- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
t8, your answer doesn’t seem logical. Here’s why:
If you were to drop a ball in your lounge it would be reasonable to assume that the ball was a tennis ball. I could have picked a larger one like a basketball but let’s give you all the benefit of the doubt.
The ball would be dropped from a distance of about 4 to 5 feet (normal human height at arms length). The distance it would travel is exactly the same 4 to 5 feet to the floor. The diameter of the tennis ball is 2.7”. That equates to the 2.7” ball traveling a total of 60” (5×12=60)
60” divided by 2.7” is 22.2
A standard plane is approximately 155 feet long and can travel 2,900 miles or 15,312,000 feet.
15,312,000’ divided by 155’ is 98,787!
Can you see the difference? If not let me break it down for you. And please use your own brain, your God given brain and not someone else’s agenda.
The curve calculator that your team uses to calculate the circumference of the earth says that the curve drops at 8” per miles squared. The drop of a distance of 2,900 miles is 4,362,472 feet or a little over 826 miles!
Now using your own brain, would a drop of over 826 miles need consideration?
This does not even take into account a rocket leaving the earth’s orbit (allegedly) and some of the official papers deal with this scenario. What say you?
Okay, I will reply to your request. But I expect that you will answer the question I have asked as it is your turn to answer.
D4T: t8, your answer doesn’t seem logical. Here’s why…
For one, his source is talking about the aerodynamics of the aircraft itself – and has nothing at all to do with your point that pilots have ALWAYS (and still to this very day) trained under the assumption that the earth is flat and stationary. No aircraft is large enough to have the rotundity of the earth play any part in it’s DESIGN. But flying any aircraft – even a few hundred miles – will most definitely require taking the constant “curving away” of the earth into account. Knowing this, it is preposterous to think that ALL pilots are trained without any regard to the “fact” that they’d be heading out to “outer space” in only a few minutes if they didn’t keep adjusting for the ball they’re flying over.
So great point, D! Every pilot manual in the world (as the ones in the vid you linked) assumes a FLAT and STATIONARY earth. 😎
Another point debunked
It’s like driving on a flat straight road. You make fine adjustments here and there to stay on track. You don’t let go of the wheel and fall asleep because you will go off track. Aircraft’s make these fine adjustments too. If you are flying it manually, then instruments will tell you how to adjust the aircraft and result in this adjustment for earth curvature for you, but it is so small, you cannot perceive it yourself. Now listen to an expert or pilot explain it for you. This is really not hard guys, it took me about 10 minutes to find the answer and debunk this. Why can’t you do that? Because you are not interested in the truth is why.
An average pilot will never notice this as the rate of attitude change is so slow it is undetectable to the human senses. The pilot will never be conscious of pushing the nose down to follow curvature as the necessary change in attitude occurs simply by the action taken to maintain a constant altitude.
The Autopilot is quite irrelevant – I see a lot of people focusing too much on this. Regardless of whether the aircraft is being hand flown or on autopilot, the simple act of maintaining altitude results in the aircraft following the curvature.
There is No exponential drop required as this only applies to the view from a stationary observer. For a moving aircraft the attitude change is linear – at 450 Knots it is a smooth progressive 1 degree change spread across the first 8 minutes, then 1 degree spread across the next 8 minutes and 1 degree for every 8 minutes after that. This is a linear rate of attitude change, not exponential at all.
Think of it this way, If you drive your car around a steady circle of fixed diameter at a steady speed you do not have to keep turning the steering wheel tighter and tighter do you? The turn is linear, just like the motion of the aircraft following the Earth’s curvature.
Anyone who tells you the aircraft will have to descend is also mistaken and is confused by the geometry as there is no descent required to fly at a constant altitude.
The graph in the Globebuster’s video at the two hour mark is complete nonsense as it has no relevance to a moving aircraft. There is NO descent required. The Original Z axis is totally irrelevant to the current position of the aircraft as it travels. However if you do wish to understand motion relative to the Original Z axis then it is traversed not by any descent but by the forward motion of the aircraft which is progressively adjusting downwards. After moving 1/4 of the way around the Earth the forward motion of the aircraft is now aligned with the original Z axis. A simple fact that Bob has clearly failed to understand.
