The one question not seen in your FAQ/I'm new, hello!

Hey guys,

I have to admit, you have a very interesting and very LOGICAL theory here. And also, I even have some part of me that sees it as extremely valid. Really there has been no cladestine evidence that is proveable by the common man to affirm the earth is indeed round. But yet, vice versa there really hasn't been any to negate it being round.

I guess I'm searching for a personal belief now because I hadn't ever really thought about it. We're all shoved the idea that the earth is round in school/church/whatever, hell we even have a holiday devoted to some guy (who for all we know in present day may have not even existed) that supposedly found the world was round.

I have one main question, along with one that isn't really important, that was not addressed in the FAQ and I'm looking for your take on it.

I am an avid mountain climber and pilot and have reached the summit of some of Washington State's smaller mountains, and reached the summit of Mt. Hood in Oregon. Upon reaching the summits of the mountains and flying at cruising altitude (especially over the ocean) I always noticed one thing. The horizon curves. This is most noticeable over the ocean. You'll see clearly that in the far right and left sides of your vision the earth appears to be marginally lower then it does directly in front of you.

Would this not be due to a round earth? I'd like to hear the FE take on this.

My other question was this. I had a friend that back around 1995 she set out to "circumnavigate" the world in a sailboat. She was planning on doing it without high-tech navigational equipment, the initial goal to be to leave Seattle going West then to follow the coast of Asia, Africa, and South America up to roughly the location of Mexico, resupply and then keep going again.  How is it that one would never find the "ice wall" if they kept going in the same direction. My grandfather was a test pilot in the Air Force (I know, government, just keep with me for a second) and on his last flight while testing the F-22 Raptor he was told to "keep it running as long as he could" by using in air refueling, etc. and to land only when he was too fatigued to continue. His story was that he took of from Whidbey Island NAS and went west and continued on not paying any attention to his heading indicators and after refueling several times, ended up above Washington roughly 16 hours later.

An F-22 Raptor has a cruising speed of approx 1600 MPH at high altitude, giving an infinite amount of fuel, it would make that journey in exactly 15 hours.

Just interesting stories to pick some brains. Other than that, Hey guys, glad to be here!

I'd like to start by saying I appreciate you not instantly insulting those with the FE mindset. While I myself am RE I believe I can answear your questions.

Question 1) Why is there an apparent curvature at high altitudes?

Answear 1) My own idea on how this would work is that our eyes have a set distence with which we can observe objects through our atmosphere. The distence is the same in all directions, which means our line of sight ends up being a circle. This could (if viewing the world from a high altitude) result in the appearence of a curved horizon. Others may post other opinions.

Question 2) Why can you travel in 1 direction and end up in the same spot you started out in.

Answear 2) On the FE model, the north pole is in the center, while the south pole makes up the outside edge. If you base navigation on a compass you will always be traveling East or West, which is left or right of North. This would cause you to travel in a large circle around the North Pole.

And the only way to truely prove the world is flat or round would be personal tests. Again recieving second hand knowledge is still second hand.

BTW how did your grandpa enjoy flying the Rapter? I think if I ever wanted to sign up for the armed forces I would want to go to College just to fly either a Raptor or the A-10 tank killer, the big ugly one if I got the name wrong :p

The warthog?

I know this beast.  It is nasty as fuck, slow too, but still packs enough power to not have to worry about.

It is a great machine.


Answer to question 1 would be something along the lines of:

Everything below 22,000 feet is erroneously viewed or interpreted, as even on the Round Earth model, it is impossible to see the curvature of the earth.

Everything above 22,000 feet is harder to explain, but I think I'll have a go.

Your vision is capable of seeing many things.  Lens of your eye distorts the image so that your mind can comprehend it.  It is distorted so that we can see more, rather than just seeing everything at once.  Have you ever seen a fish-eye lens?  I believe that at great distances, our mind doesn't cope quite well with the image supplied through the lens of our eye, and rounds it off.  This is what causes things to curve, although it is still a rudimentary theory, and hard to fill in gaps for.

Some objections are:

1.  Why doesn't your mind round the horizon 'up' so that the earth curves up?

Perhaps it's just another part of the human mind.

2.  Shouldn't the distortion change as you move your eye, as is the case in a fish-eye lens?

Yes, it should.  Unless the lens of our eye is more complicated and is capable of adjusting to nearer things at the same time as adjusting to the far off horizon.

Again, these are problems with the theory that I haven't quite worked out yet.  Any help would be great, in either the form of suggestions to the theory or objections to it.

I'd like to start by saying I appreciate you not instantly insulting those with the FE mindset. While I myself am RE I believe I can answear your questions.

I didn't come here to bash, nor did I come here to tout about one belief or another. My objective is to learn, and only that. And through that maybe I can discover my own beliefs I think people that are automatically attacking a belief or idea are full of S*** and they need to learn to at least tolerate differentiating opinions.

Cant remember who said it in their book but this is my mindset with tolerance "When faced with the persecution of my group (the author was in a Nazi prison camp), first the Hindu's were taken and killed. I said nothing as I was not a Hindu. Then the Gypsies, I said nothing because I was not a Gypsy. Then the Jews, I said nothing because I was not a Jew. then the Christians, I said nothing because I was not a Christian. Then they came at me, and when I cried out, I had no one left to help me." We should never discriminate against a belief because you never know when it will be their help you need.

