Saw a thread about Flat Earth earlier on Sup Forums

Saw a thread about Flat Earth earlier on Sup Forums

I've been reading through and watching a lot of material related to this topic since then. I have two main questions:

1. Does an aircraft need to continually point downard to follow the curve? if not why?

>Tangential Acceleration, atmosphere curved like the earth, who says they don't adjust altitude.
These are a few of the answers I've found, so what's the truth here?

2. Why does an aircraft flying in opposition to the rotation of the earth not reach its destination faster?

>The Coriolis Effect must be considered by snipers and artillery men, or so I've heard.
Does this affect the aircraft? Is there some competing force?

I'm not a scientist/physicist. I only know what I've been taught about the earth and space, but I have always wondered about air-travel. Especially regarding the Coriolis Effect.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/H4QVpEyDqMY
youtube.com/watch?v=VsSbN0MmIec
youtu.be/gg5zwS3f5iI
smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The earth is flat, don't listen to the lizard people at NASA

I'll give a bump
>though I know my thread will receive little to no response..

...

>useless propaganda
as far as I'm concerned

I'm honestly curious as to the answer to those questions.

OP is always a fag, I know

What is the truth when it comes to aircraft flight? Forget the Flat Earth thing; It's a bit of bait.

bump again
>little to no response, as usual

The plane is moving relative to the earth and so is the atmosphere it's flying through. You would have to leave the earths atmosphere before you could take advantage of its roation to speed travel.

Aircrafts constantly adjust their level of flight to compensate for the curvature of the earth. If you've ever looking into how to pilot a plane or into how auto pilot systems work you'd see that this is all accounted for.

Youre right on the first point but not the second. Airplanes dont actually have to adjust for the curvature of the earth because theyre flying through that same atmosphere which is also curved like the earth. A plane doesnt fly into space for the same reason your car doesnt.

Auto pilot does make adjustments constantly though but its due to changes in atmospheric pressure based on altitude.

I'm not really qualified to answer, but I'll give it a shot.

1. This question sort of implies that if the plane didn't point down it would just fly off into space. Planes can't do that. Really large surfaces that curve appear flat when you're as small as we are. Whatever adjustments a plane would have to make would be gradual and small.

2. Maybe it does? If so, it must be a tiny difference.

3. If something as small as a bullet must be taken into account, then something as large as a plane probably needs to be considered as well.

This is the problem with flat earth though. They don't ever try to prove their own model, they just ask gotcha questions and laugh at you when you can't articulate why you think they're wrong.

I think you have q2 first and then q1

what about the Coriolis Effect?

Any aircraft is capable of overcoming the atmosphere and gravity, that's how it becomes air-borne. Why wouldn't it fly into upper levels of atmosphere and stall?

>store front x3

You're saying auto-pilot corrects for this? So pilots back in the day had to do this manually?
I'll look for this.

Pilots dont do it. That user was mistaken about what auto pilots actually do. They just maintain a position relative to ground which would only change because of pressure.

As far as the coralis effect im not sure why you would think we would feel its effects in any meaningful way. It doesnt work the way you seem to think it does. Everything is relative to your current position whether youre standing still or moving at a million miles an hour through space.

Your arm is capable of overcoming atmosphere and gravity when it becomes airborne, too.

1. I know planes can't fly into space; they would stall. However, they would have to fly a vertically curved path, right? I think it's supposed to be 8" per mile/squared? Again, I'm not a scientist/physicist/(or)mathematician

2. I think it would be a substantial difference. I'll try to pull-up some numbers.

3. I agree. I think it would need to be taken into account, is it?

I'm not saying flat earth is correct. Only that this one tenet of the argument is of interest to me. I will also admit that it does seem a bit fishy to me.

