Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

  • 237 Replies
  • 6086 Views
*

gnuarm

  • 399
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #150 on: June 14, 2024, 11:12:54 PM »
Not when a plane flies over the surface at 500 mph or so, above a surface that curves 8 inches per mile, that plane would have to constantly curve downward by a rate of 4-5 feet per mile at that speed.

They would fly a constant and steady descent that matches up with their speeds in flights, which will change over all flights of course.

They cannot follow above a curved surface without a curved flight path to match it.

This would certainly be a physical descent in air, and every pilot would know about the rate of curvature in early flight school, for sure.

Saying that planes simply adjust to curvature in flights, is nonsense.

How could they adjust to a constantly curving down surface, without even knowing its rate of curvature? How would they know their speeds change what rate of descent is needed to match with the curved surface?

Planes measure for level flight, which is not an ascent, not a descent, in air. 

What would planes actually measure to fly over a curved surface, would be measured as a slight descent of about 3-5 feet per minute on the vertical speed indicator, etc.

That’s why they’d know the surface is flat, a curve would be flown in a steady descent to match in altitude above it.

You are the only person I've ever met who thinks an airplane can only fly a straight line, without adjusting for conditions.  There are always air currents, up, down, sideways, which will need to be compensated for, not by entering some number, but simply by maintaining a constant altitude.  No pilot thinks this means flying a straight line, rather than a set distance above sea level. 

Since the airplane will control the flight to maintain the set altitude, no one will need to think about programming a curve.  That's because we all know the airplane will continuously measure and adjust the flight direction to maintain a course and an altitude. 

This is all because they know the earth to be curved, as a globe.  Someone said they know pilots who believe the earth is flat.  If they do, they either do not fly long distances, or they ignore this belief when they do navigation. 

Oh, the same is true for boats.  When piloting a boat, you don't need to program in the curve of the earth.  It will naturally follow the curve as best it can given today's technology. 

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #151 on: June 15, 2024, 02:19:20 AM »


If you had 8,000 straight segments perfectly straight segments angled so they wrapped around into a polygon - what would the angle between segments be?



And then answer do train tracks ever turn?
Or are they always perfectly ldvel to each other?
Aka perrfectly straight?

No they are equidistant from each other.

Level is measured over an entire path, not in separate segments. Levels only read over a single length, but do so continually, as one continual straight and horizontal line or path. Any point along level is perpendicular and square to another line down and up to it.

A plane continually measures for level flight as one continuous straight and horizontal path.

Once a plane first flies level, over its length, every further movement it does in air also reads level, over the plane. It would be like holding a level in air, measuring over its length as straight and horizontal, and gradually moving it over in air, continually measuring it as level.

There is no possible way to adjust for your made up curvature, because it is a continuous straight and level line or path.


Do concentric circles not exist in flat earther geontry?

Of course they do, circles can be concentric on a flat surface.



If circles can be concentric, then why can not an airplane fly equidistant altitude from the surface of the ball earth?

Homedepot “Level” means there is no significant tilt to cause the air bubble to float up.
But on a ball that is 131,480,000ft around, a 1,000ft level, what angle between straight segments of a 131,480sided polygon?!?!?!!!


why is there no possible way?
how much is the "adjustment" if a plane were to fly equidistant above the surface of the ball?

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #152 on: June 15, 2024, 03:49:15 PM »
Not when a plane flies over the surface at 500 mph or so
Yes, it can.
Again, all it needs to do is know its altitude above that surface.

It does NOT use dead reackoning.

As they can get their altitude above the surface, all it takes to follow the curve is to maintain their altitude.

that plane would have to constantly curve downward by a rate of 4-5 feet per mile at that speed.
Repeating the same refuted BS wont help you, but at least you started out ALMOST correct this time.

Curving down is measured as an angle.
Flying at 1000 km/hr, they would have to CURVE down at a rate of 9 degrees per hour.
That is 0.15 degrees per minute, or 0.0025 degrees per second.
And to do so, they just need to maintain their attitude.
That will be entirely covered by any other requirement to change their attitude. Such as a passenger walking from near the back of the plane to the front, or vice versa.

They would fly a constant and steady descent
No, they wouldn't. They would maintain level flight.
You have already that BS refuted, and you fled the like the lying coward you are.
As part of that (including not objecting to it) you fully accepted you were wrong, and would not bring it up again.
If you wish to continue down that path of dishonest BS, go back to that thread and deal with the refutation.
Otherwise, it's too late, and you are wrong.

They cannot follow above a curved surface without a curved flight path to match it.
Which is done by maintaining altitude.

Saying that planes simply adjust to curvature in flights
They adjust to ALTITUDE, i.e. distance from that curved surface.

