Comments by "Cardinal R G" (@cardinalRG) on "Johnny Harris"
channel.
-
45
-
@Uploading Truth -- ”But you're assuming a globe before you make your assertion about aircraft.”
I responded to a comment whose physical scenario was a spherical Earth, so for me to discontinue that scenario would have been off topic. My own, on-topic response was therefore about flight over the same spherical Earth that the original poster introduced. Do you get it now?
”You can't say 'no aircraft, must move its nose downward in order to circle the Earth in level flight' If aircraft don't move their nose how does that prove we live on a globe?”
Quite obviously, my comment didn’t aim to prove the globe, only to disprove the claim that flight over a globe requires any part of an aircraft to move downward. My explanation about “no aircraft” is correct, but if it’s over your head, I’ll entertain a polite request to re-phrase it for you.
”Also circling over a plane is possible, you mean following the curve of a globe Earth right? Circling is the wrong term. You need to get the basics right before commenting.”
Nope, my usage of “circle” is correct. Friend, you have no standing to preach about language “basics”, having misinterpreted my first comment so badly. Let’s hope you do better this time.
24
-
@Uploading Truth --In aeronautical terminology—the language of pilots—“straight” means no deviation in the lateral plane (left or right), and does not refer to flight in the vertical plane, So an aircraft flying straight is flying a straight track over the Earth, whether climbing, descending or level, and its speed is irrelevant.
But I’ll assume that you meant “straight” in the inexpert way of the flatEarther, which is to say a flat flightpath. So the short answer is that an aircraft flying a flat flightpath is never flying level, but can only be in a climb or a descent. Eventually, it will reach its service ceiling (altitude limit), or crash into the Earth, respectively. Moreover, the aircraft will fly a flat flightpath only if the pilot deliberately directs it to do so. Despite what flatEarthers wrongly claim, an aircraft will not fly a flat flightpath by default, in the absence of any control input. An aircraft has NO default flightpath.
14
-
As a (retired) pilot myself, I can attest that it wasn’t always easy. When the Men in Black first pulled us out of class during primary training, and shuttled us away, blindfolded, in black helicopters, to a basement in Area 51, and then swore us into conspiratorial secrecy at the threat of our children’s lives, I thought to myself, “Well, this simplifies everything.” Once I got drunk with a flight attendant and spilled the beans about the Earth’s real shape, but in the morning I realized my mistake and so I called the local Freemason hotline, and they promptly sent someone down to, uh…”silence” her. Membership has its privileges.
13
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
”any pilot will tell you…”
Pilot here. You’re full of cr*p.
”… once a plane gets to its cruising altitude, the pilot ''levels off'' and flies in a straight and level path.”
“Straight” means no deviation in the lateral plane (left or right), and has nothing to do with the vertical flightpath. In fact, an aircraft can fly straight while in a climb or descent. “Level” doesn’t mean flat, but means flight at a constant altitude above a constant datum, specifically mean sea level (MSL). A level flightpath is curved in the vertical plane, in proportion to the Earth’s own mean curvature. A flat flightpath can only be a climb or descent, never level.
”…indeed, the pilot uses the horizon to ensure that the plane is flying level.”
Wrong again. (Artificial) horizon reference only indicates aircraft attitude, not altitude. The pilot uses the altimeter, and secondarily the vertical speed indicator (VSI) in order to maintain level flight.
”…when visibility is poor, the pilot will use the instruments and fly a level heading, using an artificial horizon.”
Wrong again. There is no such thing as a “level heading”, since heading refers only to lateral direction. And not only is the attitude indicator’s artificial horizon not used for maintaining level flight—as I’ve already explained—it is useless for determining heading at all.
”…at all times the plane flies level, once the pilot reaches cruising altitude.”
You don’t understand what “cruise” means. An aircraft may cruise in a climb, descent or level flight. Only the first two flightpaths (climb and descent) can be flat, but level flight never is.
”…the pilot would have to constantly adjust the heading of the plane and dip its nose down to keep a constant altitude.”
This childish claim has been so thoroughly debunked, so many times, that it hardly bears much attention here. But I’ll summarize: There is no downward movement of an aircraft’s nose (“dip”) needed in order to follow the Earth’s curvature in level flight, nor any control input, of any type, needed from the pilot for the sake of the curvature. Like every other flatEarther, you simply don’t comprehend how aircraft fly and are flown.
7
-
@robinbluemoon747 --Now you’re engaging, so thanks, that’s good to see.
Images have been sent from even further away than 140 million miles—namely, 3.7 billion miles. The short answer to explain why that’s possible is simply that humans understand the involved laws of physics, and are capable of designing hardware for the task. It might help if you elaborated why you think there should be any impediment, so at the moment I’m not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. But I’ll start by saying that the near-vacuum of space does practically nothing to absorb, divert or otherwise weaken the transmission of images and other data. So a transmission can travel tremendous distances in space, and be received billions of miles away, many hours later. All at the speed of light. An easier conception might be to ask yourself, what is there in space to stop these transmissions? The answer is: practically nothing.
The locations and trajectories of spacecraft are known, and in fact they directed by ground-based equipment. This should make sense to you if you think about satellite TV, GPS navigation, and other technologies you enjoy that depend upon controlling machinery in space. With greater distance, it’s mostly a matter of longer transmission time, and very little power is required. (Voyager I’s antennas are 23-watt units.)
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bojanpavlovic9122 -- ”No, Flat Earthers believe the world is flat because…”
FlatEarthers have many (stupid) reasons to believe that the Earth is flat, not just the one you mention.
”…in 2022, we still do not have a photo of the Earth from space…”
Millions of images of the Earth from space have been taken since the middle of the last century, and made available to the public. These included emulsion-film photographs taken during the 1960s and published worldwide, withstanding the scrutiny of even the Cold War enemies who’d have loved to uncover fakes. Today you can even view live feeds of the Earth from satellites. To claim otherwise is simply an act of denialism. Remember, only a single genuine image is needed to disprove your claim. To defend your claim,. You need to prove that every one of the millions in existence are fake…can you do that? Of course you can’t.
...when asking NASA how did the Apollo went through the Van Allen belt the answer is we "didn't know it exists…”
NASA has made no such comment, and you’re either lying or else repeating someone else’s lie. Dr. James Van Allen himself was a part of the US space program, and were he alive today he would call out your bullshit in a hot second. If you have the guts to do so, you can find online sources that will not only explain what the belts are, since yopu obviously don’t know that, but also how spacecraft have been routed to minimize exposure. In other words, spend an ounce of energy and put your Google finger to work.
”…or why didn't we go back to the moon the answer is "we lost all the project plans…”
Another lie.
”…because it is forbidden to go to Antarctica’’
Another lie. Even a tourist like you can go there.
”…(even though if the plain is flying under a certain degree, the spirit level has to show this)…”
A spirit level on an aircraft can indicate nothing about the shape of the Earth below the aircraft. You need to take a physics class, or several, as well as a basic course in geometry. Also, you don’t even understand how aircraft fly, because the pitch-attitude of the aircraft is not determinant of flightpath.