Planes cant just leave the atmosphere. Its a pretty delicate balance between lift and drag and the higher you go the more thin the atmosphere becomes. Every plane at some point would stall save for ones specificly designes to be able to break the earths atmoaphere. All the plane does is level out at a desire and safe altitude and hokd it steady

They dont have to fly a curved path. The atmosphere is already curved with the earth. They fly a straight path. Start thinking in terms of relative positions and gravitys effects and youll realize that no correction is ever necessary.

so considering the levels of the atmosphere. shouldn't the plane be able to fly to the top of the level of atmosphere it's capable of flying in?

I know that's worded strangely.. let me rephrase

shouldn't the plane be capable of "free" movement in the troposphere or maybe stratosphere? How does speed work into this equation?

Are you saying that the "thinness" of the atmosphere "dips" the plane?

and I realize I'm asking a lot of questions, but I'm not trying to play Socrates here..

Like I said: I'm not a scientist/physicist/mathematician.. I'm also a burger, if that helps you understand the perspective I'm approaching this with..

What do you mean by relative positions and gravity's affect?

The higher you travel the less atmosphere surrounds you. The pressure differential on the top and bottom of the wing generates lift. So the less atmosphere you have the smaller the pressure differential and therefor the less lift you can generate to counteract the force of gravity.

Most engines also preform less efficiently at higher altitudes.

Im saying a plane is only capable of fighting gravity, not eliminating its effects all together. The earths gravity is still having a pull effect counter to the planes push effect that allows it to become airborn. The reach an equlibrium at a given altitude based on thrust and the design of the plane itself and then the path the plane travels is "stright" relative to itself and the earth. A godlike observer looking at the plane from outside the earth would see a spinning planet and a plane appearing to travel a curved path. But the plane relative it itself and the earth is flying "stright".

I think I can picture this.

but what about the old war planes that fly way up, until they stall?

I'll admit, I've only ever seen this in movies. Is this a real possibility?

Every plane stalls out because the engine cannot get enough oxygen or because the atmosphere is so thin the wings no longer create enough lift to keep it gaining altitude. Most plans fly at a level well below their limits but alsothin enough to not have to over stress their motors with drag

So the equilibrium is the lesser effect of gravity at a certain altitude and the "thinness" of the atmosphere?

Coupled with the aerodynamics of the plane itself: why some aircraft can fly much higher than others.

so what about the Coriolis Effect?

>store front x2

I would hazard that would just be momentum carrying the plane upwards, especially if its an older model of airplane. I don't know of any plane wing that can generate lift at a 90 degree angle to the upper and lower slope of the wing but I could be wrong.

As an example I can throw a discus 300+ feet away from myself by taking advantage of the lift the disc generates. At the same time there is no way in hell I could throw a disc 300+ feet straight up into the air

this is where I get mixed up..

the aircraft is capable of flying to higher altitude, to the point it stalls. Aircraft stay below this line. But they are kept below this line by an equilibrium?

Is it only possible for an aircraft to reach the stall point if a pilot pulls back on the stick and floors it? Seriously, I know nothing about this

Ah, right!

so the plane which is airborne, essentially because its speed and the air "carrying/holding" it, could not point upwards/90d..

the higher degree it points upward the less lift it has under the wings. so speed would be reduced and quickly it becomes a massive metal rock in the sky.

I can understand this.

but still, what keeps the plane from accidentally flying into this zone? You get to 30k ft and start flying in a straight horizontal line, wouldn't the plane start climbing? 8" per mile/squared, I think.

Gravity keeps everything pretty well stuck down here. The eliquibrium is just that. A comfort zone where the push and pull are equal. Just because you travel forward doesnt mean the effect of gravity is any different it pulls the plane toward it with the same force and the plane pushes against it with the same force.

As far as the corialis effect i know so little about it that im sure im misspelling it. But from what little i know its a relative thing. To experience it like you seem to think we should we would have to have another enormous gravitational pull exacting its force in another direction. Like the effect is always relative to a given position. Whether that position is in motion already is a non-factor because that motion is in the vacuum of space.

Gravity stops the ascent. Remember there is always a pull to counteract the plans push.

Yes the pilot is going to have to aim the plane upward to continue flying toward space.

