flying

  • 52 Replies
  • 13254 Views
Re: flying
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2011, 05:33:04 PM »
Wait so if flying is impossible, then how do you explain... you know... flying? I've been on hundreds of plane flights, and I'm a balloon pilot myself. So how do you explain all of that?
  Have you heard of the funneling spiral theory? All flights are based on this theory.

No I have not, could you enlighten me?

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: flying
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2011, 03:44:34 AM »
Wait so if flying is impossible, then how do you explain... you know... flying? I've been on hundreds of plane flights, and I'm a balloon pilot myself. So how do you explain all of that?
  Have you heard of the funneling spiral theory? All flights are based on this theory.

No I have not, could you enlighten me?
  Yes.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: flying
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2011, 04:33:10 AM »
Wait so if flying is impossible, then how do you explain... you know... flying? I've been on hundreds of plane flights, and I'm a balloon pilot myself. So how do you explain all of that?
  Have you heard of the funneling spiral theory? All flights are based on this theory.

No I have not, could you enlighten me?
  Yes.
trolololol
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: flying
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2011, 05:50:46 AM »
ITT: Crusty's successful derailment of the thread.

I remember back when he made serious, relevant posts  :'(




And PP, your link fails because we measure distance mechanically, not just optically.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet
The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics

Your case rode on that statement, and it is false.  Therefore your case is false.

?

Earthy

Re: flying
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2011, 09:43:35 AM »
"The air flowing over the wings takes a longer route to travel over the top of the wing as it does the bottom, in order for that air to arrive therefore taking longer to arrive, but it arrives at the same time as the airflow on the bottom, the airflow on top has to move faster than the bottom which also causes the air molecules to spread out causing a significantly lower air density on top of the wing than exists on the bottom. The much greater air pressure below the wing causes an upward force and therefore the plane lifts up. top of the wings follows the curve of the wing and is pulled down. The air on top of that therefore also moves down to prevent a void forming, the acceleration of the air going downwards generates lift. The lift created is proportional to the amount and speed of the air being moved."

Fixed.
Fixed again.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet
OP's question regarding distances covered here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0

I can't see the second diagram for some reason but if I am reading that right you are suggesting that what looks like a mile is actually a longer distance, which is the reason for our measurements being wrong. So for instance, we may have measured a distance to be 1000 miles but it is actually 2000 miles because of the effect of bendy light, is that correct? This only covers the visual difference though, the time and fuel consumption of the distance travelled agree with the RE measurement, what causes this?



Just to jump in here, I can see how that explanation of flight might seem Scientific to those who don't have the right thought processes, but it fails to take into account one critical point -

Planes can also fly upside down.

If lift was generated by the slower speed of air over the longer piece of topwing compared to the faster air moving below, planes would not be able to do this, and they can. I don't think anyone can disagree with this here as it's a fact.

Perhaps if planes are also lifted by some kind of secret buoyancy system then i'd be more inclined to believe in flight, however this seems a little far fetched to me. Alternatively, I have heard several theories about atmospheric uplift from a planar field, which I am prepared to believe however feel the scope of this post do not allow proper coverage of.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: flying
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2011, 11:23:36 AM »
Google 'Equal Transit Time.'

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: flying
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2011, 12:54:50 PM »
"The air flowing over the wings takes a longer route to travel over the top of the wing as it does the bottom, in order for that air to arrive therefore taking longer to arrive, but it arrives at the same time as the airflow on the bottom, the airflow on top has to move faster than the bottom which also causes the air molecules to spread out causing a significantly lower air density on top of the wing than exists on the bottom. The much greater air pressure below the wing causes an upward force and therefore the plane lifts up. top of the wings follows the curve of the wing and is pulled down. The air on top of that therefore also moves down to prevent a void forming, the acceleration of the air going downwards generates lift. The lift created is proportional to the amount and speed of the air being moved."
   
Fixed.
Fixed again.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet
OP's question regarding distances covered here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=44906.0

I can't see the second diagram for some reason but if I am reading that right you are suggesting that what looks like a mile is actually a longer distance, which is the reason for our measurements being wrong. So for instance, we may have measured a distance to be 1000 miles but it is actually 2000 miles because of the effect of bendy light, is that correct? This only covers the visual difference though, the time and fuel consumption of the distance travelled agree with the RE measurement, what causes this?