...light and density and atmospheric refraction, that do not apply to a boat that is few miles away…”
That’s a childish claim. You can demonstrate refraction by dropping a pencil into a glass of water two inches in front of your nose. For a boat in the distance, the effect would be proportionately greater. Again, you are in desperate need of education, because trying to understand the topic isn’t working out for you.
”…but for the sunset and stuff like that, etc...”
The movement and setting of the sun alone is possible only on the spherical Earth.
”No, Flat Earthers believe the world is flat because…”
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@therealzilch --Well said, but of course the “tipping” question is a matter of geometry rather than physics, because in level flight every part of the aircraft remains at the same altitude. Hence, no upward/downward movement (“tipping”) unless the pilot changes the aircraft’s pitch angle. You’ve aptly described why an aircraft would remain in level flight to begin with, which is a matter of physics, and the result of the aircraft being configured (including trimming) to fly level at a particular altitude—barring disturbances, as you point out.
Naturally, flatEarthers don’t comprehend the geometry or the physics of the matter, or aeronautics or even a rudimentary level. When they’re not getting the gyroscope wrong, or completely goofing up global flight routes, or claiming that pilots and flight manuals are on their side, they seem to fall back on this asinine nose-dipping/tipping thing. So we soldier on with the facts, all the same.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
”It is very healthy to be skeptical and ask questions.”
The mere act of questioning something is worthless if one lacks the ability to separate fact from falsehood in the answers that come. It is worse still when the question is emotion-based more than logical, and the questioner has committed ahead of time rejecting any answer that contradicts a pre-selected belief. Such a person has ceded the opportunity to learn anything along the way, and to develop any skill for separating fact from falsehood. This is the farce of the typical flatEarther, whose questioning is not a search for truth, but for validation. And the flatEarther with children passes on this intellectual flaw, with a certain damaging effect.
I get what you mean about scientific skepticism, and there might be some incidental benefit to questioning the Earth’s known shape as, say, an exercise in some lower-level science class, where a rational conclusion is assured. But for adults in 2022 to question something that’s obvious to any seven-year-old with working eyeballs and who wasn’t raised by wolves, is utterly without value to anyone except those who seek to monetize their ignorance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
FlatEarthism isn’t a theory, friend, because it doesn’t rise to that level. In fact, it’s no more credible than the claim that (2+2=5), and I assume you wouldn’t object to that kind of lunacy being brushed off, would you? Still, when flatEarthers ask questions, many of us make an effort to explain to ignorant adults what an average seven-year-old already understands—that the Earth is a sphere. In short, no flatEarthers’ questions go unanswered, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. If the video doesn’t satisfy your curiosity, then feel free to ask questions yourself.
3
-
@christianpulido8360 --Pilots fly whatever flightpath they care to, whether straight and level, or a turn, climb, descent or other. But you don’t even understand what “straight and level” means in the first place. (Hint: It does NOT mean flat, in any way.) As for “FAA handbooks”, we both know that you’ve never read one, but like every other flatEarther, you’re just making ignorant assumptions about how aircraft fly and are flown. Your strategy here is a dead end, because you’ll never fool anyone who knows better, you’ll only fool other flatEarthers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Your experience is different than mine. With few exceptions, I’ve found flatEarthers to be petty and hostile toward disagreement, and completely willing to attempt insults as a substitute for presenting a real argument. I’ve been called “shill,” “dupe,” “Satan,” “Satanist,” “stooge,” “liar,” “pedophile,” “godless,” “brainwashed,” “indoctrinated” and too many others to mention. None of it bothers me, of course, but all the vitriol suggests a frightened, bitter mentality that must lash out to compensate for some sad void.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- I’ll assume that my comment was somehow hidden from you, since YouTube has been glitchy lately, and I’ve experienced the same thing you describe. So in fairness, I’ll rescind my follow-up comments, and re-publish my first comment here, now slightly updated.
* * * *
You wrote: ”This is what flat earthers are all about. We are called stupid because we have stepped out of the crowd and actually question the belief everyone started out with…”
FlatEarthers aren't called “stupid” for asking questions, but questioning things itself is worthless without the ability to distinguish factual answers from falsehoods. Worse, flatEarthers typically lack the bare willingness to accept answers that threaten their pre-selected belief. They don’t follow evidence to a conclusion, but move in reverse, which makes theirs a search for validation, not knowledge. You illustrated this in a comment you made to another poster: “I only know that there are other theories and proofs out there…that prove the earth is stationary and it is not round. All I do is search for this proof.” So by your own testimony, you’re looking for proof of something that you’ve already decided is true.
”…mainly about science and physics, and simply are willing to try and gain knowledge about science and physics before we say we believe in something.”
Hogwash. FlatEarthism contradicts the immense body of historical and actual science, and if today you gathered all the world’s scientists who think that the Earth is flat, they would occupy a very small, padded room. Likewise, your movement regards genuine expertise as the mark of a shill, and instead accords all credibility to people with no education, training or experience in the topic at hand. For example, as a (retired) commercial pilot and flight instructor, I’ve offered tens of thousands of words of aeronautical knowledge in these comments sections, and other aviation experts have done the same thing (e.g. Wolfie6020, who even has a video series), yet without fail flatEarthers have always favored the imaginings of yoga instructors (Dubay), posers, con artists (Weiss), urine-guzzlers (Murphy), geographical illiterates (JTolan), religious fanatics, and all other manner of people who’ve never spent a minute in control of an aircraft. We are laughably called “shill”, “dupe”, “illuminati”, “NASA employee”, “indoctrinated” and other names far too asinine to mention, merely because we actually have the qualifications that those flatEarthers pretend to have.
In the same way, flatEarthers consistently ignore the testimony of the world’s physicists, cartographers, sailors, geologists, astronomers, engineers, optical scientists, and the remaining body of experts responsible for society's technological advancement, in favor of what they hear from people who've discovered nothing, built nothing, and can predict nothing. It’s a bizarre purity test from which Groucho Marx himself would have made hay.
If you disagree with my argument, then I encourage you to ask me questions about aeronautics as they relate to the Earth’s shape. Let’s see if your questioning is sincere, and you can accept new knowledge.
2
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- "So basically you are saying you accept the notion the earth is a globe without bothering with the nonsensical aspect of it."
I said no such thing. Please read my comments again.
”You don't care about the zany, nonproven, strictly theoretical, illogical nuts and bolts that make up the notion we live on a globe, you only care about the big picture and that is, that is what you where taught and that is all that matters to you.”
Wow, that’s quite a projection you’ve made there. Friend, I’m afraid your attempt to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head has failed. You’d do better just asking me what I think, instead of (wrongly) guessing about it. And your phrase “big picture” misses the fact that my responses have been made with far more depth of detail than your original comments were, and they have illuminated your false generalities. I've invited you—more than once—to engage me in a greater depth of detail still. Between us, you are the “big picture” guy.
”You see, there is so much nonsensical baggage that goes along with the globe earth notion, that is too hard for people like me to swallow.”
