously, I know nothing about this
>>711406908
Ah, right!
so the plane which is airborne, essentially because its speed and the air "carrying/holding" it, could not point upwards/90d..
the higher degree it points upward the less lift it has under the wings. so speed would be reduced and quickly it becomes a massive metal rock in the sky.
I can understand this.
but still, what keeps the plane from accidentally flying into this zone? You get to 30k ft and start flying in a straight horizontal line, wouldn't the plane start climbing? 8" per mile/squared, I think.
>>711406661
Gravity keeps everything pretty well stuck down here. The eliquibrium is just that. A comfort zone where the push and pull are equal. Just because you travel forward doesnt mean the effect of gravity is any different it pulls the plane toward it with the same force and the plane pushes against it with the same force.
As far as the corialis effect i know so little about it that im sure im misspelling it. But from what little i know its a relative thing. To experience it like you seem to think we should we would have to have another enormous gravitational pull exacting its force in another direction. Like the effect is always relative to a given position. Whether that position is in motion already is a non-factor because that motion is in the vacuum of space.
>>711407976
Gravity stops the ascent. Remember there is always a pull to counteract the plans push.
>>711407168
Yes the pilot is going to have to aim the plane upward to continue flying toward space.
>>711408000
To put it another way the coriais effect is experienced by an object because of its motion counter to the earth. There is notjing near enough to the earth to exact an opposing force on us so we would experience it. Basicly it require two opposing forces and here on earth we only have the one
>>711408000
Isn't gravity weaker the further you get from earth?
Coriolis Effect: Honestly I don't know much about it either. I was in the service and the snipers on my team told me about it. From my memory: when taking very long shots, not only do you have to consider distance and windage, but also the curve/rotation of the earth.
from wikipedia, for what it's worth
>In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious force)[1] that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame.
>>711407976
Gravity is constant no matter your orientation. Think about it this way. If you have a box and two smaller boxes in it and you drop this larger box out of an airplane from really high up what will happen? INside the two smaller boxes will fall with the larger box, but as the larger box continues to decent the smaller boxes inside will start to fall toward one another. That's because gravity is constant and always pulling you toward the center of the earth.
>>711408110
doesn't gravity's force weaken the further away from earth you get?
I mean, obviously at some point... but within the troposphere and stratosphere.
>>711408761
I can picture this
but it's just a picture in my mind. This doesn't seem to be evidence. Are you saying the effects of gravity are demonstrable on human scale?
I would love an experiment, if possible.
I need to step away for about 10 minutes.
Just letting you all know.
>>711409817
You should check out the PBS space time channel on youtube. They talk about a lot of the stuff you're asking about. Easily one of the best science channels I've watched.
>>711409563
The effect is felt on a body in rotation relative to another body in rotating by that defination you just quoted there. Our relative experience on earth is only one body rotating, the earth. You need to have another body rotating on the earth for the earth own rotation to have that opposing effect on it.
Also as far as your weakened gravity comment, yeah the pull is less but its still a pull. Also look up escape velocity it takes a ton of fucking effort to break the bonds of gravity
>>711402308
>on /pol/
Just stop right there.
Aerospace engineer here:
Couple of clarifying comments:
There are 4 forces on any aircraft. Gravity (down), Lift (up), Thrust (forward), Drag (back).
As long as thrust exceeds drag, the aircraft moves forward. As long as lift exceeds gravity, the plane stays aloft.
To your "flat earth" question - the one vector a pilot can't change is gravity, it is always pointing down. Since the earth is curved, the gravity vector is always pointing to the center of the earth. All the other forces (L,D,T) balance off gravity. A plane "flying in a straight line into space" is actually climbing against gravity. This is the same physics of orbits and how satellites maintain their orbits.
Aircraft stall when the wing exceeds the critical angle of attack, not when engines run out of thrust. At high altitudes an aircraft can lose thrust, which will cause airspeeds to drop, which will cause the angle of attack needed to maintain lift to increase to the point that it stalls, but it is incorrect to say that a plane stalls due to lack of thrust. Case in point - drop the nose below critical angle of attack and the wings will fly fine, you just won't be able to maintain altitude.
>>711410198
I'll take a look, but I doubt they can answer my specific questions. Which is why I'm asking you all instead of potentially researching in the wrong direction.
honestly hoped for pilot or physicist type /b/tard to crack an egg of knowledge all over me and elucidate my fate.
if you catch my drift..
>>711410414
I know /pol/ is filled with tin-foilers, and MAGA faggots, that's why I came to /b/
>the voice of reason
>>711410406
I think wrong post citation
does an aircraft flying/rotating in the opposite direction not count?
I get momentum. You can't jump and the earth turns under you. but doesn't an aircraft work against momentum?
What if this theory is meant to distract you with what the actual plan is? Not that the Earth is flat, but maybe where we are now is the top portion of a layered Earth. Flat Earth could references to the deeper layers that were created. No one is really allowed near Antarctica, which could ask the question what is over there? A hole to the deeper layers?
>>711411496
So gravity is always pushing the plane down, lift is pushing/guiding the plane up.
Still, why doesn't the plane, flying straight, reach the limits of the atmosphere it's capable of maneuvering in, without correction from the pilot? or does the pilot have to correct the course?