Just to jump in here, I can see how that explanation of flight might seem Scientific to those who don't have the right thought processes, but it fails to take into account one critical point -

Planes can also fly upside down.

If lift was generated by the slower speed of air over the longer piece of topwing compared to the faster air moving below, planes would not be able to do this, and they can. I don't think anyone can disagree with this here as it's a fact.

Perhaps if planes are also lifted by some kind of secret buoyancy system then i'd be more inclined to believe in flight, however this seems a little far fetched to me. Alternatively, I have heard several theories about atmospheric uplift from a planar field, which I am prepared to believe however feel the scope of this post do not allow proper coverage of.
   I can see you are a very wise and astute person. As you probably know the spiralling funnel theory covers every aspect of this dilemma.
    Do you work for NASA?
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: flying
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2011, 01:25:36 PM »
What is the spiralling funnel theory?

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: flying
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2011, 01:45:12 PM »
Planes can also fly upside down.

If lift was generated by the slower speed of air over the longer piece of topwing compared to the faster air moving below, planes would not be able to do this, and they can. I don't think anyone can disagree with this here as it's a fact.

The cross section of a modern day wing is pretty much an elongated tear-drop shape, so by keeping the side of the wing that is 'currently facing down' relatively parallel with the earth's surface, then the side of the wing that is 'currently facing up' has the more rounded and longer path for the upper airflow to travel across.

Further angling up or down from this point (with the help of your ailerons) can help your ascent or descent, but it may cause additional drag, and that is something that you try to reduce as much as possible while in flight because it is very costly on fuel and impairs the forward progress of the plane due to the additional drag, and could stall the aircraft.

Yes, planes can fly upside down... but not sideways for very long.

Re: flying
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2011, 08:11:55 PM »
Just to jump in here, I can see how that explanation of flight might seem Scientific to those who don't have the right thought processes, but it fails to take into account one critical point -

Planes can also fly upside down.

If lift was generated by the slower speed of air over the longer piece of topwing compared to the faster air moving below, planes would not be able to do this, and they can. I don't think anyone can disagree with this here as it's a fact.

The air on top travels at the same speed as the air on the bottom of the wing, this has nothing to do with the lift. The air follows the shape of the wing and is pushed downward. In the case of acrobatic planes using symmetrical wing shapes they can adjust the direction of air flow by raising or lowering the nose of the plane, this works even if the plane is flying upside down. Wing flaps are also used to affect the flow of air.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: flying
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2011, 09:29:41 PM »
The angle of attack raises and lowers lift capabilitty.  Stick you hand out a car window, flat with palm down. By tilting it sideways up and down, you can feel how lift is affected.  Flying upside down, you want a high angle of attack with the nose up and the tail down.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 10:16:31 PM by Mrs. Peach »

Re: flying
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2011, 09:34:33 PM »
How exactly did the "I know we can see planes flying but flying is impossible" argument relate to the Earth being flat?

?

Oracle

  • 633
  • RE'er with an open, but critical, mind.
Re: flying
« Reply #42 on: April 14, 2011, 12:46:50 PM »
How exactly did the "I know we can see planes flying but flying is impossible" argument relate to the Earth being flat?

Something about the ludicrous notion that pilots are being drugged and that all airplane flights are being faked around the world all the time...  Even though you can stand at an airport and watch the planes take off an land, or even stand outside and watch them fly overhead.  A typical topic derailment by spewing nonsense tactic that is common to Crusty in FE threads... which is ironic as he appears to be quite lucid and rational in the Other Discussion Boards that do not seem to be related to FET.

Re: flying
« Reply #43 on: April 14, 2011, 02:01:57 PM »
How exactly did the "I know we can see planes flying but flying is impossible" argument relate to the Earth being flat?

Something about the ludicrous notion that pilots are being drugged and that all airplane flights are being faked around the world all the time...  Even though you can stand at an airport and watch the planes take off an land, or even stand outside and watch them fly overhead.  A typical topic derailment by spewing nonsense tactic that is common to Crusty in FE threads... which is ironic as he appears to be quite lucid and rational in the Other Discussion Boards that do not seem to be related to FET.

There's a simple reason for this. Crusty's attitude towards FE can be summarized in a short word. The word denotes a type of mythological creature that sometimes lives under bridges and has had a bad history with goats.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: flying
« Reply #44 on: April 14, 2011, 05:13:02 PM »
There's a simple reason for this. Crusty's attitude towards FE can be summarized in a short word. The word denotes a type of mythological creature that sometimes lives under bridges and has had a bad history with goats.