To put it another way the coriais effect is experienced by an object because of its motion counter to the earth. There is notjing near enough to the earth to exact an opposing force on us so we would experience it. Basicly it require two opposing forces and here on earth we only have the one

Isn't gravity weaker the further you get from earth?

Coriolis Effect: Honestly I don't know much about it either. I was in the service and the snipers on my team told me about it. From my memory: when taking very long shots, not only do you have to consider distance and windage, but also the curve/rotation of the earth.

from wikipedia, for what it's worth
>In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force (also called a fictitious force)[1] that acts on objects that are in motion relative to a rotating reference frame.

Gravity is constant no matter your orientation. Think about it this way. If you have a box and two smaller boxes in it and you drop this larger box out of an airplane from really high up what will happen? INside the two smaller boxes will fall with the larger box, but as the larger box continues to decent the smaller boxes inside will start to fall toward one another. That's because gravity is constant and always pulling you toward the center of the earth.

doesn't gravity's force weaken the further away from earth you get?

I mean, obviously at some point... but within the troposphere and stratosphere.

I can picture this

but it's just a picture in my mind. This doesn't seem to be evidence. Are you saying the effects of gravity are demonstrable on human scale?

I would love an experiment, if possible.

I need to step away for about 10 minutes.
Just letting you all know.

You should check out the PBS space time channel on youtube. They talk about a lot of the stuff you're asking about. Easily one of the best science channels I've watched.

The effect is felt on a body in rotation relative to another body in rotating by that defination you just quoted there. Our relative experience on earth is only one body rotating, the earth. You need to have another body rotating on the earth for the earth own rotation to have that opposing effect on it.

Also as far as your weakened gravity comment, yeah the pull is less but its still a pull. Also look up escape velocity it takes a ton of fucking effort to break the bonds of gravity

>on Sup Forums
Just stop right there.

Aerospace engineer here:

Couple of clarifying comments:

There are 4 forces on any aircraft. Gravity (down), Lift (up), Thrust (forward), Drag (back).

As long as thrust exceeds drag, the aircraft moves forward. As long as lift exceeds gravity, the plane stays aloft.

To your "flat earth" question - the one vector a pilot can't change is gravity, it is always pointing down. Since the earth is curved, the gravity vector is always pointing to the center of the earth. All the other forces (L,D,T) balance off gravity. A plane "flying in a straight line into space" is actually climbing against gravity. This is the same physics of orbits and how satellites maintain their orbits.

Aircraft stall when the wing exceeds the critical angle of attack, not when engines run out of thrust. At high altitudes an aircraft can lose thrust, which will cause airspeeds to drop, which will cause the angle of attack needed to maintain lift to increase to the point that it stalls, but it is incorrect to say that a plane stalls due to lack of thrust. Case in point - drop the nose below critical angle of attack and the wings will fly fine, you just won't be able to maintain altitude.

I'll take a look, but I doubt they can answer my specific questions. Which is why I'm asking you all instead of potentially researching in the wrong direction.

honestly hoped for pilot or physicist type Sup Forumstard to crack an egg of knowledge all over me and elucidate my fate.
if you catch my drift..

I know Sup Forums is filled with tin-foilers, and MAGA faggots, that's why I came to Sup Forums
>the voice of reason

I think wrong post citation

does an aircraft flying/rotating in the opposite direction not count?

I get momentum. You can't jump and the earth turns under you. but doesn't an aircraft work against momentum?

What if this theory is meant to distract you with what the actual plan is? Not that the Earth is flat, but maybe where we are now is the top portion of a layered Earth. Flat Earth could references to the deeper layers that were created. No one is really allowed near Antarctica, which could ask the question what is over there? A hole to the deeper layers?

So gravity is always pushing the plane down, lift is pushing/guiding the plane up.

Still, why doesn't the plane, flying straight, reach the limits of the atmosphere it's capable of maneuvering in, without correction from the pilot? or does the pilot have to correct the course?

