Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Enoch 2021

So The Earth Is A Sphere Spinning @ 1000 Mph, Ok...

Recommended Posts

1.  Thanks

 

2.  Thanks again, Astonishing!

 

3. Well because he's not saying level flight isn't possible, for One  :rolleyes: .  #2....He's saying that on a 'Globe' with a 25,000 mile circumference and traveling @ 500 mph @ 35,000 feet.... TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speed) to Compensate for the Curvature and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

 

I have taken a Metric Ton of flights (including 'across the pond') and this is a tear jerkin belly laugher on Nuclear Steroids!!  I flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison.

If he's not saying level flight is impossible (keep in mind "level" here means relative to the surface of a sphere), why would a pilot need to pull any maneuvers that compare unfavorably to a rollercoaster? You don't have to descend 2,777 feet every minute because you never climbed it in the first place.

 

I'm genuinely confused as to how either of you think flying works.

 

:consoling:  Because you have a ground squirrel level contradiction (I bolded and underlined them).

Those aren't contradictory. The system as a whole is rotating around an axis. That doesn't mean individual parts of that system can't move relative to each other. If we were standing on a train moving at 100 MPH, we could still move around the car relative to each other. We might even appear to be moving in opposite directions to someone in the middle of the car.

 

Thanks for your Ipse Dixit Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy 'One Liner' Hand-Wave Dismissal.

Did you miss all of the lines I posted above that one?

 

Special Note: This is day 4 for me of considering this topic and day 2 with the Proofs; Ergo...I haven't vetted it. However, I am very interested in the rebuttals for future research.

 

VERY Special Note:  I am currently on the Fence whether the Earth is Flat or a Sphere; playing the 'devil's advocate' as it were.  I thought posting it here would SPEED UP the process.  thumbsup.gif

If this is the quality of evidence you typically refer to when you're considering a question, a whole lot of stuff about you just started making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When a pilot is doing 500mph in a straight line, so to speak, the centripetal force generated by the earth naturally takes the plane around the natural curvature of the earth.

 

 

1.  Why did you not Answer ALL my Questions Specifically Mike?  I put that there...

 

"Please answer EACH COMMENT ABOVE (Save the first two)....Specifically please."  for a very good reason.

 

 

2.  Straw Man Fallacy.  And why on Earth would you use a Car on a Race Track Analogy and a Bus  :blink:   What on Earth does that have to do with a PLANE IN THE AIR and the explanation of changes that must be made to MAINTAIN ALTITUDE due to the Curvature of the Earth, pray tell?

 

A Plane is not going around in Circles... on the ground Mike.

 

2a.  Begging The Question: "Centripetal Force": Any motion in a curved path represents accelerated motion, and requires a force directed toward the center of curvature of the path."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

 

What Curvature??

 

And what does this have WHATEVER to do with my question?  I'm not asking about Aeronautical Banked Turns?  :huh:  

 

 

So what you are asking me/us to believe is that there is no such thing as angular momentum caused by centripetal force.

 

 

Ahhh no, what I'm asking you to do is pay attention to my specific question Please  thumbsup.gif

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did pay attention to it Enoch. You just don't understand why I did.

 

 

Enoch: What Curvature??

 

And what does this have WHATEVER to do with my question?

 

ANY curvature. Okay, let's ASSUME the earth is flat, will what I am saying still be true? Yes - therefore if the earth WAS curved, then the centripetal force created by the earth's gravity would mean that a plane would fly perpendicular to the centre of force at all times for as long as it was travelling forwards.

 

 

 

Enoch: And why on Earth would you use a Car on a Race Track Analogy and a Bus 

 

Because one is an example of a curved path obtained by a balance between centripetal force and centrifugal force and one is an example where there isn't enough centripetal force to maintain a curved path leading to the bus being overcome by linear momentum.

 

This proves that something can travel in a curved path at velocity, as long as the balance is correct.

 

The reason a plane does not change altitude or have to adjust altitude in order to stop shooting out into space is because centripetal force created by earth's gravity is not overcome as long as you travel parallel with gravity rather than counter to it. Only a rocket travelling vertically could penetrate the outer atmosphere.

 

So even if we assume the earth is flat, on a round spherical earth we would still have a plane travel WITH the curvature of the earth and they would not fly off into "outer space".

 

Logically we have these two scenarios:

 

- if the earth is flat you wouldn't fly off into space

- if the earth is round you wouldn't fly off into space.

 

So my argument doesn't DEPEND on whether the earth is flat or curved, logically it depends on centripetal force being proven to have an affect on the motion of any object. A formula one car can travel in a curved path if there is enough centripetal force. If you put a ball on the end of a string and fling it around you, the rope would cause the centripetal force. With the earth, the gravity causes it. Or am I begging-the-question to assume gravity is a scientific fact? Do I assume you accept gravity is a force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If he's not saying level flight is impossible (keep in mind "level" here means relative to the surface of a sphere)...

