How do airplanes fly?

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Yep, that's about right.

Yep, that's about right.

How? And which one is "right"?

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Why not? They fly with same reason of why whales swim. Whales swims by pushing the water down. But if you want to agree it as "buoyancy of water", you may agree the airplanes fly by "buoyancy of air". Completely same. If something heavier than water/air, falls down; or something lighter than water/air, moves up. If you use a force and push the air or water down, you go up yourself. Completely same mechanism. 100% same mechanism.

Meanwhile the earth obviously is a square but keep this between us. 

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Why not? They fly with same reason of why whales swim. Whales swims by pushing the water down. But if you want to agree it as "buoyancy of water", you may agree the airplanes fly by "buoyancy of air". Completely same. If something heavier than water/air, falls down; or something lighter than water/air, moves up. If you use a force and push the air or water down, you go up yourself. Completely same mechanism. 100% same mechanism.

Meanwhile the earth obviously is a square but keep this between us. 

I'm pleasantly surprised that you believe in buoyancy.

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Why not? They fly with same reason of why whales swim. Whales swims by pushing the water down. But if you want to agree it as "buoyancy of water", you may agree the airplanes fly by "buoyancy of air". Completely same. If something heavier than water/air, falls down; or something lighter than water/air, moves up. If you use a force and push the air or water down, you go up yourself. Completely same mechanism. 100% same mechanism.

Meanwhile the earth obviously is a square but keep this between us. 

"Buoyancy" works well with hot air baloons and zeppelins, but with planes several thousands times heavier then air with the same volume, things go different way. The reason of flight is a difference of preassures over and under the wing. You can explain that (mostly) using Bernoulli's law. The force of lift depends among others on: velocity (squared) , density of air and wing surface.

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Universal Acceleration, everything goes up by 1g. Earth n air especially.
It's the entire underneath of the airplane that matters for a lift.
So minimum velocity is needed to sufficiently gather more air mass to lift the airplane.
Also air push happens when there is motion objects (rotor or propeller etc).
For this description, you can take analogy of water in a pool subtituting the air reality.
Density n universal acceleration theories are essensial for describing flying object phenomenon.

Modern science are still n will be in confusion IF they keep ignore FE theories.

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

Universal Acceleration, everything goes up by 1g. Earth n air especially.
It's the entire underneath of the airplane that matters for a lift.
So minimum velocity is needed to sufficiently gather more air mass to lift the airplane.
Also air push happens when there is motion objects (rotor or propeller etc).
For this description, you can take analogy of water in a pool subtituting the air reality.
Density n universal acceleration theories are essensial for describing flying object phenomenon.

Modern science are still n will be in confusion IF they keep ignore FE theories.

1. So earth and air are moving upwards...
Which means, no matter what mass of air will be cumulated under the wings, plane can never fly faster than air, so it can't climb (just as sailboat can't go faster than wind from behind.

2. If earth accelerates upwards with 1g than we can feel force working like gravity. And where is the force that accelerates earth?

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

I you prescribe to the no-gravity flat-earth model then planes are negating the force from Universal Acceleration that pushed the earth upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared; a perfect substitute for gravity-from-mass that the round earth model speculates.

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

I you prescribe to the no-gravity flat-earth model then planes are negating the force from Universal Acceleration that pushed the earth upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared; a perfect substitute for gravity-from-mass that the round earth model speculates.

How do planes do it? I'm just curious.

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

I you prescribe to the no-gravity flat-earth model then planes are negating the force from Universal Acceleration that pushed the earth upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared; a perfect substitute for gravity-from-mass that the round earth model speculates.

Well they clearly can't negate a force that's acting on another body(the earth). They would have to produce a larger force to literally outrun the Earth.

Areodynamics do not change based on the shape of the ground below the plane. 

Quote from: Pongo on January 12, 2018, 07:43:05 AM

Quote from: Earth is a square on January 10, 2018, 01:01:00 AM

Hello.
I have just read some information on this forum and a question came to my mind. How do planes fly? I mean, if the gravity don't exist, then are they somehow "neglecting" the force that pushes them down? Or it doesn't work on them at all?

I you prescribe to the no-gravity flat-earth model then planes are negating the force from Universal Acceleration that pushed the earth upwards at 9.8 meters per second squared; a perfect substitute for gravity-from-mass that the round earth model speculates.

How do planes do it? I'm just curious.

The wing of a plane is shaped so that when air passes over it, it generates lift thereby converting forward momentum into vertical gain. But I'm not an aerophyscist and this is a bit outside the scope of flat-earth questions and answers. I recommend a YouTube search for a better and likely more accurate explanation.

If people will believe that both giants boxes made of metal and tv dinners can fly in the sky, without knowing why they do, they will believe anything they are spoon fed; even things as silly a balling flying about like a rocket through space, whirling as if controlled by some sort of birling match.

Modern science are still n will be in confusion IF they keep ignore FE theories.

Why do you think moder science is in confusion?  I don't mean theories, but knowlege already proven.

Quote from: Danang on January 11, 2018, 07:04:09 PM

Modern science are still n will be in confusion IF they keep ignore FE theories.

Why do you think moder science is in confusion?  I don't mean theories, but knowlege already proven.

If you're interested in "proven knowledge" you should look into the equivalence principle. It'll probably clear up and concerns you're having about planes.

Although I think you're confusing the word "theory" in usual form with a scientific theory, which is a much different thing with stricter criteria.

If people will believe that both giants boxes made of metal and tv dinners can fly in the sky, without knowing why they do, they will believe anything they are spoon fed; even things as silly a balling flying about like a rocket through space, whirling as if controlled by some sort of birling match.

Maybe people believe that "giant boxes made of metal" can fly because they get in one in city A and get out of it in city B, quite likely in another country. During that, let's call it a flight, they look out of the window and see the tiny land beneath them, seeing it get smaller as they climb up and bigger again as they descend. They can do all this without any idea whatsoever about how that "giant box of metal" does it! Be it aerodynamics, UA or pbm makes not the slightest difference to their experience. How in any way, shape or form does that make them gullible?

Quote from: John Davis on January 16, 2018, 05:35:44 PM

If people will believe that both giants boxes made of metal and tv dinners can fly in the sky, without knowing why they do, they will believe anything they are spoon fed; even things as silly a balling flying about like a rocket through space, whirling as if controlled by some sort of birling match.

Maybe people believe that "giant boxes made of metal" can fly because they get in one in city A and get out of it in city B, quite likely in another country. During that, let's call it a flight, they look out of the window and see the tiny land beneath them, seeing it get smaller as they climb up and bigger again as they descend. They can do all this without any idea whatsoever about how that "giant box of metal" does it! Be it aerodynamics, UA or pbm makes not the slightest difference to their experience. How in any way, shape or form does that make them gullible?

They are gullible because they do not know why they believe as they have not sufficiently questioned or have been skeptical of their beliefs. It would be a simple matter to fool someone into thinking they were flying about when in fact, the real mechanism might be something completely different.

Of course, the earth being flat has no effect on why airplanes can fly.

Quote from: Cahaya on February 25, 2018, 04:27:05 AM

Quote from: John Davis on January 16, 2018, 05:35:44 PM

If people will believe that both giants boxes made of metal and tv dinners can fly in the sky, without knowing why they do, they will believe anything they are spoon fed; even things as silly a balling flying about like a rocket through space, whirling as if controlled by some sort of birling match.

Maybe people believe that "giant boxes made of metal" can fly because they get in one in city A and get out of it in city B, quite likely in another country. During that, let's call it a flight, they look out of the window and see the tiny land beneath them, seeing it get smaller as they climb up and bigger again as they descend. They can do all this without any idea whatsoever about how that "giant box of metal" does it! Be it aerodynamics, UA or pbm makes not the slightest difference to their experience. How in any way, shape or form does that make them gullible?