From article: “The pilot will never be conscious of pushing the nose down to follow curvature as the necessary change in attitude occurs simply by the action taken to maintain a constant altitude.”
So there is a “necessary change in attitude” but somehow it is not worth putting into the math by rocket scientists. Even though the above quote admits there is an action taken, a necessary one.
This would be like a doctor saying that breathing is so automatic that we don’t even have to think about it and that it’s not worth putting it into then medical journal. Such double-speak has no place in science.
Well yeah, you have a point. You don’t see for example instructions about avoiding or surviving the coronavirus also including breathing even though it is essential to do so.
Don’t forget the question awaiting you.
Q1: “Does the sun change speed throughout the year to compensate for the fact that each circuit by the sun is completed in the same amount of time”?
Also part of your question was this: “Given that, the sun when travelling the Tropic of Capricorn must be a longer circuit than the prime meridian and a lot longer than the Tropic of Cancer.”
I suppose that it would be possible that the sun moved in some sort of way similar to that. In fact when the circuit is placed into Stellarium it automatically changes the speed of the sun as seen below in the 2 min video. (Read the blue letters under the animation for an explanation)
However, that does not have to be the only answer. Mainstream scientism believes that the sun is 93 million miles away and extremely large but we believe the sun is closer and smaller so our calculations on anything sun related will not be comparing apples to apples. Having said that I believe that the firmament could play a key role in the answer. The sun would only need to rise and lower slightly to change where we perceive the sun to be shinning. Under a dome-like structure, i.e., the firmament this effect could be achieved and the speed would not need to change.
t8: “Well yeah, you have a point. You don’t see for example instructions about avoiding or surviving the coronavirus also including breathing even though it is essential to do so.”
So then would you conclude that it should not even be in the medical journal? Just as the curve over thousands of miles is not accounted for in NASA’s et al scientific papers?
Or would you conclude that it is important and should be in any scientific paper on the subject? What about auto-pilot? Wouldn’t the so-small changes HAVE to be programmed in? Then why aren’t they addressed in aeronautics and space flight scientific papers?
Conclusion: It ISN’T necessary because they AREN’T flying around a ball.
Remember the old “Iron Lungs”? Yeh, sometimes breathing has to be thought of, every breath! But apparently the details of flying around a ball doesn’t even get a mention in the scientific papers. Hmmm.
OK, my favorite! The Vacuum of space!!!
We all know how powerful even a small vacuum is here on earth. In fact a relativity weak vacuum is used to lift thousands of pounds of material! When a steel railroad car is exposed to a relativity weak vacuum it collapses like a soda can! We’ve all seen the videos so this isn’t theory. This is observable, testable and repeatable; this is science.
We’ll start with a basic question; How could the extremely thin walls of the lunar lander withstand the extreme vacuum of space?
That should get us going.
Try to pay attention Dig
So then would you conclude that it should not even be in the medical journal? Just as the curve over thousands of miles is not accounted for in NASA’s et al scientific papers?
Or would you conclude that it is important and should be in any scientific paper on the subject? What about auto-pilot? Wouldn’t the so-small changes HAVE to be programmed in? Then why aren’t they addressed in aeronautics and space flight scientific papers?
Conclusion: It ISN’T necessary because they AREN’T flying around a ball.
You can’t be paying attention Dig. The change is minute but is programmed in. A pilot doesn’t have to think to dip the nose of the plane to course correct because whether it is autopilot or not, the plane does this in tiny increments if you adhere to the instrumentation on the dashboard. I gave you the testimony of a pilot who knows way more than you know about it and because you do not believe in lizard shape shifters, then he is a human pilot explaining it in detail to you. Move on. Answered. Debunked.
The boy who cried refraction
Thanks for attempting to answer my question.