 

 

 

He's clearly not it's Propositional Logic:  If this then that.

 

 

why would a pilot need to pull any maneuvers that compare unfavorably to a rollercoaster?

 

 

As mention now ad nauseam, MAINTAIN ALTITUDE.  I'm sorry, I really can't break this down any further.

 

 

You don't have to descend 2,777 feet every minute because you never climbed it in the first place.

 

So the Plane, errr... never took off?  :think:

 

 

Those aren't contradictory.

 

 

Yes...They are

 

 

The system as a whole is rotating around an axis.

 

 

Sure and Pol Pot was a humanitarian.

 

 

If we were standing on a train moving at 100 MPH, we could still move around the car relative to each other. We might even appear to be moving in opposite directions to someone in the middle of the car.

 

 

:rotfl3:

 

Yes but Gravity isn't governing the movements of the people.  :gotcha:

 

I'm genuinely confused as to how either of you think flying works.

 

Well I'm not a pilot but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

 

Did you miss all of the lines I posted above that one?

 

 

No, I read them.

 

 

If this is the quality of evidence you typically refer to when you're considering a question

 

 

Not typically, I'm out of my comfort zone.... but I decided to Roll The Dice.

 

Do you typically offer evidence like your trainwreck "100 MPH train" above ?

 

 

a whole lot of stuff about you just started making sense.

 

 

So a veiled Bank-Handed Slight, eh?

 

Well @ least I know what a Scientific Hypothesis is and reckoned with the fact that Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can't author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.  thumbsup.gif

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The reason a plane does not change altitude or have to adjust altitude in order to stop shooting out into space is because centripetal force created by earth's gravity is not overcome as long as you travel parallel with gravity rather than counter to it. Only a rocket travelling vertically could penetrate the outer atmosphere.

 

How does this explain no altitude corrections (Speed and/or Descent) to MAINTAIN ALTITUDE over a sphere who's surface is curving @ 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance beneath you?

 

 

Because one is an example of a curved path obtained by a balance between centripetal force and centrifugal force and one is an example where there isn't enough centripetal force to maintain a curved path leading to the bus being overcome by linear momentum.

 

 

Yes and again, where in my Plane Example am I discussing Banked Turns ?

 

 

Okay, let's ASSUME the earth is flat, will what I am saying still be true? Yes - therefore if the earth WAS curved, then the centripetal force created by the earth's gravity would mean that a plane would fly perpendicular to the centre of force at all times for as long as it was travelling forwards.

 

 

So no matter what speed the plane is traveling forwards, it will keep the same altitude no matter the curve beneath you.  :blink:  Right?  

 

Ok Mike, please post any Aeronautical Reference that supports Centripetal Force, as a result of Gravity---  Maintaining a Flights Altitude traveling over a Sphere without any account for Speed and/or Elevation/Descent...?

 

So my argument doesn't DEPEND on whether the earth is flat or curved...

 

 

 EXACTLY!!  Mine does, however.

 

 

With the earth, the gravity causes it. Or am I begging-the-question to assume gravity is a scientific fact? Do I assume you accept gravity is a force?

 

 

I Love your tone. You sure you wanna play?

 

No, I'm saying you're Begging The Question Fallacy is with a Spherical Earth that's Rotating.

 

Again, What is Gravity....?

 

What's a Force...?

 

 

This proves that something can travel in a curved path at velocity, as long as the balance is correct.

 

Yes, around a Race Track.   Thanks, whenever I'm @ Indy I'll give you a call.

 

 

So even if we assume the earth is flat, on a round spherical earth we would still have a plane travel WITH the curvature of the earth and they would not fly off into "outer space".

 

 

Well the only way for that Plane to travel on a Spherical Earth and maintain Altitude is to Altitude Adjust (Speed and/or Decent).  This is getting to the "Duh" Territory.

 

 

Logically we have these two scenarios:

 

- if the earth is flat you wouldn't fly off into space

- if the earth is round you wouldn't fly off into space.

 

 

 

Please point out "The Logic" here...?

 

 

Oh btw, any comments on those Earth Photos? 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mention now ad nauseam, MAINTAIN ALTITUDE.  I'm sorry, I really can't break this down any further.

You don't need to do anything crazy to maintain altitude. You have to keep lift equal to weight. You may have to dip the nose slightly to account for the curvature of Earth, but I'm not sure why either of you thinks that's a big deal.