Answear 1) My own idea on how this would work is that our eyes have a set distence with which we can observe objects through our atmosphere. The distence is the same in all directions, which means our line of sight ends up being a circle. This could (if viewing the world from a high altitude) result in the appearence of a curved horizon. Others may post other opinions.

Never thought about that before... I'll have to research it.

Answear 2) On the FE model, the north pole is in the center, while the south pole makes up the outside edge. If you base navigation on a compass you will always be traveling East or West, which is left or right of North. This would cause you to travel in a large circle around the North Pole.

But if you use no nagivational equipment other then starting out in a general direction, would you not hit the edge of the earth (in a plane)?

BTW how did your grandpa enjoy flying the Rapter? I think if I ever wanted to sign up for the armed forces I would want to go to College just to fly either a Raptor or the A-10 tank killer, the big ugly one if I got the name wrong :p

He absolutely loved it beyond belief. He still touts it as being the best all purpose jet ever created and that it shows the future of military aircraft. He was able to do several 90 degree landings on it as well and said it performed those better then the Harrier.

The A-10's are slowly being phased out in favor of high altitude aircraft that are capable of doing low yield cluster bomb attacks to get the same effect, as well as with drones. Ever since they outlawed all usage of incendiary ammunition against live personelle the A-10 has lost its main objective, which is crap because its a damned fine plane...

Now if you used the North Star as a navigation point... Well I can easily see that form of navigation failing miserably on the FE model if you traveled far enough. But as stated if you used general east/west direction you would travel in a ring. Following sunrise and fleeing sunset would cause the same effects.

And I know the A10 is slowly being cycled out It was always my favorite aircraft even before I knew what it was. I had a micro-machine model of it and had always loved the design. After learning about how rugged and virtually invincible it was I just fell in love all over again.

I didn't know the Rapter was capable of VTOL operations?

Now if you used the North Star as a navigation point... Well I can easily see that form of navigation failing miserably on the FE model if you traveled far enough. But as stated if you used general east/west direction you would travel in a ring. Following sunrise and fleeing sunset would cause the same effects.

And I know the A10 is slowly being cycled out It was always my favorite aircraft even before I knew what it was. I had a micro-machine model of it and had always loved the design. After learning about how rugged and virtually invincible it was I just fell in love all over again.

I didn't know the Rapter was capable of VTOL operations?

East/West being an general term. As in, I'm looking east from my present spot, I shall travel that direction. East as in right. Not the heading that you would follow.

The new model (cant remember the designation) is, the original model that is in full usage now is capable of 75-80 degree take offs due to fully angleable (if thats a word) engine tubes. The new models have a thrust coefficent capable of VTOL, it was still in development when my Grandad flew it.

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Now if you used the North Star as a navigation point... Well I can easily see that form of navigation failing miserably on the FE model if you traveled far enough. But as stated if you used general east/west direction you would travel in a ring. Following sunrise and fleeing sunset would cause the same effects.

And I know the A10 is slowly being cycled out It was always my favorite aircraft even before I knew what it was. I had a micro-machine model of it and had always loved the design. After learning about how rugged and virtually invincible it was I just fell in love all over again.

I didn't know the Rapter was capable of VTOL operations?

East/West being an general term. As in, I'm looking east from my present spot, I shall travel that direction. East as in right. Not the heading that you would follow.

The new model (cant remember the designation) is, the original model that is in full usage now is capable of 75-80 degree take offs due to fully angleable (if thats a word) engine tubes. The new models have a thrust coefficent capable of VTOL, it was still in development when my Grandad flew it.

Well yeah, if you travel in a strait line you could eventually hit the edge. But it is an awfully long trip, even in a Rapter :p And if you merely meandered you might never see the edge let alone fly off... I really should upload the rendered image of what it would look like to my photoshop, I have to dig through past posts to find it everytime and I seem to refrence it alot.

However I did think up a potential explination for the north star thing at least. If the star was positioned directly above the north pole it would explain that.

Understandable completely.

Its an interesting thought, that of a flat earth. It would change alot of how we view the world...

The only thing I cannot seem to grasp is how it would be held in space, and what the universe would be composed of if our planet was flat and not a spherical body.

I know that there is a religion (I believe Hindu) that states that the earth is carried on the backs of four elephants, as featured in the Diskworld series by Terry Pratchett (great books).

Understandable completely.

Its an interesting thought, that of a flat earth. It would change alot of how we view the world...

The only thing I cannot seem to grasp is how it would be held in space, and what the universe would be composed of if our planet was flat and not a spherical body.

I know that there is a religion (I believe Hindu) that states that the earth is carried on the backs of four elephants, as featured in the Diskworld series by Terry Pratchett (great books).

My theory is that it is the bottom of 'space' and that everything above us is the Universe.

Quote from: "SoulessWanderer"

Understandable completely.

Its an interesting thought, that of a flat earth. It would change alot of how we view the world...