Planes fly at 30k. is that the equilibrium?
>>711408723
Yes, but even in space the gravity is something like 90%-95% of what's experienced at surface level.
For OP
This is the gravity bit. The plane is constantly being pulled down because as they go around the globe the direction of gravity changes. It's not just a constant downward pull, it pulls you towards the center of the Earth.
The reason you dont travel faster in a plane going the opposite direction of the way the Earth spins is because you're spinning with the Earth. It's the same reason astronauts don't get stuck to the edge of the ISS at all times even though it's orbiting the planet faster than a bullet, they're moving the same speed as the ship.
Maybe this will help: https://youtu.be/H4QVpEyDqMY
>>711412097
John Kerry is allowed there!
Imagine Kerry getting all suited up to launch weather balloons. Fantastic.
I'm sorry people, I just can't wrap my head around all of this. I can picture most/some of it, but I still don't understand.
Maybe I'm too stupid. Like I said, I'm burger and they don't like teaching that complicated shit here. I remember asking how they shoot particles and record their mass in chemistry (in college) and another student yelled out "google it." Afterwards we counted beans in lab.
All I know, is I don't know anymore..
>>711413134
>90%-95% of what's experienced at surface level.
so the ISS, how does that overcome gravity? I imagine it's through the speed it travels around the earth.
Can anyone explain the relationship between gravity's pull on the ISS and the speed it maintains in order to overcome gravity?
I'm interested in seeing equations (though I won't understand them, mostly).
I'd search myself, but I don't know what to look up.
>>711402308
You do know that aircraft have engines, that provide thrust moving it forward
So no, the Coriolis effect has no bearing
>>711414401
The ISS is in the planets orbit, I'm not entirely sure but I think you've got it. It's like how a ball on the end of a string will lift up and go outwards when you spin it around your head rather than just fall back down to Earth. All speculation but makes sense to me
>>711413785
the plane is overcoming gravity, it's a plane!
if it flies in a straight path, wouldn't gravity have to overcome the path of the plane? Essentially, becoming stronger as the plane reaches the limit of its path?
Keep in mind about 30k is where planes normally fly. You say gravity keeps them there, but the has already overcome gravity and can move up or down as the pilot decides.
gravity pulls it toward the center, but the plane can overcome gravity. There is an equilibrium, but the plane is kept under the limit of this equilibrium.
This is my thought process.
>store x3
>>711403792
This is the brainwashing of the education system: "A plane doesnt fly into space for the same reason your car doesnt." Geez.
>>711414767
makes me think of the ant on a vinyl record. the ant has to move faster the further away it gets from the center.
maybe not what you meant, just what I thought of.
What I said, tho, is wrong. apparently the ISS orbits earth like 16 times an earth day.
To apply ant anology, the ant would be running around the record, in mid-air (vacuum), 16 times per revolution of the record.
The ant is fast as fuck, but I guess being outside the spinning vinyl, it avoids most of gravity and its forces.
>store
A plane doesn't have to make adjustments because height is measured by a pitot-static system which measures ram air and static pressure and tells you your height. Atmospheric pressure (which is effected primarily by air density) is relatively constant at a specific heights above sea level.
t. pilotfag
>>711416709
What if a plane didn't have any of that? Would you fly into space if you didn't adjust?
>>711416066
Gravity. Gravity is the reason. Over simplification of not that anon is still right. Gravity keeps shit from soaring into space
>>711416709
as for your other question, you're not able to see it but air is a gas and has mass. The atmosphere around you is spinning with the rotation of the earth. A plane flying at a low altitude (high density of air particles) can't take advantage of the spin. Does the earth spin rapidly beneath your feet if you jump in the air? No. Same concept for planes.
>>711416916
>What if a plane didn't have any of that? Would you fly into space if you didn't adjust?
well no. A plane is in level flight if all motions are equal. This means thrust equals drag and lift equals weight. The amount of lift you are producing depends on the design of the wing, the angle of attack, and the amount of particles flowing over and under the wing. At a constant air pressure you will maintain level flight (constant altitude) without having to fight the controls.
>>711416066
The plane/car comparison is a useless one. I missed it on my first read. thanks.
And I still don't understand. Hypothetical based as best I can on realism:
>A commercial plane can fly between 10k and 40k ft.
>The pilot chooses to fly at 30k
>The plane has already overcome gravity and is moving along quite nicely, in a straight line.
>As it approaches the "Event Horizon," let's call it, what happens?
>The plane continues to fly "straight."
>The gravity it has previously overcome provides less downward influence (negligible).
>The atmosphere provides more downward influence as it climbs higher (thinner air creates aerodynamic problems)
>There is a sweet-spot
>But the plane is flying at 30k and is capable of flying at 40k.
What keeps it at 30k?
You say gravity, but if the plane can overcome gravity by flying in the first place, how does gravity keep the plane from flying to higher altitudes?
i think this sums the first question up nicely. If i made a mistake, please let me know
>>711416916
to add to my other response, think about it this way. As you go further above sea level, the amount of particles in the air decreases. A planes wing produces more lift when there are more air particles flowing around the wing. A plane wont just fly off into space because it will be producing less lift if it keeps climbing.
>>711417081
"Gravity keeps shit from soaring into space." The brainwashing is complete. Gravity does not exist. Density does. Think this through.
