Declassified Government Docs CONFIRM - FLAT Non-Rotating Earth

Document Dump.....It's time for the truth to be known. NASA and other Space agencies have know Earth is a Plane for decades.

No, they have known it to be round for quite some time, rotating too.

If you have some documents, link to them, not some crappy video.

I assume you are discussing the documents discussing flight which make approximations to make the math much simpler?
If so, that doesn't mean that Earth is flat or stationary. All it means is that they didn't take into account the curvature or rotation of Earth when making the model to make the math simpler.

Do you have a link to any government document which clearly states that Earth is flat and stationary, or just ones discussing a model?

Your analogy with wind is in error. The strength or turbulence of the wind is not steady at all times, whereas the rotation and curvature of the earth is.

No it isn't.
The wind exists. The model ignores it as a complicating factor to make the math simpler.
If the FEers want to pretend that because NASA chose to simplify their model by ignoring the curvature and rotation of Earth that NASA is "admitting" that Earth is flat and stationary, then to be honest and consistent they would need to also claim that NASA is "admitting" that there is no wind or turbulence and that aircraft are point masses.

So no, the analogy is quite valid. It shows the inconsistency and dishonesty of FEers.
When honestly read, the documents do not indicate Earth is flat or stationary. Instead it indicates NASA is simplifying the math.
If Earth was actually flat and stationary, they wouldn't have mentioned it at all as they wouldn't have needed to remove the shape and motion of Earth from the problem to simplify it.


The curvature of Earth is not constant. Earth is not a sphere, it is an oblate spheroid. That means the curvature varies with latitude and direction.
The angular velocity of Earth is constant, but the effects of it are not. The effect of the rotation will vary depending upon your latitude and direction.
For example, flying in the same direction as Earth rotates will result in a reduction of weight, but flying against it will result in a gain of weight.

Neither are simple variables that can easily be accounted for.

Would you prefer a comparison to the point masses?
Aircraft aren't point masses.

Please tell me, what do others do when the dominoes fall and the writing is on the wall? Do they wonder aimlessly and thinks all is fine?

No Globe earth "dominoes" are going to fall but watch you own dominoes as they not only start to topple but crumble:
Look at the YouTube flat earthers in total disarray after  :

  Jeranism and Globebusters Kicked Out 4 - Nathan Oakley Triggered Forever - Moon Inside Atmosphere by UNIRock2

And 'Behind the Curve' Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary .

And there's more!

Flat Earthers Turn on Each Other After Their Fan Base Has Left, and its funny

Then that famous Flat Earth Guru spits the dummy!

Eric Dubay Attacks Flat Earth- The MELTDOWN
And

Eric Dubay Attacks Flat Earth- Mark Sargent
And

Eric Dubay Attacks Flat Earth The Flat Earth Society

Mr Plat Terra, the YouTube Flat Earthers are panicking, running left right and centre and spouting all sorts of garbage pseudo-science!

Bye, bye flatties!

https://top-secret-documents.com/en/nasa/index.html

NASA – Atmospheric oscillations

“Eckart [l960] went through a second derivation in which the effect of the earth's rotation was included. The other conditions are the same as the first case discussed. He again found that certain frequencies are not allowed and the acoustic and gravity waves are similar to the ones already described. Figures 2 and 3 show these allowed frequencies versus wave number in the cases of a nonrotating and a rotating earth.”

“A more general approach uses spherical coordinates. The basic mathematical equations in his book, and ramifications were developed in papers by Wilkes [1951] and by White [1955, 1956, 1960a, 1960bl. The basic equations of motion are taken to be, in the linearized, perturbation form, - au -2wvc0se = at -- ia - (t +n) a ae - 1 a (2 +n) a sin 8 P, av +2wvcose =- at * Eckart used the term sound where a is the radius of the earth, co is the angular velocity of the earth, 8 is the latitude, 4 is the longitude, z is the height above the earth's surface, u is the southward component of air velocity at (z, 8, 4), v is the eastward component, w is the vertically upward component, c is the velocity of sound at height z, and R is the tide producing potential, gravitational in origin. In the above the earth is considered to be spherical, and the variation of radius vector, gravity, and an with height are neglected. Also, the vertical acceleration is considered to be negligible.”