I understand that you see it that way. It’s too bad you don’t accord the same kind of critical thinking ability to globe defenders, whom you evidently view as merely indoctrinated. I must say, that strikes me as quite cynical.
”We are not like people like you, details matter to us.”
C’mon, friend, that’s a silly claim. Even if you believe that all scientific data exists in service to a lie, surely you recognize that the data’s mass and level of detail is staggering. The spherical-Earth model absolutely buries flatEarthism in details. If you disagree, then please point out a working flatEarth map, or navigational charts, formulae of orbital mechanics with predictive ability, theory and formulae to explain what science ascribes to gravity, long-range trajectory tables free of consideration of Earth curvature, a global positioning system that doesn’t rely on satellites…and the list goes on, and on, and on.
”…we try and take every detail and try and make sense from it.”
Hardly, and I’ll give you an example, FlatEarthers usually deny gravity out of hand, yet have no working substitute for it, and that lack of detail apparently doesn’t concern or interest them. The few who propose an alternate concept at all typically claim that “density” or “buoyancy” explain what science chalks up to gravity. This requires ignoring details such as the fact that density is a mathematical ratio, and has no force. The very formula for buoyancy contains the factor gravity within it, yet flatEarthers brush aside that detail without a second thought. No, Rodney, the typical flatEarther looks for details only to validate a pre-selected belief, and stops looking once the details threaten that belief. If your approach is different, then you are an exception.
”Now to get back to you only wanting to answer aeronautics-related questions.”
Again, you’re mis-representing what I’ve said. This is getting tiresome…are you really reading my comments completely, or just skimming for juicy tidbits? Do you have a memory issue, buddy?
”Okay, many people laugh when FEers take a spirit level on airplanes to show the planes fly level during the whole trip and I assume you would be one of them.”
I was done laughing after the first case I heard about. Now it just makes me sad.
”To be as simple as I can, lets say a manually controlled plane, one without an autopilot to auto control it, takes off from the North Pole and flies to an altitude of ten thousand feet. The pilot watches the altitude indicator (AI)…”
The AI is the attitude indicator. The altitude is indicated by the altimeter.
”…and keeps the plane flying level as indicated by the AI.”
A pilot establishes and maintains altitude by reference to the altimeter, not the attitude indicator (AI).
”As the plane flies above the curved earth, just say heading southward, what maneuver would the pilot have to do to the plane in order for the plane to maintain flying at ten thousand feet above earth as the earth curves under it?”
Once level flight is established, an aircraft will not remain on that flightpath indefinitely without pilot action. Many real-world factors will cause un-commanded altitude changes, and these factors include weight loss due to fuel burn, weight shift, atmospheric variation, winds, and even just the pilot’s desire to change the aircraft’s speed or configuration. Depending on the particular factor(s) in play, the pilot may adjust the aircraft’s thrust, pitch, trim, weight balance (or even weight alone), or do something else. So there is no single technique required to maintain altitude, but instead a variety of maneuvers to be used singly or in combination.
”Also, would the AI continue to indicate the plane was flying level with the horizon as the pilot maneuvers the plane around the curved earth?”
The attitude indicator (AI) indicates nothing about level flight or any other flightpath in the vertical plane. It indicates an aircraft’s attitude only, which is its angle to the line tangent to the point on the Earth directly below the aircraft. Nothing more. An old pilot’s adage may help you: The aircraft almost never goes where the nose is pointed, and it’s true. An aircraft can fly nose-up in a descent, or nose-down in a climb, or any other combination within its performance envelope.
Level flight is indicated by the altimeter only. This instrument indicates nothing about the aircraft’s attitude, and it doesn’t assimilate the concept of the horizon at all, because that concept is irrelevant to its purpose. There is much more to explain about these instruments, but I don’t want to write too many words too soon. If you want more explanation, then I’ll be happy to provide it.
”I hope I've expressed my question well enough to you that you can give me as simply of an answer as possible. Keep in mind I have never piloted a plane and this area is not my expertise.”
Your question is sincere but somewhat misinformed, but of course there’s no shame in that. If I were to ask a surgeon about heart bypass surgery, I would do so with many wrong assumptions! I’m sure you have areas of expertise that would put my own understanding into the dirt. That’s why we all learn from each other, in certain ways.
I suspect you’re edging up to the common flatEarther claim that an aircraft has to “dip” its nose downward in order to follow the Earth’s curvature, but I don’t want to make that assumption unfairly. If that’s the basis of your query, just say so and I’ll gladly provide the appropriate explanation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gregv2821 --Wow, you’ve spent far more time and energy evading my question, than you’d have spent simply answering it to begin with. I mean, it’s just two or three letters and a period, and a couple of seconds’ time. Your evasion is quite telling, and well beneath the standard for any civil exchange. Polite people answer polite questions, as evidenced by my commitment to answer those questions you would ask me, regardless of whether I think they’re astute or not. I mean, you could ask me my favorite color here, or my shoe size, and I’d happily answer it for you. Anything but confidential information.
”If I was a flat-earther would that nullify my point? If I wasn't a flat-earther would that validate it?”
This reveals your disingenuousness. Even as you refuse, for the third time now, to answer a question of mine, you have no compunction about asking me more questions. Evidently, your conception of debate is one standard for yourself, and a different standard for others.
”Open your mind and stop trying to label someone before you decide whether their commentary has any merit.”
Hilarious. What I’ve done is the opposite of trying to label you. I’m asking you to identify what you are, or not.
”And I'm not assuming, but if you were to identify as a liberal/progressive, wouldn't that be one of the core tenets of your ideology?”
More questions from you, while still unwilling to answer mine. Ponder that, friend.
So to repeat (again) a couple of things:
1. For the fourth time, Are you a flatEarther?
2. I’ll gladly answer any questions from you, but only in the proper sequence, meaning after you’ve shown the courtesy of answering the one I asked you first.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Friend, you need to do some basic research, or perhaps take a science class or two. The Earth isn’t 78% water, and no reputable source claims that it is. In fact, about 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. Second, all mass exerts gravitational attraction, so even a pure-water Earth would do so, with no need for a separate “core”. Third, the force due to gravity is easily demonstrated on Earth, and quite commonly done so with students, even grade-schoolers. Lastly, weightlessness does not mean an absence of gravity, only that there’s another force in play to counteract the force due to gravity.
2
-
@UnknownMoses --Well, you don't have to care, but you should be thankful that others do--that is, if you like your GPS navigation, trans-oceanic travel, satellite TV/communications, weather forecasts, bridges, long-range weapons capability for the military, climate science, and countless other modern conveniences made possible only by an accurate understanding of the Earth's shape. For that matter, you have globe-believers to thank for all the other advanced technologies you enjoy, including the computer you're using to read this. So be happy not caring about reality, but save yourself the embarrassment of questioning those who do care.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A few years ago, when a single astronaut, in a single interview, said in a single sentence that NASA had lost the technology to travel to the moon, he was talking about manufacturing capacity and hard infrastructure. He wasn’t claiming that NASA lost the required know-how. Maybe an analogy will help you: At this moment in 2022, Chevrolet cannot manufacture a 1962 impala, because the tooling no longer exists, nor are there any workers with experience building one. In other words, the technology has been lost, and would have to be re-constituted, along with new training. But does this cast doubt on Chevrolet’s claim that it built Impalas in 1962? By your reasoning, that claim must be a hoax, right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joeydelrio -- ”if so "obvious" why not just say what that obvious thing is?”