>>711402308
1. No. An airplane never has to point downward following any curve, mainly because there is no fucking curve.
2. Because the earth is stationary. Beautifully, flat, stationary and mysterious, in an electrical manner, because earth and us living beings seem to revolve around electricity.
>>711416275
useless to the conversation, but I remember using a very similar picture during a health class.
The project was on drugs. Everyone picked heroin, cocaine, MJ.. I chose aspirin..
It was a picture of a scientist, just like this, but he was holding up the molecule structure of aspirin. I captioned it with "shove this up your ass, bitch!" during the suppository section of my presentation.
>>711416916
Flat earth is a way to discredit all conspiracies by association. Please if you are intelligent ignore it and look into the real coverups like Sept 11 sandy hook port author etc. there are so many obvious plots and false flags. No need for bs ones
>>711417379
read this post >>711417496
The plane is able to measure its altitude above sea level by measuring air pressure. At a specific altitude in a specific area, the air pressure is constant. If the planes control surfaces are trimmed to capture the same amount of lift without showing an increase or decrease in altitude, the plane will flight at a level height with ease.
>>711417379
Check out this 11 minute video which will answer your questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsSbN0MmIec
>>711417648
Not thread OP but I dont believe in flat earth or most other conspiracy theories. I was just wondering why planes always stay level without having to adjust. Thanks to >>711417496
for explaining
>>711402308
Don't forget to account for gravity, lift from the plane's wings and that the atmosphere is also a sphere, getting thinner the further away from earth you get.
There's a happy medium between lift generated upwards vs gravitational acceleration downwards.
>>711413051
gravity pulling the plane down a half mile every 60 seconds.....bullshit
>>711417081
>>711417539
This is where my mind went. I don't know about gravity.. It seems like an unnecessary addition to the equation..
Isn't density more relevant?
How does the density of a helium balloon affected by gravity? are there any helium ballons in zero g?
I'll look it up
>>711417379
f the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles circumference curveting 8 inches per mile squared, a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute!
>>711418344
gravity is made up . you know there no machine or experiment that can detect it
the toothfairy is more believable
>>711418344
when the amount of lift you are producing equals the gravitational force being exerted on the plane, it is in level flight. Gravity is always relevant just try not to get it confused with density. Density only has an impact on lift as it varies directly with the amount of lift you are able to produce and varies inversely with altitude.
>>711417925
Planes stay level bc they are within earths atmosphere. Most conspiracies m are not off by much. They are regarded as bunk by their nature of being conspiracy theories but look past the label and actually research and it's pretty obvious that there is some crazy truths in plain site
>>711417588
this. finally some common sense.
>>711418560
>gravity is made up . you know there no machine or experiment that can detect it
the toothfairy is more believable
I almost feel bad for how excruciatingly dumb you are.
5/10 I'm raging inside. Nice bait m8
>>711418702
this is how you felt when you found out santa wasn't real
>you do know Santa isn't real?
>>711418702
"How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? "
>>711417539
Yup. Gravity is a big one in the freemasonic world; a massive part of the deception to make people believe in the ball earth. If you think about it, their answer to everything is fucking gravity.
Why is the earth round?
Why does it spin?
Why do the sun and moon move in the sky?
Why do tides happen?
Why doesn't the water fall off from the oceans around the earth?
bblah blah blah
I'm still to see an experiment proving that water can cling to a ball because of gravity. I'm still to see real evidence of black holes. I'm still to see evidence of what the "nucleus of the ball earth" looks like. I'm still to see experiements proving that you can move across the south or north pole and reach the other pole if you walk in the same direction.
So many questions, and they only give us bullshit answers backed up by beautiful and ugly equations.
>>711418410
>>711418875
OP don't listen to this asshole. Dude literally has 0 idea what he is talking about. God damn people are so fucking dumb. I want to believe people aren't this stupid.
I am a career pilot. You don't know what you're talking about.
The earth is flat and gravity isn't what you guys think. It's obvious if you actually did any research
Video to explain: https://youtu.be/gg5zwS3f5iI
>>711418977
This response and questions are spot on. Good to see this type of analytical thinking and not spewing the same crap of the brainwashed.
>>711418924
Are you serious? When water pools it is heavier than air and thus sinks. Thats why we have oceans. In vapor form it is light and can easily be kept aloft. Larger objects attract smaller objects to them. This is why we don't fly off into space. Life has evolved on this planet in conjunction with a constant amount of gravity. I'd imagine that if you took a fly from earth and put it on a much larger planet with the same atmospheric concentration, it would have a much harder time flying.
>>711418988
truth hurts the closed mind. resort to cursing and calling people names.
>>711418989
This.
>>711417648
>>711417881
Please don't derail.
The flat earth image was a bit of bait, as this question often comes up in those "theories." Honestly want to understand the science here..
>>711417588
This does explain the particular issue I'm asking about. I mean, it's very easy for me to understand. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.
>>711417496
but there is a buffer zone. I mean, commercial planes fly at an altitude lower than what they are capable of. What keeps the plane from climbing at least to the limit of the plane's capability?
I've heard gravity, but the plane defies gravity. Now someone said air-pressure plays a role?
>>711417816
>>711418058
Hey, I'm just trying to get what everyone else is telling me straight.
