An observation about Attitude Indicators on aircraft.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on April 05, 2017, 11:24:47 AM

Do you have an attitude indicator in your car? Seeing that you see as much curvature from ground level as from an aeroplane, why don't you invest in one, Mr physical observer?

Why is the indicator line straight across, level and not curved like the ball earth? Your answer didn't answer the query.

Your question was answered several times.

There are FE pilots that correctly define the Earth's shape as flat. They have considered all evidence instead of RE pilots demonstrating their limited exposure to FET.

It really doesn't matter if you are piloting the plane or a passenger within.  It is the experience and interpretation of observation submitted by either that ultimately determines the best source for Earth shape data.

Those in the course of FET study will focus on such things as horizon and effects of atmospherics relative to Earth shape when looking out the craft window. Pilots and others necessarily focusing on criteria other than Earth shape are not as capable of defining Earth shape vis-a-vis their flight experience.

If they had rationally considered all the evidence they would have discarded FE BS as it is completley unable to explain so many observations it isn't funny.
The horizon, with objects disappearing behind it, should be enough to show it is a globe.

Planes can't go into high orbit so why is there a problem with X and Y horizontal and vertical simple to see indicators. If these instruments had a curvature to them wouldn't it pose a threat for being precise in aircraft combat or last second maneuverability? I don't understand the point trying to be made here to be honest. I'm a firm believer in a flat earth but this would have zero impact on proving it. Also youtube and this comment section has basic spellcheck and there are also add ons for several web browsers for spellcheck. How could you misspell "altitude" in the header for your post as well as posting all those videos with the incorrect grammar for each as well as not spelling it correctly a second time. I know this is a nitpick and you probably made a typo due to each of the videos having similar spelling. But still "altitude" isn't a very hard word to spell.

Planes can't go into high orbit so why is there a problem with X and Y horizontal and vertical simple to see indicators. If these instruments had a curvature to them wouldn't it pose a threat for being precise in aircraft combat or last second maneuverability? I don't understand the point trying to be made here to be honest. I'm a firm believer in a flat earth but this would have zero impact on proving it. Also youtube and this comment section has basic spellcheck and there are also add ons for several web browsers for spellcheck. How could you misspell "altitude" in the header for your post as well as posting all those videos with the incorrect grammar for each as well as not spelling it correctly a second time. I know this is a nitpick and you probably made a typo due to each of the videos having similar spelling. But still "altitude" isn't a very hard word to spell.

Attitude is the aircrafts nose up or nose down position horizontally. Altitude is its actual height.
Before you go correcting others, you should KNOW what you're correcting. Altitude and attitude are very different.
https://www.google.com/search?q=aircraft+attitude&oq=aircraft+attitude&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3j69i61l2.4051j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

My understanding of the ADI systems of aircraft are to blame. Especially the FDAI system since I don't really fly spacecraft and probably never will. I didn't notice it at first but going back it seems I misread your post, skimmed through it, seen someone else's comment, and became misinformed. Easy to do on this site when you are busy with other things.

Right ok, one thing flat earthers need to do for one minute is see the word as if it was curved regardless of your beliefs for a second answer me this question.

The Earth is huge and has a curve in it, the longer the diameter, the more the circumference and the more circumference the more distance you have to go before you change angle by one degree. Since all circles add up to 360 degrees.

So going by this logic, a ball with a diameter of 12,742km will have a circumference of 40,000km that is huge, now with the size of this, there is literally no way to believe that anything on the surface could possibly see any remote bit of curvature.

Make sense?

To further this, the Earth's surface curves one degree every 111km if looking through a cross section, are you lot trying to tell me that on an artificial horizon the width of about 5cm you would be able to notice a difference in angle of 0.000000045 degrees, yeah unlikely mate.

(if anyone who actually understands maths and has seen an error in my calculations or wants me to explain part of it, just quote it and I'll see what can be sorted, and if you don't have a bloody clue about maths, this note doesn't mean I necessary have made a mistake that makes FE viable)

Nice math! Unfortunately, Physical Observer has a rule against admitting math or science as evidence. All he will accept are pictures of ponds (preferably with toy boats). So if you have a picture of a pond with a toy boat that proves a spherical Earth, PO will be convinced. Otherwise...

I laughed so much I choked there

There are FE pilots that correctly define the Earth's shape as flat. They have considered all evidence instead of RE pilots demonstrating their limited exposure to FET.

It really doesn't matter if you are piloting the plane or a passenger within.  It is the experience and interpretation of observation submitted by either that ultimately determines the best source for Earth shape data.

Those in the course of FET study will focus on such things as horizon and effects of atmospherics relative to Earth shape when looking out the craft window. Pilots and others necessarily focusing on criteria other than Earth shape are not as capable of defining Earth shape vis-a-vis their flight experience.

There are no FE pilots in the real world. Every single FE person that I've seen that has claimed to be a pilot has been a bulls****er.

As a (monumentally less experienced) pilot, I could spot from the outset Zaphod is bona fide. It's not just the knowledge, facts and experience detailed in his post. There's a certain style to how pilots speak which other pilots are attuned to - a patter. Some of the liars have been accurate with technical details but don't have this style - you know straightaway from how they talk/write that they are lying.

But the primary alert for me is that they say they believe in FE! There is absolutely no conceivable way a pilot could exist and function if this were true.

There is nothing in Zaphod's post that can be argued with. That's why you can see nobody has even tried.

Come on flat earth pilots, if you do exist than I dare you to challenge Zaphod's post. I dare anyone to challenge his post.

If you can't, then you have no valid argument for FE. And if you have no valid argument for FE, then why the hell are you subscribing to it? Are you consciously making a decision to delude yourselves?

I say again - there are NO FET pilots.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on April 05, 2017, 11:24:47 AM

Do you have an attitude indicator in your car? Seeing that you see as much curvature from ground level as from an aeroplane, why don't you invest in one, Mr physical observer?

Why is the indicator line straight across, level and not curved like the ball earth? Your answer didn't answer the query.

Because that is NOT what this instrument is used for. It tells the pilot what his orientation is to the ground in the area NOT the entire planet.

I just it when no pilots think they understand aircraft instruments.