Planes fly at 30k. is that the equilibrium?

Yes, but even in space the gravity is something like 90%-95% of what's experienced at surface level.

For OP
This is the gravity bit. The plane is constantly being pulled down because as they go around the globe the direction of gravity changes. It's not just a constant downward pull, it pulls you towards the center of the Earth.

The reason you dont travel faster in a plane going the opposite direction of the way the Earth spins is because you're spinning with the Earth. It's the same reason astronauts don't get stuck to the edge of the ISS at all times even though it's orbiting the planet faster than a bullet, they're moving the same speed as the ship.

Maybe this will help: youtu.be/H4QVpEyDqMY

John Kerry is allowed there!
Imagine Kerry getting all suited up to launch weather balloons. Fantastic.

I'm sorry people, I just can't wrap my head around all of this. I can picture most/some of it, but I still don't understand.

Maybe I'm too stupid. Like I said, I'm burger and they don't like teaching that complicated shit here. I remember asking how they shoot particles and record their mass in chemistry (in college) and another student yelled out "google it." Afterwards we counted beans in lab.

All I know, is I don't know anymore..

>90%-95% of what's experienced at surface level.

so the ISS, how does that overcome gravity? I imagine it's through the speed it travels around the earth.

Can anyone explain the relationship between gravity's pull on the ISS and the speed it maintains in order to overcome gravity?

I'm interested in seeing equations (though I won't understand them, mostly).

I'd search myself, but I don't know what to look up.

You do know that aircraft have engines, that provide thrust moving it forward
So no, the Coriolis effect has no bearing

The ISS is in the planets orbit, I'm not entirely sure but I think you've got it. It's like how a ball on the end of a string will lift up and go outwards when you spin it around your head rather than just fall back down to Earth. All speculation but makes sense to me

the plane is overcoming gravity, it's a plane!

if it flies in a straight path, wouldn't gravity have to overcome the path of the plane? Essentially, becoming stronger as the plane reaches the limit of its path?

Keep in mind about 30k is where planes normally fly. You say gravity keeps them there, but the has already overcome gravity and can move up or down as the pilot decides.

gravity pulls it toward the center, but the plane can overcome gravity. There is an equilibrium, but the plane is kept under the limit of this equilibrium.

This is my thought process.

>store x3

This is the brainwashing of the education system: "A plane doesnt fly into space for the same reason your car doesnt." Geez.

makes me think of the ant on a vinyl record. the ant has to move faster the further away it gets from the center.

maybe not what you meant, just what I thought of.

What I said, tho, is wrong. apparently the ISS orbits earth like 16 times an earth day.

To apply ant anology, the ant would be running around the record, in mid-air (vacuum), 16 times per revolution of the record.

The ant is fast as fuck, but I guess being outside the spinning vinyl, it avoids most of gravity and its forces.

>store

...

A plane doesn't have to make adjustments because height is measured by a pitot-static system which measures ram air and static pressure and tells you your height. Atmospheric pressure (which is effected primarily by air density) is relatively constant at a specific heights above sea level.

t. pilotfag

What if a plane didn't have any of that? Would you fly into space if you didn't adjust?

Gravity. Gravity is the reason. Over simplification of not that user is still right. Gravity keeps shit from soaring into space

as for your other question, you're not able to see it but air is a gas and has mass. The atmosphere around you is spinning with the rotation of the earth. A plane flying at a low altitude (high density of air particles) can't take advantage of the spin. Does the earth spin rapidly beneath your feet if you jump in the air? No. Same concept for planes.

>What if a plane didn't have any of that? Would you fly into space if you didn't adjust?
well no. A plane is in level flight if all motions are equal. This means thrust equals drag and lift equals weight. The amount of lift you are producing depends on the design of the wing, the angle of attack, and the amount of particles flowing over and under the wing. At a constant air pressure you will maintain level flight (constant altitude) without having to fight the controls.

The plane/car comparison is a useless one. I missed it on my first read. thanks.