Flat-earth threads are normally filled with so much garbage, you can't keep your head on.
>>711419353
is there a machine that can detect....gravity?
>>711419353
Every sentence written here is incorrect. But this forum will change years of indoctrination.
>>711419476
waaaaa you hurt my feelings so you must just be lashing out in anger because you're wrong waaaa
This is not an argument.
Science has proven the earth is a sphere. If you want to say otherwise, it is you who has the burden of proof. If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that the earth is flat, that there is no space and that there is a definite edge, why don't you go out and fucking prove it? Be the first person to come up with a picture of the edge. Be the first person to come up with a video of a high altitude baloon crashing into the dome ceiling or whatever it is you wackjobs believe is out there. You'd be famous. Fucking do it already instead of sitting here and complaining.
>>711419695
It's called a ball in a cup
>>711419750
wait I missed it , please prove how it's a spinning sphere
>>711419750
>science has proven
science can't _prove_ anything, this is 6th grade shit, anon
>>711402308
Flat earth is the dumbest meme of all
Just stop guys seriously youre taking it too far
>>711419895
so there is no machine that can detect gravity....how do we know it;s real?!
As a physics major I refuse to believe this isnt trolling
>>711419620
im the guy who was talking about air pressure. Yes air pressure plays a role. Like I've said in other posts, if you maintain a constant air pressure while flying by trimming your flight controls a certain way, you will track a level altitude. Air density decreases as altitude increases. Wings produce lift based primarily on the amount of air particles flowing around the wing. You won't just fly up to the planes maximum ceiling if you just track a constant altitude (which is really easy all you have to do is trim it once your power level is set and you never have to touch the controls until you want to change something).
>>711419924
Go fuck yourself retard. Im willing to bet that you won't bother to read any of this because your idiot little mind is already made up. Im done responding to you flat earth people.
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
There is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory
>>711418410
>>711418560
I understand this perspective. Simply stated: the earth is flat.
>>711418924
>under-side
Obviously, being alive now, you know how the globe model is supposed to work, even if you believe in flat earth.
Making arguments like this doesn't help your cause.
>>711419083
please don't derail for no reason (you)
>>711419353
Don't feed the trolls.. I think..
tho this did make me think. How big and how small does an object need to be to observe gravity? Is it possible to observe on earth?
All objects are supposed to experience this at some level.
>>711418988
>ad hom and appeal to authority
I'm actually going to meet with a pilot during thanksgiving. I plan on asking him these same questions. Now I have a better understanding of the argument and I will look into the things you all have told me.
>fucking store, everytime
>>711420337
No no! I asked if you can explain how we know we're on a spinning sphere .
>>711420775
There are a ton of ways to scientifically explain it but heres a really simple one for idiots such as yourself to wrap your tiny brain around.
So you can observe a sun set and a sunrise right? We can prove that when it is dark somewhere, it is light somewhere else at the same time yes? Well how is this possible? If the earth is flat the sun would never set. Attached is a diagram of a spotlight in a dark room. If you are standing on a flat surface with a light shining down, you can see the light even if you are not within its beam. The earth is definitely a sphere because when it gets dark outside, you can no longer see the sun. This occurs when the earth rotates and the sun's rays dip below the horizon and out of our field of view.
Like I said, this is only one small way to know the earth is a sphere. There are many others that I could explain to you but like I said before, you'll likely just write it off as some conspiracy theory and completely ignore whatever I have to say. Im wasting my time here.
>>711419706
interested in what you mean.
>inb4 larp
>also fear of derailment
>>711419750
>who has the burden of proof
This is an excellent question.
>>711420173
>is there a machine that can detect gravity
Another interesting question.
I keep saying it: I'm no scientist, but doesn't any scientific theory need a false condition?
What is the false condition for gravity?
>>711420230
As someone who has never taken a physics class in my life, I find your inability to contribute asinine.
>>711420337
Explain "trimming your flight controls" please. Also "track a level of altitude"
>You won't just fly up to the planes maximum ceiling if you just track a constant altitude
To me this sounds like you have to adjust the altitude, for one reason or another.
I'll check out your link, as well
>hey! patio!
>>711421316
i've been researching flat earth for awhile and ive never seen anyone answer this. What are these people ignoring it?
Gravitational pull: strong enuf to move oceans but effect nothing else.
>>711421316
you're forgetting perspective, dude, on a flat surface the sun DOES set due to distance.
>>711422644
the why does the sun disappear from the bottom up instead of justbecoming smaller?
>>711421316
>>711422241
>>711404328
>>711404433
>>711403858
>>711404533
>>711405651
>>711405777
>>711405982
>>711406053
>>711418594
>>711418645
>>711418691
>>711418702
tell me how there are seasons if the suns rays are on half of the hemisphere of the globe? Why is the tropics particularly heated more compared to the northern and southern parts if the suns rays are equally distributed on half?
Why is Antarctica so much different than the north in terms of having virtually no seasons, hardly any diversity of life, and plants compared to the arctic regions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOgXN8qRUQI
>>711422644
no you're forgetting perspective. If you don't believe me, go get a flash light and shine it on a tennis ball in a dark room. Rotate the tennis ball and keep the light stationary. Now imagine you are a spec on the surface of the tennis ball. How would the light look from that spec? Is there any chance it the flashlight would behave just like our sun from that perspective on the ball? Earth is a sphere. If it was flat, you'd see the light far off but it would still be dark. There would be no sunset.