You missed my point entirely, so I’ll try to simplify it further for you: When making a claim that isn’t obvious, it’s reasonable to accompany the claim with evidence, and right away. In contrast, a claim that is obvious—essentially axiomatic—assumes no immediate need for evidence. Like the (2+2=4) example…get it? If you were to make that particular claim to someone, would you feel obligated to immediately start stacking beans in front of the person you’re talking to, or printing out a computerized computation, or something equally extraneous? Would you assume that the person you’re talking to is so ignorant as to need such evidence? That, in my view, would be impolite.
”if no proof is needed why not just add you broke the home run record, ran the fastest 40 ever, and slayed a few dragons.”
That’s a failed attempt at an analogy. Those claims would NOT be obvious, but in fact extraordinary. You might benefit from an old saw from the science world: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By logical extension, ultra-obvious, self-evident claims require little or no evidence (unless it’s requested).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kurthermann1302 --To begin with, flatEarthism does not rise to the level of theory. It is not even a legitimate hypothesis, but merely an infantile notion. Still, it’s testable in a scientific way, but flatEarthers ignore all the genuine science that proves the Earth’s spherical shape, in favor of flawed and preconceptual reckonings that laughably pretend to be scientific. (For example, “proving” gravity’s non-existence by pouring water over basketballs and grapefruits.) All this reflects a distinct closed-mindedness, for how else to describe a mindset that dismisses, out of hand, centuries of accumulated scientific discovery? Is it really open-minded to hold that the laws of physics are a sham—laws that flatEarthers don’t comprehend in the first place—and claim for oneself insight and knowledge that escaped Copernicus, Newton, Einstein and the entire scientific community to date? Get a grip.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 --You aren’t in a position to piss me off, friend, so have no caution about that. And while your latest comment isn’t about aeronautics—my area of expertise—I’ll respond to it anyway, as a non-expert.
”We are taught that all the air over the entire earth and above spins along with the earth”
Only in the general/macro context, not absolutely. The atmosphere is not monolithic, and its movements are complex, and relative to each other.
”It does that because of friction earth presents to the air.”
That’s part of the conventional explanation, but not all of it. There is also the factor of angular momentum which is naturally conserved. Evidently., “atmospheric torque” and thermodynamics are also in play, and other factors too arcane for a non-aficionado like me to take much interest in. If the topic interests you, then I encourage you to avail yourself of the huge amount of data available to you on the internet alone.
”Not only does it spin with the earth, it is in perfect synchronization with the spin so much so we as humans don’t feel it happening.”
This is a false premise, and in fact it is the flatEarth community, not the scientific one, that posits a monolithic, synchronized atmosphere as a necessary component of the spherical-Earth model. (How often have I been asked why a helicopter in, say, Los Angeles can’t simply ascend to a hover and let the Earth rotate until Charleston arrives underneath?) The existence of winds alone demonstrates the scientific position that the atmosphere is not perfectly synchronized with the Earth’s rotation.
”It is as if the air is a solid rigid structure firmly attached to the ground and everything within the air is forced to travel along with it.”
Again, it’s only the flatEarth community that promotes this notion, so far as I can see.
”However, even with the entire atmosphere keeping lock step with the earths spin going from west to east, every day I can see clouds drifting by going in the opposite direction.”
Yes, and the movement of clouds demonstrates the scientific understanding of the atmosphere, and debunks the misconception of flatEarthers.
”Not my education but my common sense and the things I’ve witnessed throughout life tells me air doesn’t work that way.”
Unlike you, I won’t try to account for another person’s education, nor common sense. I will only suggest that common sense is fallible, and often wrong. The ability to think past our common sense (and our physical senses) not only separates us from the beasts, but it also explains our technical advancement as a society. History reveals countless common-sense beliefs which turned out to be dead wrong, and which today are replaced by demonstrated facts. Show me someone claiming complete trust in her/his “common sense”, having never been disproven by acquired knowledge, and I’ll show you someone either fibbing or with a very poor memory.
”Air…has no support on its own unless it is enclosed inside a rigid structure.”
Sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “support” nor “rigid” here. It sounds like you’re edging up to the “containment” notion that flatEarthers often argue for.
”Even If clouds are forced by air pressure to move in a certain direction, then clouds would need a power source to enable them to move in the opposite direction.”
I don’t know what you mean by “power source”. Matter moves due to physical forces, and these are explained by physical laws and formulas, by now exhaustively verified.
”I don’t see a power source for clouds.”
The winds move the clouds. And since the winds can move in any direction relative to the Earth’s rotation itself, then so too can the clouds. I think you’d be helped by studying the concept of relative motion. A quick analogy might be to imagine yourself seated on a train moving at 50 MPH. You’re holding a cup of coffee and stirring milk into it. So the coffee is not only moving on a linear track at 50 MPH, but at the same time it’s rotating in the cup. It would be accurate to say that the coffee is moving along with the train but also in a sub-movement of its own. Likewise, air rotates along with the Earth, but at the same time can move relatively to it.
”I would like you to share with me in simple terms by word, an example or an experiment that has convinced you air does work that way.”
That’s another false premise, and a strawman too. I don’t believe that air works in the way you assume, incorrectly, that globe defenders believe it does. So naturally, I wouldn’t offer an experiment to support a claim I haven’t made.
Again, while you’re free to write anything you like, I encourage the topic of aeronautics as it relates to the Earth’s shape.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- ”Where did you get the notion, I was an expert in aeronautics and I would only ask/answer questions pertaining to that? I have a limited knowledge in aeronautics mostly in the UAV industry, but I am not an expert in that field.”
I have no such notion, and I suggest that you read my comments again. Because I have expertise in aeronautics, I can be most informative and helpful while answering related questions. Doesn’t that make sense? I would think that you’d want to take advantage of that, just as you would in exchanging with a physicist, astronomer, cartographer or other expert upon whose endeavors the flatEarth community bases some of its claims. Part of my own argument is that flatEarthers disregard genuine expertise in favor of topical claims by non-experts. So my encouraging you to ask aeronautics-related questions was an invitation to make yourself an exception to this. It’s unfortunate that you’re apparently not so inclined.
”I figure if you whole heartedly believe the earth is a spinning globe and all factors that go along with that premise, you could easily answer simple questions and explain why or how you come to believe in the globe model.”
I can and I did. But among those things we accept as true are fine details which are either better explained by people immersed in those details, or perhaps not explainable by us at all. For example, you don’t have to be able to recite the explicit metallurgy of automotive-grade steel to understand that some very stout bolts hold your car’s transmission together, because you otherwise have sufficient knowledge about the machine to understand that already. And if you did want such fine information, you’d be better off querying a metallurgist or other expert rather than the average motorist.