The only thing I cannot seem to grasp is how it would be held in space, and what the universe would be composed of if our planet was flat and not a spherical body.

I know that there is a religion (I believe Hindu) that states that the earth is carried on the backs of four elephants, as featured in the Diskworld series by Terry Pratchett (great books).

My theory is that it is the bottom of 'space' and that everything above us is the Universe.

I tend to like that theory better.

Even better then my theory that the universe is an ocean or made up of dense gases and the Atmosphere was a bubble around the earth carrying it upwards to explain the acceleration.

The new model (cant remember the designation) is, the original model that is in full usage now is capable of 75-80 degree take offs due to fully angleable (if thats a word) engine tubes. The new models have a thrust coefficent capable of VTOL, it was still in development when my Grandad flew it.

Are you sure you are not talking about the F-35?  The -22 is not VTOL or even STOVL.  The thurst vectoring is only +/-20 in pitch.  The movement is enough to pitch the nose up, but then what?
The F-35 is VTOL and is somewhat similar to the -22.  It could be possible to confuse them.

Quote from: "SoulessWanderer"

The new model (cant remember the designation) is, the original model that is in full usage now is capable of 75-80 degree take offs due to fully angleable (if thats a word) engine tubes. The new models have a thrust coefficent capable of VTOL, it was still in development when my Grandad flew it.

Are you sure you are talking about the F-35?  The -22 is not VTOL or even STOVL.  The thurst vectoring is only +/-20 in pitch.  The movement is enough to pitch the nose up, but then what?
The F-35 is VTOL and is somewhat similar to the -22.  It could be possible to confuse them.

Couldn't find any refrence to the F-22 in terms of take off ability, however I have only found 2 versions of the F-35, A: CTOL used by the airforce and B: STOL used by the navy (for obvious reasons) aswell as the marines (for more obvious reasons), nothing about it being VTOL.

I did however spot something about the F-22's engine nozzles being adjustable to 20 degrees allowing for better rolls and maneuverability.

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

What are you going to shoot with 180 rounds?

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

What are you going to shoot with 180 rounds?

What are you going to shoot enemies with if you run out of missles?

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

What are you going to shoot with 180 rounds?

What are you going to shoot enemies with if you run out of missles?

That's when you call it quits and RTB.

While the F-35B is technically classified as a STOVL, it is very capable of VTOs.  Click here for a video from Lockheed showing the -35 doing just that.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

What are you going to shoot with 180 rounds?

What are you going to shoot enemies with if you run out of missles?

I imagine they'd be more use strafing ground targets than anything else when you consider the speed planes move at and the distance they can engage in combat compared to when guns were the main armament for fighters. As such, I think it's more there "just in case" and as a hang over from previous designs, rather than an essential part of the spec.

As for the F-35, the joint strike fighter, that's gonna take carrier based operations up to a new level I think. Especially when it supercedes the Harrier in the RNs Fleet air Arm. The RN's carriers were designed with VTOL craft in mind from the start, so couldn't operate a squadron of Typhoons or something along those lines.

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

And I must say I'm happy they didn't decide to forget the guns on these aircraft :p

What are you going to shoot with 180 rounds?

What are you going to shoot enemies with if you run out of missles?

I imagine they'd be more use strafing ground targets than anything else when you consider the speed planes move at and the distance they can engage in combat compared to when guns were the main armament for fighters. As such, I think it's more there "just in case" and as a hang over from previous designs, rather than an essential part of the spec.

As for the F-35, the joint strike fighter, that's gonna take carrier based operations up to a new level I think. Especially when it supercedes the Harrier in the RNs Fleet air Arm. The RN's carriers were designed with VTOL craft in mind from the start, so couldn't operate a squadron of Typhoons or something along those lines.

Actually with the implimentation of missles, "war experts" predicted that the days of dog fighting were over, and guns were no longer needed. So certain model air superiority fighters were made that didn't have guns, which was a mistake in many cases.

This again occured when jets were designed, the dog fighting days were over and we would never use guns again! This again was a mistake.

The simple truth is you need to maintain balance with your armament on these things, yeah 180 rounds isn't much but it's something. I would have been more comfortable with a figure like 300, so you can't carry a missle because of that. Missles are expensive and you run out of them pretty quickly considering 1 of them is MAYBE good for one kill. Spend 100$ fireing 80 rounds into a enemy to kill it, or spend 1000$ with a missle to kill it?

Engineer, perhaps you can answer my question of why the horizon appears to be lower on its sides then directly in front.

And I could possibly be remembering wrong, it very well could have been the JSF that he flew, it was a while back, and he's passed on now (colon cancer last april) so I will never be able to ask to clarify.

And on the topic of the no dogfighting anymore, alot of that too was they believed missile systems would be advanced enough to take out an enemy jet at nearly any distance, making guns unecessary. Its somewhat of a crap conclusion due to the fact that as missile tech gets better, so will countermeasure tech, still causing a need for backup weaponry.

Just a note:  Tomahawk Cruise missiles cost $596,000 each.

Granted, they are a little bit more complex than those on our planes, but the figure is just there to give you an idea.