>>711422241
thats because the only answer to that question is the Earth is a sphere.
>>711422239
Trimming allows you to take pressure off flight controls to maintain level flight. The elevator controls your up and down movement in flight. If your trim is set for take off and you never adjust it, you'll be having to hold a constant pressure back on the flight controls to keep your altitude. By adjusting that little tab (pictured), you can release pressure on the flight controls. I promise you, once the plane is set for a specific altitude, it will hold that altitude. Altitude is based on air pressure. At a constant altitude you have constant air pressure. If a control surface is trimmed to fly in a specific air pressure, it will continue to produce the required lift to fly at that altitude indefinitely (assuming your power level remains constant).
>>711422994
>you'd see the light far off but it would still be dark. There would be no sunset.
if you see a street lamp on the horizon on a flat road, it would appear close to the ground and only light up a radius of the surrounding area and not the whole road. The sun is the same way on a non globe earth.
>>711402308
i have not the science for the first question, but as to the second one have you ever thrown something in a car? why did it not hit you in the face or go much faster than intended?
>>711421316
This is accounted for by flat earth. It's a different paradigm I don't know if it's sufficient or not. That would be up to you.
Not advocating, but knowing the "enemy," is always relevant. but beware, "when you stare into the abyss, it stares back into you." Hence me making this thread..
>>711421940
>saved
do you feel superior now?
Anon, diving deep into my psyche. Drawing conclusions based on what?
Tell me what you really mean, or get the fuck out.
>store
>>711422769
because of the false horizon, it's tthere because of the distance since your eye can only see so far, plus the air isnnt 100% invisible.
ps; the sun does shrink as it sets, but it's more noticable in dry areas
>>711422941
>tell me how there are seasons if the suns rays are on half of the hemisphere of the globe?
the suns rays still reach the hemisphere which is furthest from the sun. Its just that the periods of day light are shorter and the rays are less intense. Tell me how seasons would happen on a flat earth??
>Why is the tropics particularly heated more compared to the northern and southern parts if the suns rays are equally distributed on half?
Because the rays are not equally distributed. The sun has a zenith angle of 0 only between 23.5 degrees north and 23.5 degrees south (because of axial tilt). This means that these regions in between receive more sunlight year round (i.e. their day light is much longer than regions farther north and farther south of the equator).
>>711423303
how is this accounted for by the flat earth? I really don't follow
>>711423178
>The sun is the same way on a non globe earth.
We'll its not. The sun rises and sets. Thats how we know its a sphere. If it was like the lamp post you described, we'd know the earth was flat.
>>711402748
The plane gotta tip up to fight gravity. If the earth was flat, then Gravity would differ firmly from places to places and being 'over the center' would make it strenuous to walk away or jump.
For the rotation of the earth, I have no idea, so Im not gonna say anything.
>>711422941
>suns rays are equally distributed on half?
They're not equally distributed by half. Earth is so large the curvature of the planet prevents the same amount of light to direct hit in the equator region to reach. The equator is warmer because it stays closer to a direct line to the sun than anywhere else. this is basic geometry. You can prove this with a ball and flashlight.
>>711422644
Negative. You don't know how the eye works, apparently. The higher the eye, the further you see. We're close to the ground, so it's fucking obvious that if the sun or moon get too far away, we won't fucking see it even if we're on a flat surface (which we are on).
The eye has a limit. We can't see forever in the distance. Our persepctive makes the sun looks like it's going down, but it's just following a path across the sky, but our eyes can percieve it as if it was sinking behind a horizon. Just like a row of street lamps don't get shorter in the distance the further away they are; they're the same height but perspective makes them appear shorter. It's the same with the sun; it's not sinking, it's simply further away from you.
>>711422769
if you put it that way you assume that you can see curvature at eye level which is an impossibility even from mountain height.
Plane surveying treats 100 miles as flat. Can you see 100 miles in front of you? No you cannot. Assuming things go over the curvature at ground level is nonsense.
If you witness a sun going past the horizon, depending on your surroundings (trees, hills, mountains), topology obscures the solar rays thus creating a "sun setting".
>>711423435
can you prove any of those statements? im gonna look them up on my own but if have your own sources id like to see them
fuck i just realized I didn't post the picture of the elevator trim tabs.
for the guy who was asking about trim, this is how you maintain level flight in a plane without touching the controls. No it does not change your altitude constantly, it just allows you to hold it.
>>711422994
>Negative. You don't know how the eye works, apparently. The higher the eye, the further you see. We're close to the ground, so it's fucking obvious that if the sun or moon get too far away, we won't fucking see it even if we're on a flat surface (which we are on).
>The eye has a limit. We can't see forever in the distance. Our persepctive makes the sun looks like it's going down, but it's just following a path across the sky, but our eyes can percieve it as if it was sinking behind a horizon. Just like a row of street lamps don't get shorter in the distance the further away they are; they're the same height but perspective makes them appear shorter. It's the same with the sun; it's not sinking, it's simply further away from you.
>>711423829
Good luck trying to use logic to explain anything to these people. Glad to see Im not the only one in here with common sense.