 

Thinking in spherical coordinates, your r (distance from origin, the center of Earth) isn't changing. If you decided to think of things in Cartesian coordinates, then yeah it's going to look like a sharp drop with respect to z, but that's not going to be noticeable in the plane, because the plane and gravity aren't pushing/pulling you according to the z axis.

 

Yes but Gravity isn't governing the movements of the people.  :gotcha:

Of course it is. That's why they will mostly be moving along the floor of the train instead of the ceiling. Gravity and the train aren't the only things governing their movements, just like gravity and the rotation of Earth aren't the only thing governing the movement of air. Other factors (temperature being a major one) are involved.

 

Do you typically offer evidence like your trainwreck "100 MPH train" above ?

It's a useful example of things moving relative to each other in a particular frame of reference that could itself be seen as moving from another frame of reference.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You don't need to do anything crazy to maintain altitude. You have to keep lift equal to weight. You may have to dip the nose slightly to account for the curvature of Earth, but I'm not sure why either of you thinks that's a big deal.

 

 

No.... just 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! Not TOO crazy.   :rolleyes:

 

 

Thinking in spherical coordinates, your r (distance from origin, the center of Earth) isn't changing. If you decided to think of things in Cartesian coordinates, then yeah it's going to look like a sharp drop with respect to z, but that's not going to be noticeable in the plane, because the plane and gravity aren't pushing/pulling you according to the z axis.

 

 

1. Is this the Journey to the Center of the Earth?  And we don't care what "IT LOOKS LIKE" we're concerned with "Actual" REALITY.

 

2.  So Gravity isn't doing anything now?  We're gonna get to Gravity in A BIG WAY in my next post.

 

3.  Begging The Question Fallacy: "spherical coordinates".

 

 

That's why they will mostly be moving along the floor of the train instead of the ceiling. Gravity and the train aren't the only things governing their movements, just like gravity and the rotation of Earth aren't the only thing governing the movement of air.

 

 

Straw Man Fallacy.  That's not your argument sir, you said...

 

Popoi -- "That doesn't mean individual parts of that system can't move relative to each other. If we were standing on a train moving at 100 MPH, we could still move around the car relative to each other. We might even appear to be moving in opposite directions to someone in the middle of the car."

 

 

Try to focus on The Actual Argument.   mmm K ?

 

It's a useful example of things moving relative to each other in a particular frame of reference that could itself be seen as moving from another frame of reference.

 

 

Yes and "Reference Frames" aren't apart of any of my arguments whatsoever.

 

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enoch: Well the only way for that Plane to travel on a Spherical Earth and maintain Altitude is to Altitude Adjust (Speed and/or Decent).  This is getting to the "Duh" Territory.

 

So let me get this straight, just so I am understanding your thinking. You think that if I walk around a spherical earth I will follow the spherical curvature of the earth but if I travel in a "straight line" in a plane I won't follow the curvature of the earth? So you think being in the air stops gravity from having an affect on a plane? 

 

The forward thrust of the plane does not oppose gravity significantly enough for it to gain altitude because the COG does not change in relation to the plane's location. (centre of gravity). The centre of gravity is always pulling on a plane, no matter where it is located on earth meaning that even if the plane flies, "dead straight" the central pull of gravity will keep the plane at the same distance from the centre of the earth, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or am I begging-the-question to assume gravity is a scientific fact? Do I assume you accept gravity is a force?

 

 

Are you talking about Newtonian Gravity or Einstonian Gravity?

 

If it's Einstonian Gravity, would you like me to IMPLODE IT for the 875th Time in this Forum alone? I have no problem with that, just say WHEN  thumbsup.gif

 

 

Newtonian Gravity??  Well you have some Problems; Namely...

 

"Alright So, today we're gonna shoot down Newtonian Mechanics and Maxwell's Theory. We're like the Press, we build somebody up only to destroy them". 
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.  
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (2:00 minute mark.)...
 
 
 
"The Laws of Physics are always Quantum Mechanical Laws...you don't have separate laws for big and small things. The real question is: how do these very same laws when applied to big things, by big things I mean the things you see in daily life, GIVE THE IMPRESSION that the world is Newtonian?". {emphasis mine}
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics II.  (33:50 mark)
 
 
Question  :think: :  Can you show me "Gravity" in Quantum Mechanics  ....?  (You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse !! )  If all the Laws of Physics are QM.... and "Gravity" is MIA, then can you please explain what you're talking about?   :gotcha:
 
 
regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I refer to gravity, I refer to the force that is created by any object large enough to produce centripetal force on other objects. When I say, "gravity" I am talking about the force that means that when I jump off of a cliff I will fall to the ground. In other words, when I say, "gravity", I mean what people usually mean Enoch. Muddying the water doesn't change the fact that I will fall to the ground if I jump from a cliff. And whatever makes me fall to the ground is what I am referring to, you can call it genetic drift if you want, but everyone knows what I am referring to.