The following is an explanation for the term of "flat non rotating earth" used in those NASA papers:

"For the purposes of the equations governing the aerodynamic properties of aeroplanes, a whole lot of things can be ignored because they don't make the slightest bit of difference. Such as the curvature of the earth, its rotation, the earth's orbit around the sun, the sun's orbit around the galactic center etc.

For much the same reason, if I want to calculate the path taken by a ball I drop in my lounge, I don't need to worry about those things either...

A key skill in physics is in understanding what factors need to be taken into account and what can be ignored, at the level of precision you care about.

As far as aerodynamic models of planes go, the curvature of the earth only matter to the extent that the earth deviates from being flat over the size of the aircraft. Likewise the rotation: if the rotation speed of the earth varies significantly over the span of the aircraft it might matter. But since aeroplanes aren't tens of kilometers in size, it really makes no difference, because we are not doing calculations precise enough for those things to matter..."

The doc says its's a limited simulation. It was written in FORTRAN 77, which I used in the 80;s. They simplified the model of the earth, so it could run in real time back then.
..EQ..

It's nice to see others believe Earth is Flat too.

It's nice to see others believe Earth is Flat too.

Quite! The same people who put man on the moon and launched the international space station, of which they have only produced millions upon millions  of images depicting our spherical Earth.

NASA is really truly on your side about the flat earth, plat tera! Your belief has believers in 'high' places - umm, no, not the ISS - ('high' like your basement after you and your mates have passed the bong around)

It's nice to see others believe Earth is Flat too.

You’d like to think so, but you would be incorrect. It helps to read the document rather than just keyword search looking for the term that floats your boat.

From the document referenced, Page 6

"1.1 Definition of Reference System

While numerous reference systems are used in aerospace applications, this report is limited to four reference systems: the body, the wind, the vehicle-carried vertical, and the topodetic reference systems. The stability though this reference system is used only to define the stability axis rotational axes are also defined even though this reference system is used only to define the stability axis rotational rates

The first reference system to be described is the topodetic reference system, also called the earth-fixed reference frame (Etkin, 1972), the earth axes (Thelander, 1965), and the Eulerian axes (Northrop Aircraft, 1952 ). The topodetic reference frame is considered fixed in space (and hence, inertial) with the orientation of the axes as shown in figure 1; the x axis is directed north, the y axis east, and the z axis down. The vehicle position (x and y) and altitude (h) are measured from the origin of this reference system. The vehicle-carried vertical axis system (fig. 2; Etkin, 1972) has its origin at the center of gravity of the vehicle. The xy axis is directed north, the yy axis east, and the zy axis down. This axis system is obtained by a translation of the topodetic axis system to the vehicle (heading, pitch, and bank angles b, 0, and ø, respectively) is described in terms of the orientation of the aircraft body."

When researching Etkin and the earth-fixed reference frame mentioned you find this from his book, “Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight”:

"4.2.2 Earth-Fixed Reference Frame

In many problems of airplane dynamics, the rotation w” of the Earth relative to FI can be neglected, and any reference frame fixed to the Earth can be used as an inertial frame. In hypervelocity and space flight this is generally not the case, however, and the angular velocity of the Earth must usually be included in the analysis.
Two Earth-fixed frames are of interest, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2."
[/i]

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 19, 2019, 06:02:34 PM

It's nice to see others believe Earth is Flat too.

You’d like to think so, but you would be incorrect. It helps to read the document rather than just keyword search looking for the term that floats your boat.