>>711422994
what I don't understand is the back and forth between earth experiments that prove cosmic principles. and cosmic principles that can't be proven because not big enough scope.
but that's just an aside..
I'm still not sure what trimming is. I imagine it's moving the flaps on the wings of a plane (I don't know why/picture not attached).
>Altitude is based on air pressure. At a constant altitude you have constant air pressure.
So what about gravity? And does air pressure become less at higher altitudes?
>>711423965
If it was following a path in the sky it would shrink as it gets further and get larger is it gets closer. it does not do this. The variance in size of the sun can be explained by the magnification of atmospheric particles (more atmospheric particles means more magnification). In fact, when the sun is highest in the sky (directly overhead) it appears the smallest and when it is setting (directly horizontal) it appears the largest. If the earth was flat this would be the opposite.
>>711423894
it' better if you prove them on your own, honestly. I can give you the footage I've recorded, the videos I've seen online, or give you evidence, but then you wouldn't be practicing science, you'd just be following my words like a fucking religion.
record the sun in diffferent areas. Dry areas, humid areas, hot and cold areas. You'll see a small size difference, it' small but it's there.
And you can easily prove that the false horizon exists. Just go to see with binoculars and a telescope. You can experiement looking at boats and ships sailing over the water and you'll be aamazed at the stuff you discover.
>>711423829
>Earth is so large the curvature of the planet prevents the same amount of light to direct hit in the equator region to reach.
this is certified as an uneducated conjecture.
light, and therefore radiation, from the sun hits the earth uniformly. Its mass is told to be many times more than its surrounding orbiting "bodies" as according to the theory of gravity.
Its rays are brilliant and powerful and the earth, as we are told, is small and nothing but a spec in the grand of things. Light reaching earth is engulfed against the blackness of space. You take a radiator of heat and place an orange near it, it will heat up and not have some parts cold and some parts hot.
>>711424313
air pressure becomes less the higher you go because there is less gravity attracting particles to the earth. Air pressure varies directly with air density so yeah, as you go further up the lower the air pressure. As for trimming see >>711423904
I forgot to attach the pic like a tard.
That big blue horizontal surface is the elevator. By adjusting the trim tab, you can add or reduce lift created by the elevator. Basically it allows you to maintain lift while releasing the controls. That trim tab surface may look small compared to the rest of the elevator, but it definitely has an effect when you adjust it.
>>711424329
Dude, you're forgetting perspective. The sun isn't a fucking marble. It's big; not as big as they tell us, but it's still big. And even if it's so far away, we won't be able to see a huge size difference because of our eyes; our eyes only see as far as our horizon, or vanishing point. There is a size difference, it's very small, but it's there, and it's more noticable in dry areas, like deserts where the air isn't filled with a lot of water particles.
>>711402308
I feel like Buzz Aldrin should get to pistolwhip every last one of you flat earthers into a coma.
>>711424724
You think Aldrin went to the moon? Are you really that gullible? I bet you also beleive they have robots on so-called planet mars.
>>711424724
theyre fucking lieing. you can tell with the behavior during the interviews. Cognitive dissonance when it comes to events like this to many Americans, especially whites, because they are fed a whitewashed history. Blind patriotism hides the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhzRY6UuVA
>>711423303
We need to look ok at the evil. Teach kids about the horrors and evils of the ruling class and only then can we progress as a society.
Only showing happy lies endures the corruption will not be looked at.
Read that book. Seriously, do it. It highlights truths about human nature, control and motives that most people will refuse to face. More important than any one event is to see the overall picture. The story of our country is a tribute to that picture. That temptation of man towards evil is a constant human tendency, exploited by the rich and powerful. We need to identify the real issue before we can end mass corruption of the ruling class. As a society, We refuse to look at it, we haven't addressed it, and so, instead it is encouraged in society. The disgusting truth needs to be looked at. The rapes, the murders, the genocide, the gore and the stories of unimaginable pain and suffering. The greatest offenders of human kind, the most vile of all human beings in this country's history are the ones all children are taught to idolize from youth. We sit by and let the most famously evil of all humanbeings be unjustly praised and lies are fed to children and carried on for CENTURIES and those who want to show the teal truth are shunned, ridiculed and exiled. "Why would you tell someone that!?" "Why would you choose to look at that!?" Because the alternative is to raise generation after generation of ignorant masses being plagued by war, diseases, slavery and torture all for the benefit of an elite group of immensely powerful psychopaths.
>>711424710
>>711424710
why is there no shrinkage. Why does it suddenly go from massive orb on the horizon to absolutely nothing there? And it doesn't just disappear. You can watch it slip below the horizon and it creates a half circle as it does this. Are you trying to tell me that I am watching the sun go past the "vanishing point" which is the maximum distance my eyes can see? That doesn't make ANY fucking sense. When you throw a football it becomes smaller as it gets far away. THAT is perspective. The sun is so fucking massive and so far away, that it never changes size as it goes across our field of view. It doesn't shrink. Are you saying that physics don't apply to the massive light in the sky?
The only people dumber than Hillary supporters are flat earthers
>>711425154
heres what helps explain it better than anyone right now.
skip to 2:08 or start from the beginning for the intro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDaiw-G1VGE
>>711424053
I'm high as hell. At first I thought he was a really curious anon. I thought I was being helpful.