 

 

CMI: The ancient Greeks well before Christ, had realized that the earth is a globe by observing lunar eclipses. They realized that at such times, the earth was between the moon and the sun, and it always cast a circular shadow, regardless of the direction, which proves that it’s a globe (see Fig. 4). For example, the famous philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC) said:

“Either then the earth is spherical or it is at least naturally spherical. And it is right to call anything that which nature intends it to be, and which belongs to it, rather than which it is by constraint and contrary to nature. The evidence of the senses further corroborates this. How else would eclipses of the moon show segments shaped as we see them? As it is, the shapes which the moon itself each month shows are of every kind—straight, gibbous, and concave—but in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.â€

This lines up with the Bible: Isaiah 40:22 tells us that God “sits above the circle of the earthâ€. Indeed, the Hebrew word ×—וּג (khûg) implies ball-shaped, just as Bede taught about 1,400 years after Isaiah.14

http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth

 

Let me guess your response: "Aristotle used photoshop!"

 

:P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.... just 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! Not TOO crazy.   :rolleyes:

You keep saying that as if it's some dramatic dive, but it's a slight dip in the nose. Travelling in a slight arc rather than a straight line isn't a big difference.

 

1. Is this the Journey to the Center of the Earth?  And we don't care what "IT LOOKS LIKE" we're concerned with "Actual" REALITY.

The actual reality doesn't change, but you're trying to frame things in a way that is misleading. "Dropping" 2,777 feet over a half a mile doesn't tell you much unless you know how that movement is happening, and what that movement is relative to.

 

2.  So Gravity isn't doing anything now?  We're gonna get to Gravity in A BIG WAY in my next post.

Gravity isn't pulling you in a -z direction according to the position of the plane's origin, it's pulling you toward the center of Earth.

 

3.  Begging The Question Fallacy: "spherical coordinates".

Spherical coordinates are a perfectly valid method of describing 3-dimensional space. You could describe motion over a flat earth in spherical coordinates just fine, it would just get complicated.

 

Popoi -- "That doesn't mean individual parts of that system can't move relative to each other. If we were standing on a train moving at 100 MPH, we could still move around the car relative to each other. We might even appear to be moving in opposite directions to someone in the middle of the car."

What's the difference?

  

Yes and "Reference Frames" aren't apart of any of my arguments whatsoever.

They should be, because they're important to understanding why many of the 200 arugments are wrong. If you were standing in a train moving at 100 MPH, and you jumped up, would you expect to hurtle to the back of the train at 100 MPH? Why or why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You keep saying that as if it's some dramatic dive, but it's a slight dip in the nose. Travelling in a slight arc rather than a straight line isn't a big difference.

 

 

And you think this is a legitimate answer?

 

The Nose of the Plane on a Flight from New York to Berlin would never get beyond level, professor....save for Take Off.  my word.  

 

Have you ever flown in a plane?

 

 

Gravity isn't pulling you in a -z direction according to the position of the plane's origin, it's pulling you toward the center of Earth.

 

Gravity is 'pulling' ??  :laugh_point:   With what, a Winch?  Reification Fallacy.

 

 

What's the difference??

 

:blink: r-ya-kiddin me?  This is an adult discussion, ask a random 2nd grader to elucidate it for ya.

 

 

They should be, because they're important to understanding why many of the 200 arugments are wrong.

 

Sure and Pol Pot was a Humanitarian.

 

 

 

If you were standing in a train moving at 100 MPH, and you jumped up, would you expect to hurtle to the back of the train at 100 MPH? Why or why not?

 

 

Nope.

 

If you're eating a Banana in Singapore and somebody else is eating a Steak in Albuquerque would you expect someone else in Germany to be eating a Brat?  Why or why not...?

 

That question has the same relevance to the subject as yours does with mine.

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Well I'm not a pilot but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Actually, I am a licensed pilot.  But one doesn't need a pilot's license to understand this.

 

3. Well because he's not saying level flight isn't possible, for One   :rolleyes: .  #2....He's saying that on a 'Globe' with a 25,000 mile circumference and traveling @ 500 mph @ 35,000 feet.... TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speedto Compensate for the Curvature and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

Your source is wrong.  

 

While the nose of the plane is normally pointed slightly above the line of flight (ie: the horizon) it has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth.  Nor is it due to centripetal force though gravity does play a role.  The purpose is to increase lift.

 

Gravity pulls the plane down, lift pushes it up. To stay level (or climb) you have to adjust the lift to the appropriate level. I have no idea why the author thinks that level flight isn't possible with a round earth.

