0
0

"logistics" of the FE conspiracy (self.theworldisflat)

8mark が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]tonyflint 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Secondly, a 747 has a cruising speed up to 570 mph. The earth (supposedly) curves at 8 in. per mile. So in 570 miles distance the earth has curved 4,560 inches, or 380 ft. If you flew 570 miles in an hours time this equates to 6.333 ft per minute, and 76 ft per 12 mins.

Your calculation is wrong. The earth doesn't curve at 8 in. per mile, but 8 in. per mile2. So over a 570mile distance the earth hasn't curved by 4560 in./380ft but 2599200 in./216600ft/66km, so quiet a curve.

If you have ever flown a plane before you know how hard it is to maintain a perfectly level flight path. I think a slight rise in altitude of 6 ft every minute is hardly noticeable at even 10,000 ft for amateur pilots, and entirely unnoticeable at 30,000 ft for commercial flights.

So that would mean a altitude change of 3610ft/1.1km a minute, please rethink your conclusions.

[–]BCboneless 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

You are confusing a basic mathematical concept. We measure land mass in square miles. If I told you I have 10 square miles to sell, you wouldn't assume I have 100 miles to sell you. The mile is squared. Not the the 8 inches. If the 8 inches was to be squared it would look like this: 82/mile

Also, the symbol ' denotes feet, not inches.

[–]tonyflint -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

You are confusing a basic mathematical concept. We measure land mass in square miles. If I told you I have 10 square miles to sell, you wouldn't assume I have 100 miles to sell you. The mile is squared. Not the the 8 inches. If the 8 inches was to be squared it would look like this: 82/mile

I think there is some confusion going on here, maybe I need to clarify myself. Also yes ' denotes ft, not sure why I associated it with inches, has been corrected cheers. Anyway back to the curvature thing, when I said 8 in. per mile2, I meant the curvature drop per mile being 8in. x miles2. So if you flying 570miles it's going to 8 x 5702 = 2599200 in.

http://i.imgur.com/kvpn4RH.jpg

Also, the symbol ' denotes feet, not inches.

Corrected.

[–]BCboneless 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ahh, thank you for including the illustration. The Pythagorean method is used to calculate the earths curvature because we know what the radius is. Your illustration is not relevant to the point at hand.

You are unknowingly calculating the distance to the horizon from an observer at 570 miles above the earth.

Again, any ball's curvature is the same all the way around. So if a plane is in the air, in one mile the earth drops 8 inches. So now we have a moved a mile and you are telling me the next mile drops 32 inches? Or 64? That wouldn't work on a ball. It would make a weird shape that isn't round.

[–]decdec -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are unknowingly calculating the distance to the horizon from an observer at 570 miles above the earth.

No thats not whats happening here. If the plane continues on its altitude and speed the earth will drop away from the plane 8 inches the first mile and then it IS and exponential drop after that.

You are trying to say that the plane is effectively correcting for the 8 inches each mile, negating this exponential drop. at which time you would need to prove that happens consistently each mile, which is fanciful.

If the plane contines on its altitude the earth will drop away exponentially then you would need to wash that away by claiming gravity magically corrects this without anyone noticing, not a road anyone would want to go down.

we are not measuring distance to horizon, we are measuring the distance from the parallel line down to the earth.

[–]BCboneless 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The earth's curve is not exponential. Please reconsider what an earth with an exponential curve would look like.

And no, gravity does not correct for the curve of the earth. Air density does. As the air become less dense, the plane is unable to maintain its flight path as the air is no longer creating enough lift.

[–]tonyflint -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ahh, thank you for including the illustration. The Pythagorean method is used to calculate the earths curvature because we know what the radius is. Your illustration is not relevant to the point at hand.

Is it really not relevant just because you say so?

You are unknowingly calculating the distance to the horizon from an observer at 570 miles above the earth.

Not unknowingly at all. Let's say a plane takes off from the same spot as this observer you talk about in a clockwise direction and ascends to 10000 ft. in 5 miles of flight and levels out at 570 mph. So according to you for every mile flown the plane will magically lose 8 in. of altitude for each mile flown, you know, due to air density and science right? So will the pilot have to correct and pull up at all to stay at 10000 ft or will magic air density keep it at 10000 ft? If another identical plane follows the first plane but ascends to 15000ft and levels out at 570 mph, what's happening there now? Does that also drop 8 in. per mile but stay at more or less at 15000 ft? Let's say both planes stay around the altitudes they originally leveled out at, holding the speed. Why is the 2nd plane losing altitude by staying at 10000 ft. even though the 1st plane is also losing 8 in. at 15000 ft but able to maintain a higher altitude at the same airspeed? Let's hear the scientific gymnastics.

Again, any ball's curvature is the same all the way around. So if a plane is in the air, in one mile the earth drops 8 inches. So now we have a moved a mile and you are telling me the next mile drops 32 inches? Or 64? That wouldn't work on a ball. It would make a weird shape that isn't round.

And yes, the curve does not exponentially as you keep on repeating, but up to a certain distance(up to approx. 6225 mile) it does.

[–]BCboneless 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not relevant because we aren't trying to understand how far the earth curves from a fixed point. We are trying to figure out how far the earth curves under a moving airplane.

Back to the point at hand: no magic is involved. Your ability to argue far surpasses your understanding of physics. In order to understand how un-magical it is we need to understand how an airplane is able to fly.

The wings of an airplane are angled to cause the air passing under the wings to slow, and the air on top of the wings to speed up. This causes low pressure on top of the wing, and high pressure below the wing creating lift.

As the plane's altitude increases the air becomes less dense. In layman's terms, there is less air occupying the same amount of space. Thus to generate more lift the plane either needs to a) increase the angle of attack, b) increase speed, or c) a combination of both.

So take two identical planes. Plane 1 desires to fly at 10,000 ft above sea level at 500 mph. Plane 2 desires to fly at 15,000 ft above sea level at 500 mph. Plane 2's engines will be using more fuel to maintain the same speed as the air is less dense. If Plane 2 decreased fuel to the engine, and did not increase the angle of attack plane 2 will descend or "fall" to an altitude at which the air density is able to hold it again.

You are confusing altitude with maintaining a straight path in a certain location in space. Altitude is: the height of an object or point in relation to sea level or ground level.

So a plane takes off and is flying at 30,000 ft above sea level. Because it does not adjust it's nose, or elevators to account for the curve of the earth it continues on a straight vector which causes it's altitude to increase. Because the air is less dense higher up, and the pilot does not increase fuel to the engine, or the angle of attack from the wings, the plane is unable to maintain it's straight vector but maintains the same altitude above sea level.

I would like to repeat again:

Just to be clear, each mile travelled will have the same amount of fall (or drop) on a uniformly shaped "ball" or globe. We all can look at a basketball or some other sphere and agree on this. If the curve was exponential it would look like this. No REer is arguing this is what the earth looks like. You are making a straw man argument against this kind of curve. No one is claiming the earth looks like this.

[–]BCboneless 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just to be clear, each mile travelled will have the same amount of fall (or drop) on a uniformly shaped "ball" or globe. We all can look at a basketball or some other sphere and agree on this. If the curve was exponential it would look like this: http://imgur.com/2MxQ8kp

No REer is arguing this is what the earth looks like. You are making a straw man argument against this kind of curve. No one is claiming the earth looks like this.