”Your thought that the atmosphere spinning along with the earth is a flat earth belief, I assure you certainly it is not.”
I made no such claim. I suggest that you read my comment again.
”Also, you write in a way that is a turn off for most people.”
You don’t speak for most people.
”You really never come to a point and you side step the issue.”
I’ve responded directly to your comments, and my own comments are more comprehensive than your own. I challenge you to identify any issue that you think I’ve side-stepped.
”Our discussion is not an avenue for you to try and flatter me with your brilliances.”
If you think I’m brilliant, then that’s your personal view, and i don't share it. Likewise, if you interpret precise and complete language as merely an attempt to display one’s “brilliances,” rather than the fairest possible treatment of one’s partner in conversation, then that’s very cynical of you. You shouldn’t wonder why the flatEarth community has a reputation for this kind of anti-intellectualism.
”I’m only here to try and understand your view on the globe earth and as to why and how you believe it is true.”
Great, and I’ll continue to respond to your comments honestly and completely. But if you want assurance that I’ll make comments you like, then well…I can’t give you that assurance. The ball’s in your court. Good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 --Well, obviously YouTube is glitchy in a way whose pattern can’t be discerned. Several friends and family, using separate computers and accounts, have confirmed that they can see all of my posts, entirely. So I think we can’t get past the roadblock here. I’ll leave you with encouragement to research the NASA 1207 document, and I mean research it past the confines of flatEarther sources. The document, and those like it, does not claim what you think it does, in fact it confirms the spherical Earth. Don’t get hung up on the term “assume,” because in research/engineering terminology, it means to set aside real-world factors in factors of non-existent, hypothetical scenarios, for the sake of mathematical or analytical simplicity. There are many sites that will explain the document rationally, so please seek them out. Good luck.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- ”They dance around it by using the little word, ‘assume’. I realize the word assume doesn’t mean absolute, it means something is supposed to be true, but without proof.”
No. In this context of science/engineering research, “assume” means to adopt a non-existent, hypothetical scenario that omits certain real-world factors that are negligible or irrelevant, for the purpose of analytical and mathematical simplicity. NASA document 1207 addresses aerodynamic issues, which involve the movement of air over the aircraft. For this scope, it does not matter the flightpath nor the shape of the planet over which the aircraft flies, and a flat Earth is “assumed” because it requires only linear mathematics rather than the more complex calculations that a curved Earth would require.
Imagine you were calculating the drag of an automobile at 60 MPH in still air. You would get the same result whether you assumed the vehicle was travelling over a flat road, or whether the road were a hundred miles of random peaks and valleys—like you’d find in the real world. But the math would be a hell of a lot simpler just using a flat road, wouldn’t it? It’s like that.
Notice too that NASA 1207 also assumes a rigid-body aircraft of constant mass, neither of which condition exists in the real world. Note too that the document’s calculations assimilate gravity, whose existence flatEarthers deny. So it’s a contradiction to consider the document to be authoritative when they think it supports their belief, but then condemn it for all other purposes.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 --Italics are made by using underscores to enclose, with no spaces, the text you wish to italicize.
As with many words in the English language, assume has more than one meaning, with some meanings being particular to a specific context and contrasting with other, dictionary definitions that one might mistakenly select—as I believe you’ve done. This is especially prevalent in technical terminology, where a framer might call a 8’x35‘ wall “square” merely because all its corners meet at 90 degrees. Or a pilot would use “straight” to describe only a flightpath in the (two-dimensional) lateral plane, and never in the vertical one. Or, most notably, a flatEarther would take the term “level” to mean “flat” immutably, just because that happens to align with one of many dictionary entries.
”Why didn’t they simply use words like imaginary or fictitious?”
I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. Perhaps it’s because “assume” is shorter and quicker, and might reflect the kind of efficiency that pervades the methodology of scientists and engineers. At any rate, that’s the language they settled on, and your pointing out that “…many documents…”, rather than just “…only one or two…” of them use this term, actually supports my argument, not yours. It is very obviously a standardized term, and the example-fact that NASA 1207 assumes other non-real-world scenarios (e.g., constant mass) makes clear the meaning with which it uses “assume.
”They could have simply written, “we base these equations on using the fictitious flat non-rotating earth for simplistic purposes”.”
Why would they do that? That’s a longer, more cumbersome expression than the one actually used.
”No, I believe they knew exactly what they were trying to say and the word “assume” was the exact word they wanted to use.”
Yes, and with the exact meaning I’ve already explained. Ask yourself this: Why would the document take the trouble to explicitly “assume” (in your meaning) things which are already known to be true, and obvious? In fact, only exceptions to reality need to be mentioned, not the least reason being that if they weren’t, then the document’s mathematics wouldn’t match the model.
”…why would they even mention something that doesn’t exist, a flat earth?”
See the previous explanation.
”They could have just said, “simple linear mathematics is all that’s necessary while flying above earth”.”
That expression is not only longer than the one actually used, but it violates the conventional methodology, and it would be an untrue statement in the absence of excepting the Earth’s shape.
”Why even mention the shape of earth if everyone knows for sure the earth is curved?”
Because again, the mathematics won’t match the model unless the assumption of a flat Earth is made. If the document were a student’s project, and failed to make this assumption, it would receive a failing grade. Its findings would be rejected. Try turning your question around-- Why even mention the shape of the Earth if everyone knows for sure that it’s flat? It would be silly to do so, right?
” I have to take your word for that, but why is an aircraft not of a rigid body?”
Because airframes flex and control surfaces move, all of which affect drag and the distribution of forces, and other factors. But the effects would either be negligible, or irrelevant to the scope of research. For that reason, the real-world condition (non-rigid) is ignored, and the aircraft is assumed to be of a rigid body instead. In other such research documents, you will find assumptions of a wind-free atmosphere, a symmetrical body, and a constant balance, none of which conditions are found in the real world.
”I can see an aircraft not being constant mass because of fuel loss over distance traveled.”
Okay then, why would the document “assume” (in your meaning) a constant mass if you know that’s not a real-world condition? Doesn’t that disprove your contention about how the document uses “assume”—as something “…being true”?
”I believe Newton simply believed things fall to earth because they are heavy.”
No. Newton described gravity as an accelerated attraction between masses, and he enumerated gravity as such, and assimilated it into a range of formulas that verifiably describe observable physical reality. “Heavy” to him was something with greater weight, which itself is a function of gravity’s acceleration. To him, objects fall to Earth because the force due to Earth’s gravity exceeds that of the objects, as well as their abilities to otherwise counteract Earth’s pull (e,g, wings that produce lift).
”All this attraction of mass to other mass is imaginary and came from other people or sources, not from Newton.”
Sorry, I’ve no idea what you’re trying to express here.
"So when I see the word 'GRAVITY', I equate it to mean the same as ;HEAVY'."
They are not equal, and they aren’t even the same type of units. Gravity is an acceleration, heavy is a function of gravity and mass. Your statement is like saying, “when I see the word ‘volts’, I equate it to mean the same as ‘watts’.” Watts are a function of volts, not equal to them.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 --I’ve split up my latest response into multiple postings, to forestall their being hidden to you due to their sizes, in case that’s what YouTube’s game is.