Exactly.  As long as lift and weight are equal, the plane will maintain neither climb nor descend.  Contrary to the movies.... except for small adjustments, one changes altitude with the throttle and changes speed by pointing the nose up or down.  IOW, if I want to descend for a landing, I reduce power and the plane essentially "coasts" downhill at the same speed it had in level flight.

 

Essentially, the plane is pointed at the horizon in cruise.  Since the plane is moving forward, the "target" point on the ground that is the horizon also moves at the same speed as the plane.  IOW, it's "self-correcting." If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth

attachicon.gifmoons.jpg

Let me guess your response: "Aristotle used photoshop!"

 

:P

 

Oh we're gonna get to those "LUNAR ECLIPSES" in due time sir.

 

 

When I refer to gravity, I refer to the force that is created by any object large enough to produce centripetal force on other objects. 

 

 

Nice Side-Step. thumbsup.gif  

 

 

When I say, "gravity" I am talking about the force that means that when I jump off of a cliff I will fall to the ground. 

 

 

And another. 

 

What is a Force....?

 

And whatever makes me fall to the ground is what I am referring to

 

 

And yet another.

 

 

In other words, when I say, "gravity", I mean what people usually mean Enoch. Muddying the water doesn't change the fact that I will fall to the ground if I jump from a cliff.

 

 

Well we can Call it... duccolslopelgertz.

 

What CAUSES "gravity"....?  THEN what IS gravity....?

 

Muddying the Water???  Well you called it a Scientific Fact !!!  Well go ahead...........?

 

 

Any Comments on these (for the 4th TIME!!!)....

 

WhichEarth.JPG

 

 

Can you tell me 'What on Earth' is going on here??

 

The one on the left is taken Jan 4 2012; the right, April 22 2014.  Not even speaking to the color of the Water, which is a tear jerkin belly laugher in it's own right....Can you tell me what my next 2 questions might be ??  :kaffeetrinker: 

 

Were there PHOTO-SHOPPED sir!

 

You got this yet for support of you argument...

 

...please post any Aeronautical Reference that supports Centripetal Force, as a result of Gravity---  Maintaining a Flights Altitude traveling over a Sphere without any account for Speed and/or Elevation/Descent...?

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you think this is a legitimate answer?

I think it's the correct answer. Do you have any actual evidence that maintaining a stable altitude over a spherical earth would be a challenge for an airplane?

 

:blink: r-ya-kiddin me?  This is an adult discussion, ask a random 2nd grader to elucidate it for ya.

I'm asking you, because you were the one who made the claim of fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I am a licensed pilot.  But one doesn't need a pilot's license to understand this.

 

 

Great.  And Ya don't say?

 

 

Your source is wrong. 

 

 

So "Na'ahh", eh?  Quite Compelling.  Errr...How So?

 

 

While the nose of the plane is normally pointed slightly above the line of flight (ie: the horizon) it has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth. 

 

 

Yea, cause you're flying on a Flat Earth.  Thanks !! thumbsup.gif

 

 

 Nor is it due to centripetal force though gravity does play a role.  The purpose is to increase lift.

 

 

You need to have a talk with Mike.

 

 

Contrary to the movies.... except for small adjustments, one changes altitude with the throttle and changes speed by pointing the nose up or down.

 

You've lifted the Veil.

 

 

Since the plane is moving forward, the "target" point on the ground that is the horizon also moves at the same speed as the plane.

 

 

So you're saying if you're flying @ 120 mph, the horizon is moving @ 120 mph also?  What if you all of a sudden speed up to 300 mph do you phone ahead to the horizon to let it know to Speed up?  Telekinesis??  Is there a lag with the horizon's reaction time?

 

So the "Target Point on The Ground" moves @ the same speed?  How do you get anywhere?

 

 

Essentially, the plane is pointed at the horizon in cruise. 

 

 

Thanks, astonishing.

 

 

 

IOW, it's "self-correcting." If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon.

 

 

But since the Earth is Flat nobody has to concern themselves with it.  Thanks Again!  thumbsup.gif

 

Hey Popoi, did you catch what he just said??

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's the correct answer.

 

 

Well what you thought was... WRONG.  See previous post in the vicinity of: "Hey Popoi, did you catch what he just said??"

 

 

Do you have any actual evidence that maintaining a stable altitude over a spherical earth would be a challenge for an airplane?

 

 

Physical Evidence?? Well no, because we don't have a Spherical Earth; You go get one and I'll show you.  mmm K?

 

Common Sense Evidence: Well on an "alleged" Ball (or a 'pear' ---  see Neil 'smokin de-grass' Tyson) with a circumference of 25,000 miles -- leads to a curvature of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance.  Voila

 

 

 

I'm asking you, because you were the one who made the claim of fallacy.