Seriously, what is the deal with them and goats?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

aarperry

Re: flying
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2011, 05:45:09 AM »
All flights are controlled by the Conspiracy (NASA). Think about it: flying should be impossible apart from in balloons. And the lie about not being able to breath the air up their is so they can "pressurise" the cabin. Well guess what? They "pressurise" it with mind altering drugs that make you think you've been on a flight for 3 hours when in fact it was 13.

So I'm an ex airline pilot, aeronautical engineer and have a masters in astrophysics. I think would be suitable to answer or more accurately rebut these and many other claims. Before I begin I not only believe but I know the earth is an oblate spheroid, flying a learjet at 50,000' you can see the curvature of the earth and also having flown right around the world is more than enough evidence.

If a plane had to be pressurise in order to fly how do you explain light aircraft which aren't pressurised, and if your answer is to be as weak as "oh it's all a big lie" then what about a skydiving planes with a big gaping hole in the side? That still flies doesn't it? and that clearly cant be pressurised. Now that we have established a plane can fly without the need to be pressurised you should accept the how an aerofoil produces lift, perhaps when it was explained to you it wasn't explained too well or very clearly, and it can be a hard concept to grasp at start. I would be more than happy to explain how an aerofoil produces lift in an easy to understand way if you like?

Although I read quite a few forums I'm new to posting so I apologise for not being able to put in another quote but I also read you say nobody wears a wristwatch now and everybody is drugged to think less time has passed than it actually has. I really don't know where to begin with this, and I struggle to understand how a grown man like yourself could fathom such a theory. The amount of people commuting by air every day would require a force of agents well in excess of the population of the united states. I have to ask you how you explain the friends and family who were waiting for said passenger to arrive. These people could have been at work, home wherever before going to the airport to pick up said passenger, if that passenger had been drugged and thought only 3 hours had passed when really 13 had passed,  he would be quick to realised his time was wrong after speaking to someone who wasn't on the plane... or does the secret agents drug the whole world for every flight that "takes off" so our time is synchronised?

I have read quite a few threads tonight and I would like it if an FE would ask the questions this time and I will happily answer them. As mentioned earlier I KNOW the earth is an oblate spheriod

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: flying
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2011, 06:00:47 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Crustinator, aarperry. His posts are an attempt to parody FE'ers and their beliefs.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: flying
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2011, 06:39:49 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Crustinator, aarperry. His posts are an attempt to parody FE'ers and their beliefs.
Then what is an FE'ers belief? There is still the issue at hand, the times of flight on an FE map don't line up with that of the real world.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: flying
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2011, 07:20:52 AM »
Then what is an FE'ers belief? There is still the issue at hand, the times of flight on an FE map don't line up with that of the real world.


First of all, I don't agree with the geographical model used to make the argument. Secondly, if I did, I'd want to see logs and recorded flight times, not bedroom multiplication.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: flying
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2011, 08:23:51 AM »
First of all, I don't agree with the geographical model used to make the argument.
You don't agree with the FE map?

Secondly, if I did, I'd want to see logs and recorded flight times, not bedroom multiplication.
Am I going to spoon feed you this data? And of course you need to use some maths to find the time it would take in each model... Else you'll just look at flight data and jump straight to "FE VICTORY" somehow.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: flying
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2011, 09:06:50 AM »
You don't agree with the FE map?


As far as I'm concerned, there's not such thing.


Am I going to spoon feed you this data? And of course you need to use some maths to find the time it would take in each model... Else you'll just look at flight data and jump straight to "FE VICTORY" somehow.


If by "spoon feed" you mean provide, then yes, you're going to have to provide data to substantiate your argument. RE'ers tend to balk at this kind of thing, but it's quite important to us Zetetics.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: flying
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2011, 09:41:28 AM »
Right...speaking of providing data in order to substantiate a claim, how is the FET map coming along?
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: flying
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2011, 10:26:02 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Crustinator, aarperry. His posts are an attempt to parody FE'ers and their beliefs.

Please do not insult our beliefs. My fellow Brothers have worked hard developing our airtight theories. I appreciate that you are here as an administrator principally, but I would kindly ask that you keep your RE propaganda out of the FE Q&A section, so that serious Believers can give the answers people so desperately need.