”Okay, I’m shacking my head in disbelief you would come up with these excuses for the reason they used the word “assume” to describe something that is taught to all of us as being proven untrue.”
I’ve hardly given excuses, but instead given a consistent explanation supported by both context and parallel examples, and demonstrated by the term’s prevalence which you brought up. In contrast, you’re insisting on a cherrypicked definition, among many from the dictionary, regardless of actual usage. You also ignore that by your meaning, these documents assume something you believe to be true (a flat Earth) while at the same time they assume something you acknowledge to be false (an aircraft of constant mass). Your argument needs to deal with this contradiction, while mine has no such burden.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- ”I remember asking you something about what it would be like flying over a flat earth. I can’t remember the exact question I asked you. You never did answer me.”
I published that answer, and others, three times without their appearing to you. I’ll do so again here, but I must add that I’ve asked you several question whose answers I haven’t seen from you either. I’ll re-write them at the and of my comments here.
”An airplane flying over a curved earth, has to fly different if it was flying over a flat earth and a pilot should be able to tell the difference.”
Yes, if the Earth were flat, then an aircraft would have to be designed and built differently, and flown differently by its pilot.
”I've watched a few videos, yes, even from wolfie6020, and I see the Attitude Indicator showing the plane flying flat and on the horizon of the indicator.”
No. Once again, the attitude indicator does not indicate anything about the aircraft’s flightpath, only its attitude. It is not an altitude instrument, and a pilot does not rely on it to establish or maintain level flight. If the “artificial horizon” (the attitude indictor’s visual display) shows the aircraft’s attitude as near “flat”—that would be near to a zero-degree pitch angle—that does NOT mean that the aircraft is flying a flat flightpath, or even a level one, or any other conceivable flightpath.
”If flying over a curved spinning earth is like flying over a flat stationary earth…”
It is not, and no qualified source makes that claim.
”…then what is it like actually flying over a flat stationary earth?”
I would be radically different, and not even possible at the geographical extremes. On the spherical Earth, the gravity vectors are all perpendicular to the Earth’s mean surface. That means that the lift/weight relationship with which a pilot must contend, is essentially the same over any point on Earth. The pilot’s configuration and control of the aircraft for that purpose is therefore the same too, and the pilot only has to deal with the usual factors of atmospheric variation, weather, etc.
A flat Earth’s gravity vectors would be perpendicular to its mean surface only at the exact epicenter of mass, and would progressively decrease in angle traveling outward from there. This means that as an aircraft flew outward toward the edge, the weight vector would progressively change in angle, and the aircraft would be pulled downward progressively (decreasing altitude) if the pilot made no correction for it. At edge itself, the gravity/weight vector would be near to parallel with the ground, so flight itself would likely be impossible altogether. This brief video may help you understand the effect: youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=1xwmqEUMWRI (replace the “DOT” with a period).
”Would it not be the same feeling?”
The pilot’s own weight vector would shift continuously while flying over a flat Earth, and that would indeed be felt.
”There should be a difference between the two…”
There would be a difference, a huge one. My explanation only scratched the surface.
”If not, then you as a pilot would really not know if the earth was flat or curved based on flying a plane. Is that not correct?”
If a genie snapped its fingers and made the Earth flat in mid-flight, then yes, a pilot would notice the sudden difference. The aircraft might even become uncontrollable.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- ”The reason I asked you that question is because it only seems logical to me and other flat earthers to believe a pilot would have to pitch the aircraft down a certain amount in order to fly over a curved earth at a constant altitude.”
You’ve just contradicted yourself. I previously made this comment: “I suspect you’re edging up to the common flatEarther claim that an aircraft has to “dip” its nose downward in order to follow the Earth’s curvature, but I don’t want to make that assumption unfairly. If that’s the basis of your query, just say so and I’ll gladly provide the appropriate explanation.” Your answer was:
”No, I'm not going to say an air plane has to dip it's nose to go around the curved earth. I don't know that is true or not.”
Now you’re making that exact claim. Of course, I’ll answer it all the same.
An aircraft does not have to pitch down in order to follow the Earth’s curvature in level flight, and it’s a matter of geometry. By definition, level flight is flight at a constant altitude, meaning that no part of the aircraft gets further from, or nearer to the Earth’s mean surface. Therefore, while the flightpath of an aircraft circling the globe in level flight is curved in proportion to the Earth’s own curvature, this does not comprise a downward movement in any way, because the aircraft remains at the same distance from the Earth’s mean surface. You might be distracted by the fact that in circling the Earth, the level-flying aircraft does rotate about its own lateral axis, but this is NOT a downward movement, for the reason I’ve just given.
To maintain level flight, a pilot merely maintains a constant altitude, and does this by reference to the altimeter (again, not by reference to the attitude indicator). In the real world, this will require occasional corrections due to the effects of wind, atmospheric variation, weight loss, balance shift, performance change, re-configuration of the aircraft, etc. But no corrections are needed for the sake of the Earth’s curvature itself. This is because the Earth’s density-altitude gradient, combined with gravity, draw the aircraft around the Earth automatically. FlatEarthers aren’t pilots, so they tend to assume that the pilot must push forward on the stick constantly, or perform some other input, or else the aircraft will fly a flat flightpath into space. This notion is ignorant of how aircraft fly and are flown, not the least example being that an aircraft has no default flightpath. It makes no less sense to say that if a pilot doesn’t constantly pull back on the stick then the aircraft will collide with the Earth, than it does to claim that it will fly toward space of the pilot does nothing. Every flightpath an airplane flies is the result of a particular, deliberate combination control inputs and natural forces, and it will fly a flat flightpath—which can only be a climb or a descent, never level—only when the pilot configures the aircraft to do so.
There is much, much more to be said about this and other aeronautical topics, and as a (retired) flight instructor, and long-winded at that, I have to be careful not to overwhelm the non-pilot with information. But if you want more information, I’ll be happy to provide it.
1
-
@rodneybaker2629 -- "However, all the folks on the other side that I’ve encountered say no, a pilot does not have to pitch the aircraft down to compensate for earth’s curvature.”
The folks “on the other side” are correct.
”…what would a pilot have to do if he is flying over a flat earth? Would he not do the same thing, keep the aircraft flying level over a flat earth?”
Yes, a pilot would merely need to maintain a constant altitude. But as previously explained, the control inputs would be very different, and immensely affected by the aircraft’s geographical location. At or near the edge, flight might be impossible altogether.
”Surely there must be a difference in the way an aircraft would maintain a constant altitude above a curved earth verses a flat earth. Since you are a pilot, what’s your take on the matter?”
Already answered.
”Now I don’t want you to tell me an aircraft maintains a certain altitude because the aircraft’s aerodynamics does it for you.”
C’mon friend, it’s disingenuous to ask a question and then demand the exclusion of a certain answer. And since aerodynamics do play a role in the maintenance of a constant altitude, your demand is like asking, “What’s two plus two? Now, I don’t want you to tell me it’s four.”
