Comments by "Yester Vue" (@yestervue4697) on "LADbible Stories"
channel.
-
Trolls' reaction to science and common sense is far more entertaining though! Here...react to this....
I will attach a picture even for more clarity.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/ge9sN.png
Now, these are the terms we will use (listed/outlined on the diagram) so as to completely comply with "known sciences of air flight" and the terminology actually used by pilots all over the earth, so you cannot say I am saying something/referencing something incorrectly.
Now when you take off in an aircraft from the flat level ground, and you want to gain altitude after becoming airborne, you have absolutely no other option but to adjust the "pitch" of the craft so as to point the nose of the craft at an angle to whatever desired degree/angle/speed you wish until the craft reached whatever desired altitude ( altitude representing the distance measured from the craft to the flat, level, ground in whatever measured unbit you use/speak in) to achieve this result...physics mandates it.
Now when you reach said altitude, you will have to readjust the pitch of the plane to bring the fuselage to a level orientation (would be measured at 0 degrees pitch or completely level in relation to the flat surface of the earth...following me? Don't say no or you have got to be extremely stupid...)
Now once you are flying along at the desired altitude, and your craft has leveled off and is now maintaining altitude only..as in NOT climbing/gaining altitude, OR descending/losing altitude...you cannot maintain 0 degrees pitch in cruising altitude flight and stay at that same altitude continuously, and the altitude makes no difference whether 10,000 ft or 10 ft.
So as the supposedly "known/measured/calculatable curvature" of a global earth model would mandate according to..."science"...the continually curving earth surface would soon start to descend/drop/curve downward before you and quite noticeably (as the curve calculates to something like 8" per mile of drop over distance in any direction on this ball/sphere) in your direction of flight no matter where on earth you flew.
You would reach a point where you were slowly gaining altitude and thus "climbing out of the atmosphere and proceeding into space" as a result of the ground "falling away" in angle before your direction of flight.
Physics mandates without argument that as that occurred you would be forced to adjust the pitch of the craft at a downward attitude (point the nose down or descend/lose altitude to maintain 10k ft or whatever altitude you flew) or you would WIND UP LEAVING THE EARTH AND ENTERING THE OUTER ATMOSPHERE SLOWLY ASCENDING CONTINUALLY UPWARD INTO SPACE.
You absolutely cannot circumvent a sphere or globe of any size in any direction whatsoever in any type of aircraft without using a curved flight path in relation to maintaining a constant altitude over thousands of linear miles in distance as you traverse the surface of the earth.
Now, where is that wrong? How does that inarguable representation of physics in play make me the idiot and you smart?
Now you look stupid believing in a globe when you really think about it don't you? Welcome to reality!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kingmidas5864 The point I was always talking about/aimed at was maybe more simply put as if a car crests the top of a hill, it has no option but to have the front end of the car "point downward" to navigate a curved surface or it becomes airborne...period. Flight physics, gravity, weight to speed ratios, and anything else anyone wants to apply to that scenario is totally irrelevant. To follow the contours of a curved surface the trajectory of whatever vehicles using whatever means of propulsion have no option but to follow a curved surface with a "curved" trajectory and that is locked in immovable fact...period.
Now I was trying to get people to realize (leading them into a thought that made them go "Hey, you know what ...that makes sense actually!") that in no way can you ever, ever, ever, trace a curved line with a straight one it is and forever will be impossible.
That was the reason for my adherence to referencing the "PITCH" of the craft and not the yaw or roll. I was never arguing the detailed breakdown of the fine points of the physics of flight, etc.
No one stops to think that to say a jet because it is designed to fly "IN" the atmosphere and a rocket designed to leave it to have no bearing on that whatsoever but will go to great lengths to try to make it seem as if there are wiggly areas of the laws of physics that apply differently to each one that makes the "spherical model" of earth work with a flight trajectory.
I am pointing out that regardless...just like a roller coaster even...if the front does NOT POINT DOWNWARD/FOLLOW A CURVED PATH IT WILL LEAVE THE TRACKS AT THE CREST OF A RISE AND BECOME AIRBORNE. Apply the same to a plane and it eventually becomes space flight and not earthbound.
I wanted someone to explain the reasoning they stick to that a plane supposedly does not have to point its nose down as it travels along over thousands of miles of linear-direction and traces the ever falling/declining curvature in front of it during a halfway round-the-world flight. Because to make that work you have to "bend" the laws of physics to make it so while traversing any sphere of any size at all.
I get tons of breakdowns of the minute details and everyone misses the objective of the question entirely being overwhelmed with a fear that somehow NOT knowing something would make my questions aimed at making someone look dumb...when in fact my intent is enlightenment. But if I can't get them to think that way/question the logic they will never see it. People have to be shown they never believe what they are told.
Therefore now with that explained I wanted them to realize the error in thought that a plane and a rocket BOTH would HAVE TO adjust pitch to make them leave the atmosphere and both would also have to perform the same if you flew either around a sphere...rockets also would have no option but to constantly adjust the trajectory to follow a curved surface with a curved flight path...period.
So...if you take a car, and make a straight ramp that went upward at a 45-degree angle literally long enough that it eventually leaves the earth atmosphere and enters space...it is exactly the same thing as a planes flight path...in that it if it remained at a constant non-adjusting flight path of that consistent angle...it would be ejected into space at the end of that ramp. The only way t make a ruler trace the surface of a beach ball would be to "bend" the ruler along the balls' radius and nothing else works at all.
It matters not whether a rocket, a plane, or a wheeled vehicle...it always was, still is, and forever will be absolutely impossible to trace a curved surface with a straight line...period.
Now in that thought train, it really throws a wrench into the spherical model and that is what the question was based on...asking any pilot what angle of flight they train them to keep a plane adjusted to for a transcontinental flight going half way round the world and that would be a very common and extremely well-known fact in the world of pilots...and there is no such thing.
I know that...I wanted them to realize it.
When one sits back and genuinely examines the spherical model concept...MUCH doesn't really add up, does it?
And not in an insulting way I say this but I assure you your brain right now is twisting around and squirming to explain this in your own head. THAT was the objective...that twisting and struggling to explain it...and my ultimate goal. Not arguing the ways different vehicles fly, that is totally out of context concerning the talk I was in the middle of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1