>>711424606
No man, stop and really think about this. You place a little needle on a ball and shine a light directly on that ball. Now you take the needle and move it one inch "up" or down the ball. Now no matter what the angle a part of that ball "below" would obscure a portion of the "sky" that you normally would be able to see if you were still an inch lower.
Again this is just basic shit. You can literally prove this is true with a basketball and a flashlight.
>>711425411
I'd watch your 20 minute video but its 3am and I need sleep. For now I'd just like to respectfully say that I disagree with you.
How do the Flat Earth crazies explain things like the magnetic field, why shooting stars (the visible path of a meteoroid burning up in the atmosphere) comes in at an angle and not straight down or why earth is flat while every other celestial body is round.
And what does the backside of the earth look like if it's flat? Is it a cylinder since gravity is the same strength everywhere? How did earth form into being flat and not round? What is there at the edge of earth and what happens if you jump off it?
>>711423713
Not discounting any opinions: If gravity is such a strong force, why don't pilots have to tip up?
Interesting question.
I guess humans were destined to fly. Don't have to tip up, don't have to tip down, everything's just right at 30k ft..
>>711423688
Well, flat earth claims the sun is essentially a lamp shade, pointing at specific points on earth.
It orbits around the north pole, the moon opposite to it.
like I said, you gotta know your "enemy."
Both sides come up with tricky shit, especially when you're like me and don't have the extensive knowledge to refute one side or the other.
Literally why I'm here.. I read this, I read that. Both can be valid if you move the paradigm.
That's why I have no fucking idea and am asking /b/ of all places to guide me to the truth. HA
>>711423829
again prove massive happenings on earth, but can't prove others because too massive.
>>711423866
Now we're getting into railroads.. didn't want to intermingle these, but opportunity knocks. What do you guys and gals know about railroads?
>>711423904
so I look at this and think about my arm out the car window. If I hold my arm/hand like your pic related, it's gonna fly up. If my hand was attached by paper chain, it would keep moving up and up and up. what would keep it from flying up, given unlimited chain?
>slightly unrelated question, i think, but interesting nonetheless.
>>711423688
This is part of the argument against sun orbit around earth.
>know "enemy"
>>711423965
>>711424053
and for the fuck of it.
You just contributed nothing. seriously, get the fuck out
>>711425532
>You place a little needle on a ball and shine a light directly on that ball.
your doing what erotethenies assumed for curvature which can be explained with a local spot light on a flat table.
the only problem is that hot spots are shown with weather balloon footage.This suggests that the sun is local source of light and not 93 million miles away.
>>711425484
>>711425354
>>711425269
>>711425069
>>711421940
>>711418691
>>711418594
>>711418012
>>711417881
>>711417648
The flat earth movement is designed to use this open minded rational thinking in an irrational way to distract and defame anyone who understands the over arching ploy to enslave the masses. De was created to destroy the initial attraction to researching outside of general perception
>>711402308
it is flat ! NASA is a 54milion dollar a day lie
>>711425154
You apparently don't understand perspective. You can't see past what theyve taught you already. You're blinding yourself. Let me explain:
Your eye sees a football shrink as it flies away, right? Why? because it's going further away. Eventually it will get so far away that your eye won't even detect it. But what happens when you grab a telescope and look at the same football traveling away? voila! It never disappeared, it just got further away, but your eyes didn't percieve it because perspective was hiding it from you.
The same applies to the sun. The sun goes so far away that it eventually disappears from your perception. But since it's way bigger than a football, it doesn't shrink until it disappears; it seems to be "sinking" instead. But it's not sinking; you see the bottom being "eaten" by the horizon until you see half sun, then no sun at all, but the truth is that it's simply slipping beyond your field of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLV3QnMYjZc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdFA5mUmvWc
>>711425753
>How do the Flat Earth crazies explain things like the magnetic field
magnetic center, north pole in the middle. otherwise all compasses would not just point north and spin in all directions if the earth were a globe and the magnetic core is at the center of it.
>why shooting stars (the visible path of a meteoroid burning up in the atmosphere) comes in at an angle and not straight down or why earth is flat while every other celestial body is round.
why are shooting stars never seen going up from the horizon?
>why earth is flat while every other celestial body is round.
if i see a tree, am i a tree?
>And what does the backside of the earth look like if it's flat?
flat earth means flat plane with topology and levels. not necessarily a dish. It has depth as far as we know scientifically to be more than 12,000km.
>How did earth form into being flat and not round?
it was never a globe in the first place
>What is there at the edge of earth and what happens if you jump off it?
just fucking look it up. heres a source to start with.
fun to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDddDjrsN6s
eric dubay has information on alot of it.
>>711426109
Dude come the fuck on. You cannot even explain the different seasons with your flat earth model. if you point a direct beam on a flat surface and make circles then you couldn't generate different seasons at different ends of the hemisphere because everything is getting the same exact level of sun light. Holy fuck.
If you took a ball and placed it next to a heat source and then measured the surface temp of the ball you would see exactly what you see with the earth and the sun, a distribution pattern that has the highest concentration of light or heat in a straight line from either object.
>>711425411
several of those videos show the sun vanishing from top to bottom even when the viewer is high up, the one in dubai at the beginning is the best example.