 

 

I already showed you, SEE everything after: " Straw Man Fallacy.  That's not your argument sir, you said..." http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-3&do=findComment&comment=131513

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So let me get this straight, just so I am understanding your thinking. You think that if I walk around a spherical earth I will follow the spherical curvature of the earth but if I travel in a "straight line" in a plane I won't follow the curvature of the earth? 

 

 

Well if you're "Walking" on curved surface, you're constantly making elevation corrections.  On a Flat Surface, not so much...Like ZERO.

 

The same goes with a Plane... to remain @ a Constant Elevation; Ergo...if the Earth is Flat then you really don't need to make any adjustments. Which nobody does cause it's Ludicrous.  Voila

 

 

 So you think being in the air stops gravity from having an affect on a plane?

 

 

Huh?

 

And "gravity", what's that??  Please post the Scientific ...."Just Kidding :P " 

 

The forward thrust of the plane does not oppose gravity significantly enough for it to gain altitude because the COG does not change in relation to the plane's location. (centre of gravity). The centre of gravity is always pulling on a plane, no matter where it is located on earth meaning that even if the plane flies, "dead straight" the central pull of gravity will keep the plane at the same distance from the centre of the earth, IMHO.

 

Does gravity have like a Winch/Rubber Bands that it uses to pull?

 

 

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what you thought was... WRONG.  See previous post in the vicinity of: "Hey Popoi, did you catch what he just said??"

Doesn't seem to have much to do with what we were talking about.

 

Common Sense Evidence: Well on an "alleged" Ball (or a 'pear' ---  see Neil 'smokin de-grass' Tyson) with a circumference of 25,000 miles -- leads to a curvature of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance.  Voila

I didn't ask you to tell me the curvature, I asked you to show how you know that an airplane wouldn't be able to maintain a constant altitude because of that curvature.

 

I already showed you, SEE everything after: " Straw Man Fallacy.  That's not your argument sir, you said..." http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6598-so-the-earth-is-a-sphere-spinning-1000-mph-ok/page-3&do=findComment&comment=131513

You didn't show, you told. Do we need to bring in that 2nd grader to tell you the difference?

 

This is also mostly beside the point.

 

What about a rotating spherical earth would prevent parts of the atmosphere from moving in different directions relative to the ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Doesn't seem to have much to do with what we were talking about.

 

 

Really, Let's have a look...

 

Enoch2021 --  TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE you would constantly have to adjust the altitude downwards (Decline and/or Speedto Compensate for the Curvature and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

I have taken a Metric Ton of flights (including 'across the pond') and this is a tear jerkin belly laugher on Nuclear Steroids!!  I flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity in comparison.    

 

Popoi -- why would a pilot need to pull any maneuvers that compare unfavorably to a rollercoaster?

 

Enoch2021-- As mention now ad nauseam, MAINTAIN ALTITUDE.  I'm sorry, I really can't break this down any further.

 

Popoi --  "You have to keep lift equal to weight. You may have to dip the nose slightly to account for the curvature of Earth, but I'm not sure why either of you thinks that's a big deal."

 

Enoch2021 -- No.... just 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! Not TOO crazy.    :rolleyes:

 

Popoi -- You keep saying that as if it's some dramatic dive, but it's a slight dip in the nose. Travelling in a slight arc rather than a straight line isn't a big difference.

 

Enoch2021 --  And you think this is a legitimate answer?  The Nose of the Plane on a Flight from New York to Berlin would never get beyond level, professor....save for Take Off.  my word. 

 

Popoi -- I think it's the correct answer.

 

Paisan --- If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon.

 

Does this help Lift The Fog for Ya  :rolleyes: , Mr. Doesn't seem to have much to do with what we were talking about Codswallop Baloney.

 

 

 

I didn't ask you to tell me the curvature, I asked you to show how you know that an airplane wouldn't be able to maintain a constant altitude because of that curvature.

 

 

Well to maintain the constant altitude on a sphere, you would have to make 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! due to the results of the calculation: 8" per mile multiplied by the distance squared.

 

How else would you like me to explain it: using GNP calculations of the Netherlands, Bill of Rights, Jungle Book? Other?? 

 

 

You didn't show, you told. Do we need to bring in that 2nd grader to tell you the difference?

 

 

It was Prima Facia, I really don't need to bring in Citations to confirm Rib-Eye Steaks come from Cows.

 

 

What about a rotating spherical earth would prevent parts of the atmosphere from moving in different directions relative to the ground?

 

 

The Laws of Physics and Common Sense.

 

 

regards

 

 

For everyone else that may have a coherent substantive argument:  I'll be out of the net for a good part of Saturday and Sunday...I'll try to catch up when I get a chance.  If I miss something upon return, please re-post and accept my humble apologies.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to maintain the constant altitude on a sphere, you would have to make 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! due to the results of the calculation: 8" per mile multiplied by the distance squared.