”I’m talking about an aircraft that a pilot would have to actually control the aircraft on his own in order to maintain a constant altitude while flying over a curved earth.”
A few specifics here, and more later if you want them. There are many control inputs a pilot might make, singly or in combination, to maintain a constant altitude. They include thrust adjustment (power, blade pitch, etc.), pitch change, deploying aerodynamic devices (flaps, slats, etc.), weight shift, weight change (e.g. dumping fuel, ordnance, etc.). As a green pilot I used to control altitude in a Cessna 150 by having my girlfriend lean forward and back, and in a Piper PA-160 I could accomplish the same thing just by opening and closing a little, six-inch window by my elbow. There are many options available, and that illustrates the deliberate nature of any flightpath the aircraft will take. It isn’t like an automobile which will track straight if the driver does nothing (as long as the car is properly aligned). In contrast, if you ask, “what will an aircraft’s flightpath be if the pilot does nothing?” That question is literally unanswerable, because depending on the aircraft’s actual configuration, the aircraft might climb, descend, fly level, or do anything else within its performance envelope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marleonetti7 --The term “gravity” describes one thing, not “…all the forces that hold things in place…”_ It is definable by scientific theory, measurable and verifiable by experimentation all day long, and utterly predictable. In contrast, it is flatEathers who are prone to catch-all fuzziness, and typically wrong even at the fundamental level. They ascribe falling objects to “density,” which is a mathematical ratio and not even a force of any kind. Some of them claim that buoyancy substitutes for gravity in all applications, without comprehending that buoyancy is a function of gravity…I mean, it’s in the actual formula, you know? I could go on, but the point is that the flatEarther position on gravity is pure denialism, which is just a fancy word for a “nuh-uh!” argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Chris Priest --It’s absurd to claim that science should recognize only that which humans can sense directly. Not only would you have to reject the reality of many things directly indiscernible by you—say, radio waves, electricity, and your own pancreas (if you’ve never seen it with your own eyes)—but your sense will fool you as often as they tell you the truth anyway. The senses frequently lie to us, and that’s why pilots, for example, are trained to ignore the senses in favor of instruments, when the two disagree. As for your claim that flatEarthers lack hubris, I laughed until I spit up when I read it. FlatEarthers deny millenia of accumulated discovery, and the testimony of all the worlds pilots, mariners, astronomers, cartographers and other experts whose endeavors rely on understanding the Earth’s true shape. FlatEarthers require the existence of a nefarious, centuries-long plot involving all the world’s governments and most of its citizens, intended merely to keep a few, enlightened flatEarthers down. If you don’t consider that to be hubris, then I’m afraid you don’t know what the word “hubris” means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregv2821 --Wow, you’ve spent far more time and energy evading my question, than you’d have spent simply answering it to begin with. I mean, it’s just two or three letters and a period, and a couple of seconds’ time. Your evasion is quite telling, and well beneath the standard for any civil exchange. Polite people answer polite questions, as evidenced by my commitment to answer those questions you would ask me, regardless of whether I think they’re astute or not. I mean, you could ask me my favorite color here, or my shoe size, and I’d happily answer it for you. Anything but confidential information.
”If I was a flat-earther would that nullify my point? If I wasn't a flat-earther would that validate it?”
This reveals your disingenuousness. Even as you refuse, for the third time now, to answer a question of mine, you have no compunction about asking me more questions. Evidently, your conception of debate is one standard for yourself, and a different standard for others.
”Open your mind and stop trying to label someone before you decide whether their commentary has any merit.”
Hilarious. What I’ve done is the opposite of trying to label you. I’m asking you to identify what you are, or not.
”And I'm not assuming, but if you were to identify as a liberal/progressive, wouldn't that be one of the core tenets of your ideology?”
More questions from you, while still unwilling to answer mine. Ponder that, friend.
So to repeat (again) a couple of things:
1. For the fourth time, Are you a flatEarther?
2. I’ll gladly answer any questions from you, but only in the proper sequence, meaning after you’ve shown the courtesy of answering the one I asked you first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dz6mo9yz8y -- ”I'd like to know why nasa lies and fakes so much of what it does?”
Your premise is false. Since its inception, NASA has been an extraordinarily open organization, even within the context of the cold war. With an ounce of genuine research, you’d find that there is an immensity of documentation available to you. They include communications transcripts, technical specifications, operational details, countless images including film-photographs, and much more. You just need to put your Google finger to work, and keep yourself from deciding ahead of time that whatever you find in defense of NASA will be a lie. That’s called circular reasoning, and it’s no way to learn anything. Still, if after doing some genuine research, you still think NASA lies, then please cite specific examples.
Departing boats disappear bottom up, and arriving boats appear top down, precisely because the Earth is curved. No such observation would be possible if the Earth were flat. A geometry class could explain this more clearly and completely for you.
You cannot see beyond the distance predicted by the curvature math. Your impression is likely based on the flatEarth community’s promotion of the false formula (eight inches per mile squared), its analyses that lack reckoning of distortion effects such as atmospheric refraction, its misidentification of landmarks (e.g. JTolan), its homemade “laws” of physics (Dubay), its ignorance of atmospheric phenomena (e.g. mirages), and its other shortcomings too numerous to mention. You will find no instance of actual visual distance exceeding that explained by known physical laws.
”I do not just accept "experts say" or "they've figured out that" answers for anything in life”
Of course you do. When you undergo open heart surgery, do you trust nothing the surgeon says about the procedure? Do you let your dry cleaner do its worked un-bothered, or do you require a comprehensive, verifiable and testable list of procedures before handing over your shirt? When you board an aircraft, do you insist that the pilots explain and demonstrate every single technique for flying and navigating an aircraft, or do you sit back and trust that they know what they’re doing? In the real world, we all trust expertise when we deem it to be qualified, and if you didn’t do that you’d be off living in a cave somewhere.
”I'd also like to know how light reflects on water from the source reflection in a line toward you. Example: standing on the beach the sun reflects from the horizon to the beach. A ball shape cannot reflect light in that way”
Sorry, this question is incoherent. Feel free to re-phrase it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dz6mo9yz8y --I’ve hardly deflected. In fact, I’ve addressed your comments directly at every step, in many cases re-publishing your own remarks verbatim right before responding to them. I’ve repeatedly asked you to clarify descriptions that were vague to me, and obviously that isn’t something a person intending to deflect away from them would do.
Six days ago, I posted a complete response to your last post of that day—the one that begins with ”You didn't address…” I now see that my posted response has disappeared from this thread, or at least from my view—do you see it? If not, then I assume the cause to be either YouTube’s recent glitchiness, or else an automatic deletion because I included links in my response. If you can’t see it, then later today I will re-write my response, without links, and re-post it.
As for this latest question of yours, I don’t understand what you’re asking: ” who even said water only?” Your own, hypothetical setting was a person standing in water, and looking at sunlight reflecting from the water’s surface. Naturally, I responded using the same setting.