>>711425411
several of those videos show the sun vanishing from top to bottom even when the viewer is high up, the one in dubai abut a quarter in is the best example.
>>711426418
The earth is so small compared to the sun and the distance between the two are so large that what you are saying is impossible. The sun is 1,300,000 times larger than earth.
>>711425069
>>711425269
>>711425354
Drop your egg of knowledge, or get the fuck out. You Massive (larping) Faggot.
>>711426904
>You cannot even explain the different seasons with your flat earth model.
look into it. heres a briefing. but there is more to it.
but disregard the naive flat earth belief that the ground is moving up to accommodate the explanation of gravity. The earth is stationary and gravity is a concept to explain why things go up or down just like evolution is a concept to explain why dna and or your skin cells works the way it does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzRnFmgOrf8
For the earth to be flat,every single pilot ever would have to be in on the conspiracy. Do you think every pilot ever is conspiring to make us believe the world is round when it isn't?
Reference: great circle. If you don't know what that is then look it up.
Ok, there's a few reasons this doesn't happen:
1. Gravity:
Just like when you spin a bucket of water round your head, the centrifugal force keeps the water in it's trajectory and it doesn't fall out.
A plane's velocity works the same way. at the right speed an object continues along an orbital path (circular) without the need to introduce any circular momentum.
You can play around with this by swinging your headphones around (note that the smaller the circle you make the more revolutions it needs to make in order to keep itself from falling out of it's orbital trajectory. This is a good example of why vessels in geosynchronous orbits are at a higher altitude than low earth orbital vessels which orbit the earth a lot quicker. Not faster. They just have a lot less distance to travel to complete an orbit.)
to summarize: the earth's centre of mass acts as an anchor around which vessels orbit. just as your headphone can't rip off the cable and smash into the wall without huge amounts of force a plane can't escape the earth's gravity.
Just so we're clear on this point: Plane's don't have to adjust their attitude because gravity does it for them. They always fly perpendicular to the gravitational pull of the earth except when climbing or descending.
Throw a goddamn dart in the air. Did it travel straight, stop and then fall back to the earth straight down? Or did it curve?
Rocket's actually make use of this frequently as it allows them to automatically bring their trajectory down towards an orbital path without wasting fuel or velocity on attitude adjustments.
(this only works in atmosphere) in space you continue pointing the same direction as there's no drag. Gravity keeps you tethered to your orbital path and your altitude stays the same forever.
If the world is flat please explain the green flash phenomena of sunrises/sunsets over the ocean.
>>711402308
I think that a plane doesn't fuck off into space is because as it travels it keeps its altitude constant-ish which would mean that it is maintained an equilibrium with gravity and lift. Like, imagine a compass (the drawing tool) and that the plane is the point the pencil is drawing. The compass expanding would be lift and the retracting would be gravity. The plane strikes a middle ground once it reaches its desired height. Gravity and lift keeps it spinning around the earth like a compass spins around the middle point.
>>711427219
>For the earth to be flat,every single pilot ever would have to be in on the conspiracy.
This is false.
most commercial pilots are drunks and everything is on auto except for landing. They have lives to live in mediocrity and are sold a lie that the earth is round since birth. They have patriotism and are fed a whitewashed history and most don't even crave a worldly sense of education and just fuck off the rest. OF course you tell them the earth is flat and they will scoff. but you ask them if they account for curvature and they usually would respond with "we just let the thing go on auto pilot until landing".
Another note: You see recalls of pharmacutical products all the time and the FDA has been known to get bought off. There is always local police corruption and on a grand scale, big time fraud. What makes you think academics, especially state funded projects, remains untouched and clean?
Ok, there's a few reasons this doesn't happen:
1. Gravity:
Just like when you spin a bucket of water round your head, the centrifugal force keeps the water in it's trajectory and it doesn't fall out.
A plane's velocity works the same way. at the right speed an object continues along an orbital path (circular) without the need to introduce any circular momentum.
You can play around with this by swinging your headphones around (note that the smaller the circle you make the more revolutions it needs to make in order to keep itself from falling out of it's orbital trajectory. This is a good example of why vessels in geosynchronous orbits are at a higher altitude than low earth orbital vessels which orbit the earth a lot quicker. Not faster. They just have a lot less distance to travel to complete an orbit.)
to summarize: the earth's centre of mass acts as an anchor around which vessels orbit. just as your headphone can't rip off the cable and smash into the wall without huge amounts of force a plane can't escape the earth's gravity.
Just so we're clear on this point: Plane's don't have to adjust their attitude because gravity does it for them. They always fly perpendicular to the gravitational pull of the earth except when climbing or descending.
Throw a goddamn dart in the air. Did it travel straight, stop and then fall back to the earth straight down? Or did it curve?
Rocket's actually make use of this frequently as it allows them to automatically bring their trajectory down towards an orbital path without wasting fuel or velocity on attitude adjustments.
(this only works in atmosphere) in space you continue pointing the same direction as there's no drag. Gravity keeps you tethered to your orbital path and your altitude stays the same forever.
>>711427761
your post can be debunked as follows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIvgHNkEXas
>>711416916
Fucks sake. Watch an Apollo or shuttle launch. If aircraft would just fly into space if the pilot didn't correct the altitude several times a minute why would we need immensely powerful rockets