So? What's the difficulty? The plane is already moving at 44000 ft/m. What issues would it cause if part of that travel was a drop by a cartesian reckoning?

 

It was Prima Facia, I really don't need to bring in Citations to confirm Rib-Eye Steaks come from Cows.

I wasn't asking for a citation, I was asking for an explanation of your reasoning. If you had to prove that a steak came from a cow, you could do it pretty easily. You wouldn't have to dig in your heels and appeal to common sense or prima facia or whatever other principle you want to use to justify why you don't have to explain yourself.

 

The Laws of Physics and Common Sense.

Show your work please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the difference. The difference is that there is no scientific or mathematical verification of biological evolution, because it is a philosophy wearing science-pants. :P

 

Evolution doesn't just get debated, it gets slaughtered. The reason you have to use for evolution, is basically fallacious reasoning. Obviously we have expounded those faults over many threads but when a thread like this happens, it really makes evolution stand out like a sore thumb, because it doesn't matter how much time you dedicate to arguing evolution, it can be refuted easily because it is basically a science-story but gravity and round earths are science fact. Because they are science-fact, it is easy to prove that they are, because they are STRONG science. But with evolution, an incredibly WEAK science, it literally doesn't matter how long you dedicate to evolution, it can be slaughtered logically, and very quickly.

Don't you see similarities in Enochs behavior here in this topic and creationists in other topics about evolution?  :P

 

 

 

Another experiment. (you'll need 3 friends for this, or a lot more time)

You travel to a spot directly below the sun (you arrange this in advance)

Your friends travel to 1110km, 2220km and 3330km directly north of you.

Each plant a 1m high stick in the ground and measure its shadow at the same time.

You'll measure 0m

North1 measures 0.1736m (sin(10°)*1m)

North2 measures 0.3420m (sin(20°)*1m)

North3 measures 0.5m (sin(30°)*1m)

From this, you can measure the angle the sun-rays make compared to the ground.
You can now use basic geometrie to triangulate the position of, either the sun, or the rounding of the earth.
 
The distance to north1 is 1110km. The length of the shadow was 0.1736m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.1736m*1,110km=6,392km
The distance to north2 is 2220km. The length of the shadow was 0.3420m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.3420m*2,220km=6,491km
The distance to north3 is 3330km. The length of the shadow was 0.1736m. The height of the sunspot above the earth is 1m/0.5m*3,330km=6,660km
 
2 positions different from the 0 are sufficient btw, but I added the third so it'll get clearer. Its also sufficient to know where the 0 is compared to these measurements. So you'll only need a single friend to find out.

 

Actually, Eratosthanes did a similar experiment around the year 200 BC and calculated the circumference of the Earth as something between 40,000 and 46,000 km (using the modern unit of measurement). So Enoch is arguing something that was settled about 2200 years ago.

From what I gather, Erastosthanes only used the 0 and a single other point. That is not sufficient to proof the relationship is not a straight line. I'm not saying I'm smarter then him, I'm only saying the online resources I've found publish only these. (maybe I'm saying I'm smarter then these publishers... B) )

 

Another experiment, also probably not original.

 

If you point a light at a stick and look for the position where the end-point is projected at a wall you can see the point on the wall. If you move the light source in a plane parallel to the wall, it'll create a point reflection of the trajectory.

PTREFEX.gif

Similarly, according to the flat earth hypothesis, the sun moves in a plane parallel to the earth's surface. If you stick a stick in the ground and follow the sticks end's position, you'll get a point reflection of the sun's orbit.

If the sun would move in a circle above the surface, this would be reflected in a circle in the reflection. You can mark each hour where the shadow of the stick hits the ground. Furthermore, since the sun travels about 15° each hour, each hour these 15° of the circle should be represented.

 

You can have your round earth proof by tomorrow!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another question Enoch, with regards to your first or second to reply to me. (Can't quote it properly just now)

 

Why would a flat disc earth require a god any more than the spherical one we have?

 

Can you answer this please Enoch, when you get a minute?

 

Or anyone who would know the answer. I'm genuinely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Piasan: While the nose of the plane is normally pointed slightly above the line of flight (ie: the horizon) it has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth.  Nor is it due to centripetal force though gravity does play a role.  The purpose is to increase lift.