If the sun changes speed, then it would be easy to measure that speed by observers on the ground. But no one claims this is the case, so it must be that the sun travels the same speed. And flatties would have been all over this if indeed they could prove the sun moved faster across AUS than it did in the USA.
So the other answer you gave was it could be the same speed. But I’m telling you that it is the same speed. So in order to explain that, you admit the sun must be travelling faster in AUS, but the dome refracts the view of the sun leading it to appear to be travelling the exact same speed.
Mike, Dig is using refraction. Please tell him to stop. Lol.
Sorry Dig, but both your answers are unscientific and are just poor excuses. You need to be more precise than that. Look at the answer I gave you. It contained the complete answer with math to back it up. In return you give me a fairy-tale.
At the end of the day, I am not even trying to convince you that the earth is a globe or that God exists, or whatever. I just want readers who come here to see both sides of the argument and make an informed choice. I know which way they will be choosing because the evidence you guys have is not evidence at all. Just a whole bunch of excuses that cannot all be true because they are incompatible with each other.
Please have another go at answering the question Dig. If this is your best shot, then reply with BEST SHOT in your next post and I will answer your next question.
So a 813 mile drop over several thousand miles is not something that should be calculated in the scientific papers? We’re not talking about course correction here, we’re talking about calculations in scientific papers. Now answer the question please, should this calculations be addressed in a scientific paper concerning aeronautics and space flight? Yes or no?
You claim that it is “programmed in”. Then why is it not accounted for in these papers? Why were the Russians still trying to figure out the shape of the earth? Can you explain any of this?
Don’t forget the gyros, D. The “instrumentation on the dashboard” (as far as attitude is concerned) works off a gyro. A gyro is rigid in space. They spin it up to speed on the runway so that the spinning disk is horizontal AS the wings on the attitude meter are horizontal and level. As the plane takes off up into the air, the wings on the gauge move with regards to the artificial horizon – BECAUSE the body of the plane is NO LONGER level with the gyro, and therefore the runway – and the pilot knows he has his nose pointed upwards. When he reaches cruising altitude, he levels the wings on the gauge, bringing them back to the same horizontal level as the gyro. And that’s where the gauge will stay until he descends to land. Pilots call it “keeping it straight and level”. But during the entire trip, the gyro remains level with the runway that the pilot took off from. So if the body of the plane was going around a ball, the attitude meter (level wings on the artificial horizon) would be at odds with the gyro. In short, the gauge would show that the pilot was nosediving for the entire flight, as opposed to keeping it straight and level.
The idea that the plane DOES constantly dip the nose down a little, but it’s too little for the pilot to notice is ludicrous because the gyro is what governs the artificial horizon with wings gauge. He couldn’t possibly dip the nose down even a millimeter without it showing on the gauge. And especially not the 90 degrees of downward dipping a long flight across the Atlantic or whatever would require.
Pilots are trained on “flat and stationary”, and their gauges are based on “flat and stationary”. AND they are, after all, called airPLANES! I wonder why that is.
If this statement from a pilot is true, then your point is moot.
For a moving aircraft the attitude change is linear – at 450 Knots it is a smooth progressive 1 degree change spread across the first 8 minutes, then 1 degree spread across the next 8 minutes and 1 degree for every 8 minutes after that.
The fact that the aircraft does this for you constantly adjusting all the time, then of course it will be totally unnoticeable to pilots and passengers.
Do you honestly think in today’s technological age that aircrafts wouldn’t keep the aircraft at the right altitude if you follow the instrumentation?
Get real guys. You are flogging a dead horse now and proving to all the readers how deluded you really are.
So you guys are arguing that the sun speeds up when it is summer in Australia and is slower when it is summer in the USA.
WOW. You guys have lost. You know that right? Testing the speed of the sun is easy to verify. How come no one noticed it before lol.
Show me the evidence from an observer on the ground that the sun travels faster across the Australian continent than it does in the USA. Because that would be something if you demonstrated that without deception.
How have you not learned that you can’t do science is beyond me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
