Experiment & Questions

[Learning2Fly]

Well other than the fact that I never mentioned gravity in my previous response, a few screenshots of a spreadsheet aren't enough for me to agree or disagree with you. The lines you've drawn are quite useless to me as in scale at least they are grossly misrepresentative.

Forget my lines, look at your flight instruments.

According to the radius of the Earth, your altimeter should be indicating a change of 150 feet over 15 miles of ground.

Then "someone" said, gravity is pulling the aircraft relative to the curve in level flight.

Then "someone" said, the climb profile would not be straight, but rather curved because of gravity.

Then I posted the flight data graphs that do not support either of the above explanations.

Now nobody wants to talk about the data or flight instruments, they're just telling stories and essentially insulting.

At this point, I'm truly confused about what I've been taught and shown about flight or the Earth. My mind is open as there
are many other aspects outside of our discussion that do not add up.

[Steve Pomroy]

They tell you, but they can't show you.

Sure they can. there is lots of evidence that you can observe yourself to demonstrate the Earth's curvature. There's no need to take anyone's word for it. Watch a ship disappear over the horizon -- from the bottom to the top. Observe the fact that you see different constellation in the summer versus in the winter. Or visit Lake Ponchartrain and see this for yourself:

power-lines.jpg (303.02 KiB) Viewed 1709 times

Have you read the details from the beginning of this thread about gravity, the ADI, the curved climb vs. straight climb, no stick inputs vs stick inputs required?

I've read the whole thread. It's been painful, but I managed to get through it. Your arguments are arbitrary, disjointed, inconsistent, and in most cases not even wrong. If you'd like to have an actual discussion, rather than just talking at the internet, you should start by stating your position and then supporting that position with evidence and/or logical arguments.

Many things are not adding up here, and now I'm seeing a bunch of frustration in these responses after posting the graphs.

What doesn't add up is how anyone in the modern world can come to believe that the Earth is flat. The frustration you're seeing is at least partly because your graphs and related data "analysis" are gibberish. You need to label things properly and clearly define the relationships your'e trying to demonstrate. Oh, and clearly state what conditions and approximations you'r applying to the analysis.

If you can't explain it, maybe what we've been told isn't accurate?

If by "it" you mean the curvature of the Earth, I can explain it just fine thanks. And I don't need to rely on being told -- although it generally helps to build a wider repertoire of knowledge when you can build on the discoveries of others rather that always starting from scratch.

[Learning2Fly]

Thank you for re-inforcing my comment about you following typical conspiracy theorist behavior. You utterly ignore context and use a small snippet of information to back your arguement.

Small snippet?

The entire article is about creating images of the Earth. Why the hell don't we have an entire, single shot image of the entire Earth from satellites
to this date? Why would that guy have to draw the Earth will all of these multi-million dollar satellites and scopes in space?

What about all of the Apollo mission shots of the Earth? What about the SpaceX Tesla images? No much compositing happening there....

Apollo mission shot out of a window , looking out the "back of the craft"?

SpaceX Telsa with tires, seats, other materials that don't melt at 500+'C?

The clouds that don't move?

Sure, not much compositing there. Suddenly, we are getting a live feed of the Earth when all images of the Earth were hand edited just months ago.

[Learning2Fly]

Sure they can. there is lots of evidence that you can observe yourself to demonstrate the Earth's curvature. There's no need to take anyone's word for it. Watch a ship disappear over the horizon -- from the bottom to the top.

Glad you brought that up.

It's perspective, waves blocking, and visibility due to distance - not the curve.

Why can you bring the boat back into view with a zoom lens?

Here's a video disproving your first quote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE[/youtube]

Is the boat really did go over the curve, you wouldn't see it by zooming. Agree?

[Tips Up]

“SpaceX Telsa with tires, seats, other materials that don't melt at 500+'C”

Glad you brought that up because it shows you don’t understand temperature versus heat. Temperature is the measurement of the average kinetic energy within a system. Heat is a change in an object, either positive or negative, transfer of energy. At those levels, individual molecules have a very high kinetic energy but are spaced extremely far apart in almost a vacuum so have very little to no affect on an individual item such as a floating car in terms of generating a positive heat transfer.

Second, if you would like, at exactly noon tomorrow we can do an experiment to show the earth is truly round between myself and Pickering. At high noon, place a stick in the ground and I will do the same. We can measure the angle of shadow cast, which will be different because the world is round, and actually calculate the circumference of the earth pretty close.

Third, I assume all those high altitude pilots and everyone on the ISS has been lying and part of the conspiracy?

[propfeather]

I have a bunch of photos from Antarctica - around the coast (where the "ice wall" supposedly exists), and inland (South Pole, various domes). That should be enough to prove the world is infact spherical, despite your terrible math. PM if you want to see.

But ya can't fix stupid.

[Posthumane]

Then I posted the flight data graphs that do not support either of the above explanations.

Now nobody wants to talk about the data or flight instruments, they're just telling stories and essentially insulting.

Umm, except that you didn't post any such data. What you posted was a plot of altitude vs time and distance, which shows a steadily increasing altitude and then a steady altitude. That does not mean the plane is going in a straight line. Perhaps you don't understand the definition of the word "altitude." When something has a fixed altitude, it means it is at a fixed distance away from a reference. In the case of indicated altitude, the reference is the sphere that's defined as mean sea level. In the case of absolute altitude, the reference is the ground. In the case of a constant pressure altitude, the reference is simply an average atmospheric pressure so if you're flying at a constant pressure altitude you are simply flying in a layer of equal pressure - both height above ground and altitude above MSL could vary in that case.

Anyway, it's clear you're just trolling. Your "arguments" and "data" are completely ignoring previous explanations that you've asked for, you're defining your own terminology, and you're looking for obscure sources and trying to make them back up your claims. The fact that you think that once a boat goes over the horizon you can still see it with zoom simply tells everyone you've never been on a boat any distance from shore. You're free to believe what you want, of course, but you're not going to convince anyone who is inquisitive enough to actually try to find the answer on their own. There are plenty of experiments you can try to show the curvature of the earth yourself, some of which have been already mentioned.

Good thing it's a bad weather day today...