1
-
@user-dz6mo9yz8y -- ”new qustion being about tge buildings.”
No comment of yours that’s visible to me mentions the phrase “tge buildings” and I have no guess about its meaning anyway. Feel free to try re-posting it, with clarification, please. So far, I only see your water scenario.
” You didn't address the question. Obviously the sun illuminates and shines everywhere. Lol. I'm talking about the direct reflection of the actual sun. It stretches from the horizon to the shore. Please explain how the reflection bends around a curved surface.”
Friend, if I didn’t address the question, then it’s because the question wasn’t clear to me. I now suppose that you’re talking about what’s known as “sun glitter”, an occasional effect that appears as a highlighted reflection on the water’s surface, when the sun is low in the sky. It often appears, but not always, as a band extending from a point near or at the horizon directly below the sun, to a point near or at the observer’s location. There are many good websites that explain this effect, and I’d previously provided some helpful links to them, but since the links may trigger a deletion of this comment, I’ll have to omit them and leave the Googling to you.
It's enough here to summarize the effect as a compound refection from a non-smooth surface (e.g. rippling water), and as such it’s the surface texture that matters, not the object’s fundamental shape. Obviously, an observer would see a certain area of the sun’s reflection on both a curved ocean’s surface and a flat ocean’s surface, so therefore the effect would manifest on both a spherical and a flat Earth. If this explanation doesn’t land with you, then it might help for you to explain why you think sun glitter wouldn’t be possible on a spherical Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-dz6mo9yz8y --I gave a correct answer to your question, even if you don’t recognize that. To repeat, surface texture causes the effect, and I urge you to research it. The band (“line”) of reflected sunlight does not occur on a smooth surface, and that’s why you don’t see it on parking lots or even frozen lakes. The Earth’s shape is not a limiting factor. Will you please explain why you think that you wouldn’t see the reflected line of sunlight on a spherical Earth? So far, I’m the only one making meaty arguments here, while you’ve merely claimed that “a ball shape cannot reflect light in that way”, but without any attempt to support it with data.
”the fact u thought I needed an explanation of the ripples causing a glitter affect is rather humorous. by assuming I was dumb you made yourself look even dumber unfortunately”
I never said I think you’re “dumb”, you’re just projecting that sentiment onto me. And I venture that most intelligent people wouldn’t know offhand what sun glitter is. Still, I encourage you to ponder the inconsistency of complaining when you think someone believes you to be “dumb,” while at the same time calling that same person “dumb”. Friend, your attempt at insult not only doesn’t land, but it has no place in a civil exchange in any case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaylintz1683 -- ”in climbing or decent you are correct, however when a plane is on autopilot it simply maintains all inputs and nothing else.”
You’re conflating dissimilar concepts. A flightpath’s shape has nothing to do with whether an aircraft is being hand flown or by autopilot. And again, a level flightpath is NOT flat, only a climb or descent is.
” If said plane flies 600 plus miles, was there no curvature therefore needing no elevation correction?”
There’s curvature over even a six-inch distance. And no “correction” is ever needed to follow the Earth’s curvature, the pilot/autopilot simply maintains a constant altitude. No doubt you’re thinking that an aircraft would head toward space if not “corrected” downward, but of course that’s wrong.
”also, is there some magical technology in the gyroscope that keeps the plane at the same altitude regardless of curvature?”
Gyroscopes aren’t used to maintain altitude. The altimeter and, to some extent, the vertical speed indicator perform that task. Neither instrument contains a gyroscope. By the way, there is no THE gyroscope in an aircraft to begin with. The typical cockpit has more than one of them, located in more than one type of instrument, and serving more than one purpose. The flatEarth community didn’t tell you that, did it?
1
-
1
-
@warmachineuk explained it well, below. I'll add that flatEarthism is especially dangerous when flatEarthers have children, and I'd say that it's even abusive to raise children in such staggering ignorance. It limits their potential, and unless they can grow past it, and early, they can never become scientists, pilots, mariners, cartographers, structural engineers, and countless other professions that rely on an accurate understanding of the Earth's shape.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReinoldFZ -- ”What you mean, about flatness, slopes or so, is topography which, again, doesn't consider curvature of the earth, just local variations”
That’s exactly what I explained in my first comment.
”…projects in architecture, save climatic and solar orientation, technically work with the Earth as flat…”
Again, you are mistaken. For small-scale projects, no shape is assumed for the Earth, and architectural design reckons local topography only. For larger projects, the Earth’s shape can be meaningful, and in such case the spherical-Earth model is used. I’ve already provided the example of length bridges over water, so ask yourself how they could be built while assuming the Earth (or water) is flat.
”There is a story about a zar that, presented several designs that studied the topography, to connect two points drew a line with a rule and so it was made the straightest road in history, no curvature of Earth involved.”
“Straight” in topographical (and nautical/aeronautical) terminology refers only to the lateral plane. Thus a straight road is one that does not deviate left or right, and neither the vertical plane or surface curvature, has anything to do with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReinoldFZ -- ”The biggest projects of architecture I think are airports and the design don't require to think in the Earth as a flat surface.”
That’s correct, and I’ve previously stated that large projects do not assume a flat Earth, but in fact no project does that. Small projects don’t assume any particular shape for the Earth at all, and one could argue that this disregard is due to the very, very small conflicts between a curved Earth and designed-in flatness. For example, an architect might design a 50-meter concrete slab to be flat, meeting the same surveyed elevation value at each end. Obviously, there is a natural mismatch there due to the Earth’s curvature, but considering its extremely low value (a few thousandths of an inch), it will be exceeded by errors of both the surveyor and the concrete contractor anyway. To reckon the Earth’s true shape on such a small scale would be to chase an impracticably small deviation, and fail in the effort, so therefore the planet’s shape can be ignored altogether. I believe we’ve agreed that local topography is all that matters.
”…you mentioned as example a bridge, which is designed by a civil engineer..”
To begin with, architects often do participate directly in the design of bridges. (So do many other, distinct types of professionals.) Second, it is conventional for the work of engineers and other consultants to be describable within the scope of a project architect—at least in the US. I can’t account for elsewhere. That’s the context I spoke with, and if in contrast you’ve sub-divided the description where I haven’t, it doesn’t mean that we are in conflict. Evidently, we both understand the work of architects and engineers well enough.
”Architecture by definition is the design of spaces for human beings, not for cars, ships, nor containment of volumes of water in dams…”
No, friend. There is much more crossover than you realize. Perhaps this is another example of meaning lost between languages or countries, because in the US an architect is not quite what you are defining it as.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robinbluemoon747 -- "If I had more time, I would study up on more questions raised.”
Friend, people here can help you save your time, by either answering your questions directly, or else pointing you to other sources. Fortunately, the Earth’s shape is one topic where you’re not being “lied to,” except by flatEarthers. Their claims are exceedingly easy to debunk.
By the way, I've never encountered a conspiracy notion (like flatEarthism) that's nearly as interesting as reality itself. Human imagination cannot match the creativity of nature, and flatEarthism, even at its best, strikes me as cynical, narrow and dull.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1