And I still don't understand. Hypothetical based as best I can on realism:

>A commercial plane can fly between 10k and 40k ft.
>The pilot chooses to fly at 30k
>The plane has already overcome gravity and is moving along quite nicely, in a straight line.
>As it approaches the "Event Horizon," let's call it, what happens?
>The plane continues to fly "straight."

>The gravity it has previously overcome provides less downward influence (negligible).
>The atmosphere provides more downward influence as it climbs higher (thinner air creates aerodynamic problems)
>There is a sweet-spot
>But the plane is flying at 30k and is capable of flying at 40k.

What keeps it at 30k?

You say gravity, but if the plane can overcome gravity by flying in the first place, how does gravity keep the plane from flying to higher altitudes?

i think this sums the first question up nicely. If i made a mistake, please let me know

to add to my other response, think about it this way. As you go further above sea level, the amount of particles in the air decreases. A planes wing produces more lift when there are more air particles flowing around the wing. A plane wont just fly off into space because it will be producing less lift if it keeps climbing.

"Gravity keeps shit from soaring into space." The brainwashing is complete. Gravity does not exist. Density does. Think this through.

1. No. An airplane never has to point downward following any curve, mainly because there is no fucking curve.

2. Because the earth is stationary. Beautifully, flat, stationary and mysterious, in an electrical manner, because earth and us living beings seem to revolve around electricity.

useless to the conversation, but I remember using a very similar picture during a health class.

The project was on drugs. Everyone picked heroin, cocaine, MJ.. I chose aspirin..

It was a picture of a scientist, just like this, but he was holding up the molecule structure of aspirin. I captioned it with "shove this up your ass, bitch!" during the suppository section of my presentation.

Flat earth is a way to discredit all conspiracies by association. Please if you are intelligent ignore it and look into the real coverups like Sept 11 sandy hook port author etc. there are so many obvious plots and false flags. No need for bs ones

read this post The plane is able to measure its altitude above sea level by measuring air pressure. At a specific altitude in a specific area, the air pressure is constant. If the planes control surfaces are trimmed to capture the same amount of lift without showing an increase or decrease in altitude, the plane will flight at a level height with ease.

Check out this 11 minute video which will answer your questions: youtube.com/watch?v=VsSbN0MmIec

...

Not thread OP but I dont believe in flat earth or most other conspiracy theories. I was just wondering why planes always stay level without having to adjust. Thanks to for explaining

Don't forget to account for gravity, lift from the plane's wings and that the atmosphere is also a sphere, getting thinner the further away from earth you get.
There's a happy medium between lift generated upwards vs gravitational acceleration downwards.

...

gravity pulling the plane down a half mile every 60 seconds.....bullshit

This is where my mind went. I don't know about gravity.. It seems like an unnecessary addition to the equation..

Isn't density more relevant?

How does the density of a helium balloon affected by gravity? are there any helium ballons in zero g?

I'll look it up

f the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles circumference curveting 8 inches per mile squared, a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute!

gravity is made up . you know there no machine or experiment that can detect it
the toothfairy is more believable

when the amount of lift you are producing equals the gravitational force being exerted on the plane, it is in level flight. Gravity is always relevant just try not to get it confused with density. Density only has an impact on lift as it varies directly with the amount of lift you are able to produce and varies inversely with altitude.

Planes stay level bc they are within earths atmosphere. Most conspiracies m are not off by much. They are regarded as bunk by their nature of being conspiracy theories but look past the label and actually research and it's pretty obvious that there is some crazy truths in plain site

this. finally some common sense.

...

>gravity is made up . you know there no machine or experiment that can detect it
the toothfairy is more believable
I almost feel bad for how excruciatingly dumb you are.

5/10 I'm raging inside. Nice bait m8

this is how you felt when you found out santa wasn't real
>you do know Santa isn't real?