 

What I meant by centripetal force keeping the plane in line with the curvature of the earth, isn't that the controls of the plane do not determine where the plane goes. I meant that if you are flying a plane with zero pitch cyclic, then naturally the COG of the earth (centre of gravity), would mean that the plane would never drift towards outer-space by climbing and climbing to greater altitude. Enoch believes it would I assume. My argument is that when a plane travels cruising forward, let's say for arguments sake in a "dead straight line" of no pitch,( it is just going along completely horizontally, for sake of argument, I know the elevator is seldom at zero pitch in flight) then that plane is parralel with gravity. The thrust generated by the motors and angle-of-attack of the wings, creates lift as you know, and on that axis gravity is defied, but in the direction of travel, the plane is parallel with gravity, and moving in accordance with it. This means that the centre of gravity at the centre of the earth would mean that if this plane that went along horizontally, completely straight, would not have to adjust it's altitude because of climbing into space, because like satellites in orbit, the planes would follow the curvature of the earth.

 

Now if I am wrong, (let's say I am wrong) then what Popoi said would still be correct anyway, only the slightest change in pitch would be needed because of the distance that small angle would create in the distance. If the plane dipped it's nose 12 inches downward, that angle creates a massive change to the farthest line of the trajectory.

 

 

 

If folk still don't understand, here is my analogy; Imagine you hold a long, 100 metre stick in your hand, and someone else holds the other end. Now you are allowed to spin on the spot and the guy at the other end is free to move, but you must remain on the spot. He holds the other end 100 metres away. Now if you spin 180 degrees whole you both hold the stick then the distance-of-travel your end of the stick would move, would be about 50 inches let's say. But how far would the distance of travel be for the guy at the other end? About 314 metres!

 

So logically we have the two following answers:

 

- the plane would naturally follow the curvature of the earth because of centripetal force caused by gravity. (my argument)

- It wouldn't, and would have to adjust, but that would only require a slight dip of the nose. (Popoi's argument)

 

In either case, this is not a problem for a spherical earth like the flat-earthers have suggested. The types of argument conspiracy-theorists use, are always false conditional implications they don't have to prove, denoted by the, "if" and, "then" in the following example:

 

"If we had went to the moon, then the technology of the day would mean the astronauts were fried by radiation"

 

(notice this requires no proof because nobody can actually test? This is always the STYLE of conspiracy theorists, they always use a long list of false propositionals, and they appeal to consequences they either can't prove or they know nobody can disprove).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to maintain the constant altitude on a sphere, you would have to make 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute @ 500 mph!!! due to the results of the calculation: 8" per mile multiplied by the distance squared.

 

How else would you like me to explain it: using GNP calculations of the Netherlands, Bill of Rights, Jungle Book? Other?? Let's try explaining it using the calculations you provide.....

I don't think you actually checked the "calculation."   Let's try it.....

 

Drop = 8 inches per mile times the distance squared.  Distance per minute = 500 mph / 60 minutes per hour = 8.33 miles per minute.  Distance squared = 69.4 miles.  Multiply 69.4 miles by 8 inches and we get 77.4 inches....  less than 7 feet per minute.   What about the other 2770 feet?

 

Like I said, nearly 2800 fpm is a really, really steep descent.  If I cut power on the little puddle jumpers I flew, the rate of descent would be between 300 and 500 feet per minute. 

 

 

Essentially, the plane is pointed at the horizon in cruise.  Since the plane is moving forward, the "target" point on the ground that is the horizon also moves at the same speed as the plane.  IOW, it's "self-correcting." If one were to descend at over 2700 ft/min ... a really steep descent ... the nose of the plane would be pointed well below the horizon.

So you're saying if you're flying @ 120 mph, the horizon is moving @ 120 mph also?  What if you all of a sudden speed up to 300 mph do you phone ahead to the horizon to let it know to Speed up?  Telekinesis??  Is there a lag with the horizon's reaction time?

 

So the "Target Point on The Ground" moves @ the same speed?  How do you get anywhere?

Do you really have this much trouble with the English language, or do you just argue everything?

 

OK.... let's say I'm flying at 3,000 feet.  The horizon calculates to a distance of 67 miles, so I'll use a speed of 134 mph.  That means that in 30 minutes I'll reach the horizon.  Yet, if I stay at 3000 feet, the horizon is still 67 miles away.  It moves as I move.

 

Another example using the same parameters.  I pass over a point on the ground and 67 miles away .... at the horizon ... there is a sign that says: "Horizon, Target point." By flying straight and level with the nose of the airplane pointed at the horizon, in 30 minutes I will pass over that sign.  But, during that time, the actual "target" I'm aiming the airplane at has moved 67 miles to a new point on the horizon.

 

So, briefly stated.... yes, the horizon moves with you.

 

##### Edit ######

On further reflection .....  Standard approach decent rate is 300 feet per mile.  At 500 mph (8.33 miles per minute), that would be about 2500 fpm.  But there's a "speed limit"  of 250 kt (288 mph) below 10,000 ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms