aeroplanes

  • 85 Replies
  • 22421 Views
?

cracrat

  • 20
  • +0/-0
aeroplanes
« on: February 02, 2009, 08:23:25 AM »
How do aeroplanes work with UA?

In the gravity model the plane has a constant force (gravity) tugging it to the ground which the lift provided by the wings overcomes, keeping it in the sky.

In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude. But the ground is accelarating toward the plane so to remain at a constant altitude the plane must also be continuously accelarating upwards. In other words, the wings can provide infinite lift.

The only way around this I can think of is that at some point in the flight, the plane becomes another body subject to UA and begins to be propelled upward by the Dark Energy or whatever it is that causes UA. But if this were the case in order to land the plane would have to generate enough down force somehow to overcome UA upwards and move toward the ground.

Can someone explain this to me please.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2009, 04:52:42 PM »
But the atmoplane is being accelerated upward by the earth as well.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2009, 07:37:44 AM »
acceleration != velocity

In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.

Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.

Can we possibly have a more detailed description of this in the FAQ? It seems every week some newcomer asks the same question.

PS: I'm RE.

?

cracrat

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2009, 08:31:05 AM »
But the atmoplane is being accelerated upward by the earth as well.


This answered my quandry, thanks. I knew there must have been some part of it I was missing, but I just couldn't figure out what it was.


acceleration != velocity

In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.

Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.

Can we possibly have a more detailed description of this in the FAQ? It seems every week some newcomer asks the same question.

PS: I'm RE.

Of course the plane would have to generate lift. If there were no force pulling the plane upwards, the ground would catch up with it (UA model) or gravity would drag it down. Regardless of the source of the downforce, in order for the plane to stay in the sky this must be overcome.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2009, 11:41:20 AM »
In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.

Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.

Of course the plane would have to generate lift. If there were no force pulling the plane upwards, the ground would catch up with it (UA model) or gravity would drag it down. Regardless of the source of the downforce, in order for the plane to stay in the sky this must be overcome.

"Constant rate" seems to mean "constant velocity", in which case I'm correct. Try to explicitly say whether you're talking about acceleration or velocity, a lot of people forget to and then arguments start going around in circles.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2009, 05:25:41 PM »
The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth.

?

lordshadow

  • 37
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2009, 06:38:18 PM »
that's not possible.  If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground.  Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second.  Isn't  this the reason that space travel isn't possible?  If that's true, aviation wouldn't be possible either, because the plane couldn't out-accelerate the earth upwards.

?

EFG

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2009, 06:45:24 PM »
that\'s not possible.  If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground.  Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second.  Isn\'t  this the reason that space travel isn\'t possible?  If that\'s true, aviation wouldn\'t be possible either, because the plane couldn\'t out-accelerate the earth upwards.

Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate. How can the plane take off?

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 23955
  • +6/-1
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2009, 07:19:19 PM »
that\'s not possible.  If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground.  Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second.  Isn\'t  this the reason that space travel isn\'t possible?  If that\'s true, aviation wouldn\'t be possible either, because the plane couldn\'t out-accelerate the earth upwards.

Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate. How can the plane take off?
The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2009, 07:34:46 PM »
that's not possible.  If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground.  Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second.  Isn't  this the reason that space travel isn't possible?  If that's true, aviation wouldn't be possible either, because the plane couldn't out-accelerate the earth upwards.
In order to take off, the plane must accelerate at a rate greater than that of the Earth.  To maintain its altitude, it must only match the acceleration of the Earth.  The acceleration of the FE is constant, not increasing.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2009, 07:35:35 PM »
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate.
Noobs.     ::)


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

lordshadow

  • 37
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2009, 07:59:00 PM »
Sure the earth is accelerating at a constant speed, 9.8 m/s/s. But if it hasn't reached a terminal velocity, then it's still accelerating.  Being around for as long as it has, it would be virtually impossible for a plane to accelerate up to get off the ground, right?     

I believe i read it in this thread- page 2 3rd to last post, by trig.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.20

?

Ferruccio

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2009, 08:18:37 PM »
Also remember that airplanes are balanced with respect to the direction gravity is going at any given time.  As the plane goes over the curvature of the earth, the gravitational pull should also change the angle at which the plane needs to be to stay balanced.  In the case of planes which are naturally stable, like a Cessna 172, this could be considered a sort of pendulum effect, whereby the bulk of the plane's weight hangs below the wings which generate lift.  As gravity changes going over the curvature of earth, the differing direction of gravity readjusts how this pendulum wants to hang.  This, in turn, orients the plane automatically.

You could also say it's a pressure thing, whereby the minute pressure differences at x+1 feet vs x feet cause the plane to generate less lift, causing it to fall back to x feet.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • +0/-0
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2009, 08:47:44 PM »
Sure the earth is accelerating at a constant speed, 9.8 m/s/s.     
9.8m/s^2 is not a speed, it's an acceleration.

Quote
But if it hasn't reached a terminal velocity, then it's still accelerating.
Right.

Quote
Being around for as long as it has, it would be virtually impossible for a plane to accelerate up to get off the ground, right?
No. 
« Last Edit: February 04, 2009, 09:01:01 PM by TheEngineer »


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

EFG

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2009, 08:21:07 AM »
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.

?

EFG

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2009, 10:36:39 AM »
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate.
Noobs.     ::)

But if it wasn't going faster it wouldn't be accelerating.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2009, 11:14:06 AM »
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.

What? No! If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is (in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.

This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.

EDIT: Typos.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2009, 03:37:33 PM by ghazwozza »

?

EFG

  • 17
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2009, 12:05:58 PM »
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.

What, no? If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.

This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.

No, you are thinking of a stationary object. The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration. Take a high school physics class sometime.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2009, 12:14:52 PM »
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.

What, no? If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.

This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.

No, you are thinking of a stationary object. The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration. Take a high school physics class sometime.

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change in velocity.  Constant acceleration means constantly changing velocity.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

mendoza

  • 55
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2009, 12:53:40 PM »
The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration.

self contradiction
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 07:25:28 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2009, 03:48:52 PM »
Take a high school physics class sometime.

Been there, done that, got an A. I did an extension paper as well, I got a distinction. Now I'm doing Maths and Physics at Uni. We have engineers and scientists on these forums. This issue has been brought up hundreds of times by noobs.

Not to be too condescending, but I really think we know what we're talking about.

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • +0/-0
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2009, 05:12:00 AM »
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).

My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.

For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.

Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 09:06:33 AM by RAFboiMF »
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #22 on: March 12, 2009, 08:07:41 AM »
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).

My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.

For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correctin applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.

Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
Wow! That's an amazing second post. You falsified FE very well and very clearly. Good job.

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • +0/-0
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2009, 01:20:08 PM »
Thank you, but that was not my intention. I enjoy a good debate and am here to make the FE'ers work hard to convince me that their theory is plausable.

I am applying the scientific method which most radical theorys seem to convieniently forget about.
This involves making or finding a theory and trying to disprove it. Failing to disprove it allows the theory to become fact until another, better theory supercedes it.
This is how Albert Einstein surpassed Issac Newton, how Issac Newton surpassed Galileo and how Galileo surpassed Aristotle.
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • +0/-0
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2009, 01:23:25 PM »
Also lets not forget that the FE theory was replaced with the RE theory nearly 600 years ago
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2009, 03:52:24 AM »
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).

My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.

For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.

Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary

It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • +0/-0
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2009, 04:21:18 AM »
Can we be clear here? Are the stars rotating the Earth? or rotating themselves?
If they are just rotating themselves they will have no effect on a gyroscope.
If they are rotating the Earth then the correction applied would not need to be reversed when passing over the georgraphical north pole
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

?

Truronian

  • 19
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2009, 04:22:16 AM »
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).

My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.

For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.

Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary

It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.

Care to share the mathematics you did to reach that conclusion?

How did you get around the problem of the mystery force (centrifugal force in the RE model) being strongest on the equator?

What about the problem of the stars "gravity" not being an inverse square?

?

RAFboiMF

  • 144
  • +0/-0
  • Life's two beer mat to explode. duck
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2009, 04:43:32 AM »
OK firstly: gravity has nothing to do with the gyroscopic effect. As for stars gravity being an inverse square, I have no idea what your talking about and will shortly research the sbuject.

Secondly: The Earths centripetal force (centrifugal force is the imaginary force perceved because of centripetal force) would only apply a torque to an aircrafts gyros when its stationary and on the ground but still need to be compensated for whilst the aircraft is flying and changing time zones. Both these needs are met with the correction of Earth rates.

As for numbers:
Earth Rates
A torque is applied to the Vertical gyro to alter the platform and keep the north gyro pointing towards true north. This correction is 15o per hour (the rate of the earths rotation on its axis)

Another torque is applied to the North gyro. This corrects the platform as it moves around the earth (as the earth rotates) and keeps the platform horizontal RWT Earth. The value of this torque changes depending on the lattitude of the airraft. (present position must be inputted before the IN system will function)

Vehicle Rates
These, as the name suggests, are dependant on the velocity of the aircraft.
If the aircraft is moving north at a rate of 2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of 2o per hour needs to be applied to the east gyro to keep the platform horizontal.
If the aircraft is moving eastat a rate of2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of2o per hour needs to be applied to the vertical gyro to keep the platform facing north and correction torque dependant on the direction and current lattitude of the aircraft is applied to the north and east gyros to keep the platform horizontal.

Every aircraft in the world has this system. It uses accelerometers to detect the rate of change of velocity in the north east and vertical axis. The corrections are calculated and applied to the gyros to keep the accelerometers in line with their respective axis.
Quote from: Vongeo
It shall be detrimined(No time to spell, yet oddly time to awknowledge the mistake and type about it) eventually.

?

Truronian

  • 19
  • +0/-0
Re: aeroplanes
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2009, 04:51:21 AM »
OK firstly: gravity has nothing to do with the gyroscopic effect. As for stars gravity being an inverse square, I have no idea what your talking about and will shortly research the sbuject.

Gravity follows an inverse square law, ie the force by an object due to gravity is proportional to 1/(r^2) where r is the distance of the affected body.

Quote
Secondly: The Earths centripetal force (centrifugal force is the imaginary force perceved because of centripetal force) would only apply a torque to an aircrafts gyros when its stationary and on the ground but still need to be compensated for whilst the aircraft is flying and changing time zones. Both these needs are met with the correction of Earth rates.

Centrifugal force is very much real when in a rotating frame of reference (which you and I are under the round earth model), and it causes the force holding us (and aeroplanes) on the earth to be weaker at the equator.

Quote
As for numbers:
Earth Rates
A torque is applied to the Vertical gyro to alter the platform and keep the north gyro pointing towards true north. This correction is 15o per hour (the rate of the earths rotation on its axis)

Another torque is applied to the North gyro. This corrects the platform as it moves around the earth (as the earth rotates) and keeps the platform horizontal RWT Earth. The value of this torque changes depending on the lattitude of the airraft. (present position must be inputted before the IN system will function)

Vehicle Rates
These, as the name suggests, are dependant on the velocity of the aircraft.
If the aircraft is moving north at a rate of 2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of 2o per hour needs to be applied to the east gyro to keep the platform horizontal.
If the aircraft is moving eastat a rate of2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of2o per hour needs to be applied to the vertical gyro to keep the platform facing north and correction torque dependant on the direction and current lattitude of the aircraft is applied to the north and east gyros to keep the platform horizontal.

Every aircraft in the world has this system. It uses accelerometers to detect the rate of change of velocity in the north east and vertical axis. The corrections are calculated and applied to the gyros to keep the accelerometers in line with their respective axis.

I was asking for numbers from Tom... I have no doubt that you are correct. ;)