"How is it that “gravity” is so strong that it can hold all the oceans, buildings and people stuck to the under-side of the ball-Earth, but so weak that it allows birds, bugs, smoke, and balloons to casually evade its grips completely!? "

Yup. Gravity is a big one in the freemasonic world; a massive part of the deception to make people believe in the ball earth. If you think about it, their answer to everything is fucking gravity.

Why is the earth round?
Why does it spin?
Why do the sun and moon move in the sky?
Why do tides happen?
Why doesn't the water fall off from the oceans around the earth?
bblah blah blah

I'm still to see an experiment proving that water can cling to a ball because of gravity. I'm still to see real evidence of black holes. I'm still to see evidence of what the "nucleus of the ball earth" looks like. I'm still to see experiements proving that you can move across the south or north pole and reach the other pole if you walk in the same direction.

So many questions, and they only give us bullshit answers backed up by beautiful and ugly equations.

OP don't listen to this asshole. Dude literally has 0 idea what he is talking about. God damn people are so fucking dumb. I want to believe people aren't this stupid.

I am a career pilot. You don't know what you're talking about.

The earth is flat and gravity isn't what you guys think. It's obvious if you actually did any research

Video to explain: youtu.be/gg5zwS3f5iI

...

This response and questions are spot on. Good to see this type of analytical thinking and not spewing the same crap of the brainwashed.

Are you serious? When water pools it is heavier than air and thus sinks. Thats why we have oceans. In vapor form it is light and can easily be kept aloft. Larger objects attract smaller objects to them. This is why we don't fly off into space. Life has evolved on this planet in conjunction with a constant amount of gravity. I'd imagine that if you took a fly from earth and put it on a much larger planet with the same atmospheric concentration, it would have a much harder time flying.

truth hurts the closed mind. resort to cursing and calling people names.

This.

Please don't derail.
The flat earth image was a bit of bait, as this question often comes up in those "theories." Honestly want to understand the science here..

This does explain the particular issue I'm asking about. I mean, it's very easy for me to understand. However, that doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

but there is a buffer zone. I mean, commercial planes fly at an altitude lower than what they are capable of. What keeps the plane from climbing at least to the limit of the plane's capability?

I've heard gravity, but the plane defies gravity. Now someone said air-pressure plays a role?
Hey, I'm just trying to get what everyone else is telling me straight.

Flat-earth threads are normally filled with so much garbage, you can't keep your head on.

is there a machine that can detect....gravity?

Every sentence written here is incorrect. But this forum will change years of indoctrination.

waaaaa you hurt my feelings so you must just be lashing out in anger because you're wrong waaaa

This is not an argument.

Science has proven the earth is a sphere. If you want to say otherwise, it is you who has the burden of proof. If you truly believe in your heart of hearts that the earth is flat, that there is no space and that there is a definite edge, why don't you go out and fucking prove it? Be the first person to come up with a picture of the edge. Be the first person to come up with a video of a high altitude baloon crashing into the dome ceiling or whatever it is you wackjobs believe is out there. You'd be famous. Fucking do it already instead of sitting here and complaining.

It's called a ball in a cup

wait I missed it , please prove how it's a spinning sphere

>science has proven
science can't _prove_ anything, this is 6th grade shit, user

Flat earth is the dumbest meme of all
Just stop guys seriously youre taking it too far

so there is no machine that can detect gravity....how do we know it;s real?!

As a physics major I refuse to believe this isnt trolling

im the guy who was talking about air pressure. Yes air pressure plays a role. Like I've said in other posts, if you maintain a constant air pressure while flying by trimming your flight controls a certain way, you will track a level altitude. Air density decreases as altitude increases. Wings produce lift based primarily on the amount of air particles flowing around the wing. You won't just fly up to the planes maximum ceiling if you just track a constant altitude (which is really easy all you have to do is trim it once your power level is set and you never have to touch the controls until you want to change something).

Go fuck yourself retard. Im willing to bet that you won't bother to read any of this because your idiot little mind is already made up. Im done responding to you flat earth people.

smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

Ok

There is

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational-wave_observatory