They are gullible because they do not know why they believe as they have not sufficiently questioned or have been skeptical of their beliefs. It would be a simple matter to fool someone into thinking they were flying about when in fact, the real mechanism might be something completely different.

That doesn't make them gullible, they don't need any knowledge of how an aircraft works in order for them to take advantage of the fact that it can transport them between 2 points. It may suggest they are ignorant but the two things are quite distinct.

They can take advantage of it, but they are gullible to believe anything that they don't understand on some level. It would not be gullible if they believed it transported them (i.e. they believed in the ends), but were agnostic towards the method.

I would say they are ignorant therefore gullible.

They can take advantage of it, but they are gullible to believe anything that they don't understand on some level. It would not be gullible if they believed it transported them (i.e. they believed in the ends), but were agnostic towards the method.

I would say they are ignorant therefore gullible.

In this case it wouldn't even matter if they don't believe. They can still take advantage of it. I just don't see an automatic connection between ignorant and gullible. You can certainly be both but I remain convinced that you can be ignorant and not gullible.

I'd also argue that almost none of my passengers understand fully how a commercial aircraft gets from A to B so you are suggesting that all of them are somewhat gullible because of that?

You can be ignorant and not gullible; I provided one way - to believe in the ends, but to be agnostic on the how.

Of course they can take advantage of it; one's belief or lack thereof does not usually change the reality.

I'd also argue that almost none of my passengers understand fully how a commercial aircraft gets from A to B so you are suggesting that all of them are somewhat gullible because of that?

Somewhat, yes.

You can be ignorant and not gullible; I provided one way - to believe in the ends, but to be agnostic on the how.

Of course they can take advantage of it; one's belief or lack thereof does not usually change the reality.

Quote

I'd also argue that almost none of my passengers understand fully how a commercial aircraft gets from A to B so you are suggesting that all of them are somewhat gullible because of that?

Somewhat, yes.

So I think you have just proved that everyone is somewhat gullible

Quote from: John Davis on March 09, 2018, 03:20:37 PM

You can be ignorant and not gullible; I provided one way - to believe in the ends, but to be agnostic on the how.

Of course they can take advantage of it; one's belief or lack thereof does not usually change the reality.

Quote

I'd also argue that almost none of my passengers understand fully how a commercial aircraft gets from A to B so you are suggesting that all of them are somewhat gullible because of that?

Somewhat, yes.

So I think you have just proved that everyone is somewhat gullible

I haven't proved it. But yes, everyone must be somewhat gullible to be able to function in the world.

Unless they are a true skeptic and recognize they "know" nothing. This is to say, they are agnostic on everything they don't "know". This in itself requires one to be gullible that they know nothing, which as it turns out is very hard to show.

Most justifications of knowledge end up in infinite recursion, requiring some level of gullibility, even in math.

Unless they are a true skeptic and recognize they "know" nothing. This is to say, they are agnostic on everything they don't "know". This in itself requires one to be gullible that they know nothing, which as it turns out is very hard to show.

Most justifications of knowledge end up in infinite recursion, requiring some level of gullibility, even in math.

To be not gullible by your definition then surely it would be recognising that no one else knows anything and therefore never to believe anything they are told or have been taught, which I'd suggest is tantamount to impossible

There is a discrete difference between belief and knowledge in an idea, as well as the worth of the idea itself. An idea might have no fact behind it and still be useful. Take the idea of heaven to a grieving mother. I wouldn't say one should not believe things because one recognizes they don't know them to be true, the same way I wouldn't say not to use a plane because you don't know how it works.

We believe things, when we do so well, because it turns out to be useful to believe in them.

I do fear we have strayed from the topic and can expect to be moved to a more Antichtone board by Space Cowgirl very soon