From the document referenced, Page 6

"1.1 Definition of Reference System

While numerous reference systems are used in aerospace applications, this report is limited to four reference systems: the body, the wind, the vehicle-carried vertical, and the topodetic reference systems. The stability though this reference system is used only to define the stability axis rotational axes are also defined even though this reference system is used only to define the stability axis rotational rates

The first reference system to be described is the topodetic reference system, also called the earth-fixed reference frame (Etkin, 1972), the earth axes (Thelander, 1965), and the Eulerian axes (Northrop Aircraft, 1952 ). The topodetic reference frame is considered fixed in space (and hence, inertial) with the orientation of the axes as shown in figure 1; the x axis is directed north, the y axis east, and the z axis down. The vehicle position (x and y) and altitude (h) are measured from the origin of this reference system. The vehicle-carried vertical axis system (fig. 2; Etkin, 1972) has its origin at the center of gravity of the vehicle. The xy axis is directed north, the yy axis east, and the zy axis down. This axis system is obtained by a translation of the topodetic axis system to the vehicle (heading, pitch, and bank angles b, 0, and ø, respectively) is described in terms of the orientation of the aircraft body."

When researching Etkin and the earth-fixed reference frame mentioned you find this from his book, “Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight”:

"4.2.2 Earth-Fixed Reference Frame

In many problems of airplane dynamics, the rotation w” of the Earth relative to FI can be neglected, and any reference frame fixed to the Earth can be used as an inertial frame. In hypervelocity and space flight this is generally not the case, however, and the angular velocity of the Earth must usually be included in the analysis.
Two Earth-fixed frames are of interest, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2."
[/i]

That is the stance of mage.
Where is that guy?

It's nice to see others believe Earth is Flat too.

We can all read the report.
Notice how it doesn't say Earth is flat and stationary?
Instead it states simplifications used to make the model.
Notice how it says the atmosphere is stationary?
Like others have pointed out, does that mean you think they are admitting there is no wind, that wind is just some massive hoax/conspiracy?

Elsewhere it states that it is for a rigid aircraft of constant mass.
Does that mean you think it magically means that the aircraft doesn't consume fuel and instead flies on pure magic and is somehow perfectly rigid?

No one in their right mind would take those statements as anything other than a simplification to the model.
Why should it be any different for the simplification of treating Earth as stationary and flat?

Like others have pointed out, does that mean you think they are admitting there is no wind, that wind is just some massive hoax/conspiracy?

This is where I want to see sandokhan post a pile of random numbers without units or dimensions in a haughty claim that wind is actually anti-retro-laevorotatory subquark aether bosons, as revealed by psychic zetetics.

Quote from: John Davis on August 19, 2019, 10:11:31 AM

Who the fuck is Rob Skira and how is he duping me?

I'm not sure you can make much out of those documents if you can't even read a post.

Mate, Rob layed it out and you played it out, hook line and sinker. "As even NASA engineers choose to use our model, not knowing they have been duped".

The only place they would be using your flat earth model, is on their dartboard in their NASA recreation room. Well, let's be honest, aside from on a dartboard or maybe a clock face, can you think of any other use for the flat earth model?

As an actual reference map, it's total shit. Ships would be sinking and planes crashing if they put the flat earth model into actual practise for even one minute.

When I finish work in a couple of hours I'll bring your attention to all the globe earth references I saw in those documents.

Again, who is Rob Skira, and how is he duping me? I have come across these documents years ago via some interested twitter users that passed it along. I never took it for legitimate proof of a flat earth ever, though I did only glance over the documents.

Often, engineers will assume that the earth is flat due to the difference being minimal and within their constraints while the math being more elegant (read: simpler). The same way architects aren't usually taught to account for the curvature of earth.

When you finish work, your time might be better spent at www.rif.org.

Again, who is Rob Skira, and how is he duping me?

I don't know who Rob Skira is either and I don't know why you keep bringing him up.  The video in the OP is from Rob Skiba, who is a fairly big name in the YouTube FE community.
http://robskiba.com/about-rob/

No, they don't you idiots ...
They are merely using a model of a flat, non-rotating earth to simplify calculations ...
Morons...