I stand corrected; leveled is not the correct word, but PARALLEL TO THE GROUND.
So you are saying the ground is parallel to the ground?
When the attitude indicator is spun up, the gyroscopes has the airplane PARALLEL TO THE GROUND of the airport, say JFK Airport. When it lands to the new airport, say Athens International Airport, it is again PARALLEL TO THE GROUND, thus the two airports are PARALLEL
No, they aren't.
Continuing to ignore the fact that the attitude indicator has a self-erecting mechanism just shows your dishonesty.
You have a choice, either the two airports are very close to each other on a very large sphere, or the Earth is Flat. I personally believe that the two points are very close to each other on a very large sphere.
Or, you are wrong.
Either due to lack of understanding of how attitude indicators work, or intentional dishonesty on your part.
I'll stick with that much more likely option.
The only question is which one is it? Do you just not understand that the attitude indicator has a self-erecting mechanism; or do you know and you are just intentionally lying to pretend there is a problem with the mainstream model?
Given you have now been presented with a video showing this self-erecting mechanism in action, and had it explained why you can't just ignore it; your next reply will indicate which one it is.
Either you accept your argument is wrong, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
What is your problem, if the Earth is a sphere, but on a much larger sphere than they have told us?
Because it doesn't match reality.
Reality requires a sphere with a radius close to the reported radius.
For example, the distance to the horizon is based upon the observer eye height and radius of Earth.
The angle of dip to the horizon.
And the fact that we clearly have people all over Earth at wildly different latitudes and longitudes; as demonstrated by the varying seasons, the vary time zones (or more technically the varying time of solar noon) and the stars visible in the sky, including both a north celestial pole and a south celestial pole.
What is your problem if Earth is a sphere with a radius of roughly 6371 km?
That you don't understand how attitude indicators work?
Even a flat dinner plate is round, that does not make it a sphere…
Which is just playing semantics.
When I say Earth is round, I meant roughly spherical.
You lack the basic geometric understanding. Two lines are parallel to each other if and only if they never intersect each other, regardless of how far they are extended on either side.
The depends on the exact definition used for parallel lines.
In Euclidean geometry with straight lines there are many equivalent definitions.
But guess what? 2 concentric circles match your definition.
When the plane is on the ground, they have a vacuum pump that spins a gyroscope. The gyroscope has locked the plane that is parallel to the ground.
No, there is self-erecting mechanism.
They cannot simply rely upon the idea that the plane is level, because that requires the plane to actually be level which it might not be.
If this self-erecting mechanism was not present, the gyro would drift too much and be useless.
The video below might help:
I don't see a vacuum pump or an an attitude indicator's self-erecting mechanism, so no, it doesn't help.
The artificial horizon is irrelevant to what I am saying.
It is incredibly relevant, because you are using that specific thing to support your claim, while entirely ignoring the fact that it is not just a simple gyroscope.
If you want it to be irrelevant, go find a different gyroscope, spin it up while on the ground at one airport, and then have it stay spinning the entire duration you are on the plane and see what happens to its apparent orientation.
Then repeat the same experiment while "stationary" on the ground for the same duration, to show it isn't drifting.
Then repeat the same experiment while it is placed onto a carrier trying to move it both in the direction the plane allegedly rotates and opposite, at the same rate, to show it is sensitive enough to detect that.
No, gyroscopes are independent of gravity; they work on centripetal forces. It is basic physics.
The video you provided shows that is false, and that gyroscopes can interact with gravity.
Like around 1:30. Notice how the gyro isn't stationary? Notice how it moves around due to the force of gravity?
This is done again around 1:50, where now the gyro is rotating around a central point, not maintaining its orientation in space.
If you want to use the attitude indicator in an aircraft, you need to discuss that, including the self-erecting mechanism.
If you want that self-erecting mechanism to be irrelevant, then you cannot use the attitude indicator; instead you need an entirely separate gyroscope.
You can't honestly just ignore that self-erecting mechanism because it refutes your argument.