How could they adjust to a constantly curving down surface, without even knowing its rate of curvature
By maintaining their altitude above that surface.

Just like I can follow a curved surface of any shape, by simply putting my hand on it and following it.
I don't need to know how it is curved, I don't even need to be able to see the surface or see anything.
Just by maintaining my distance (and ideally orientation) relative to that surface I will follow it.
If I want to run around a large circular structure, like a merry go round, or a tower or a tank, I don't need to know the size of it and know at what I need to turn to follow it.
I just need to keep my distance to the tank.

Planes measure for level flight, which is not an ascent, not a descent, in air.
Just as we would expect on a round Earth.

That’s why they’d know the surface is flat
No, that is why they are unable to use their altitude while level to determine the shape of Earth. Because it can't tell.

Now again, care to stop with the deflection and explain how the FE magically gets a horizon, or admit you can't and that you know the existence of the horizon is proof Earth is round.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #153 on: June 15, 2024, 09:28:02 PM »

Again, all it needs to do is know its altitude above that surface.

It does NOT use dead reackoning.

As they can get their altitude above the surface, all it takes to follow the curve is to maintain their altitude.


Curving down is measured as an angle.
Flying at 1000 km/hr, they would have to CURVE down at a rate of 9 degrees per hour.
That is 0.15 degrees per minute, or 0.0025 degrees per second.
And to do so, they just need to maintain their attitude.
That will be entirely covered by any other requirement to change their attitude. Such as a passenger walking from near the back of the plane to the front, or vice versa.

They would fly a constant and steady descent
No, they wouldn't. They would maintain level flight.
You have already that BS refuted, and you fled the like the lying coward you are.
As part of that (including not objecting to it) you fully accepted you were wrong, and would not bring it up again.
If you wish to continue down that path of dishonest BS, go back to that thread and deal with the refutation.
Otherwise, it's too late, and you are wrong.

They cannot follow above a curved surface without a curved flight path to match it.
Which is done by maintaining altitude.

Saying that planes simply adjust to curvature in flights
They adjust to ALTITUDE, i.e. distance from that curved surface.

How could they adjust to a constantly curving down surface, without even knowing its rate of curvature
By maintaining their altitude above that surface.

Just like I can follow a curved surface of any shape, by simply putting my hand on it and following it.
I don't need to know how it is curved, I don't even need to be able to see the surface or see anything.
Just by maintaining my distance (and ideally orientation) relative to that surface I will follow it.
If I want to run around a large circular structure, like a merry go round, or a tower or a tank, I don't need to know the size of it and know at what I need to turn to follow it.
I just need to keep my distance to the tank.


No, the surface of Earth has mountains, for example, that planes fly over, at many different altitudes, it’s not measured or referenced in planes for their altitude in air.

When you claim they simply maintain the same altitude for level flight, you should really say that planes first measure for level flight in the air, and the altitude was set on the ground, say at 300 feet altitude.  From that point, the plane lifts up in air, ascending at a certain rate of ascend that measures in feet per minute.

While in an ascent, the altitude reads the rate of ascent from 300 feet on ground, eventually rising to cruising altitudes, of 25000 feet or so.

That’s when the plane stops an ascent, and fly level in air, and THAT is why altitude stays the same afterwards on flights.

Your using their word trickery, saying level is flying the same altitude, which ignores why it’s flying level first, and stays level over Earth’s surface, and is the same altitude throughout the flight, because the SURFACE is flat and level over it.

To fly over a curved surface at the same altitude, is actually impossible to do, only get close to the same altitude over a curved surface is possible.

And planes would never, ever fly level in the air, no reason to fly level over a curved, descending downward surface.

How would we REALLY approach any curvature, if it did exist, would be entirely different, and would have to be treated as different.

As I said before, planes already have instruments that would measure for any ‘curvature’ in flights, it just has no need to measure for curvature, because it doesn’t exist.

If the surface curved downward at a rate of 4 feet per minute when travelling over it at 500 mph, or in a race car at 300 mph, at a rate of 6 feet per minute curving downward, the race car is not moving over the surface at level, it curves over the curved surface.

Planes always stay in level flight at the same altitude, the altitude stays the same when the plane IS in level flight, over a level flat surface, it wouldn’t stay the same altitude if the surface was curving downward.

So in a funny way, when they say level flight is a flight at the same altitude, they are saying the surface is flat, as flying level is flying the same altitude over a flat surface.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2024, 10:24:03 PM by turbonium2 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #154 on: June 15, 2024, 10:24:10 PM »
No, the surface of Earth has mountains, for example, that planes fly over, at many different altitudes, it’s not measured or referenced in planes for their altitude in air.
Some do actually have detection of terrain altitude.
But that isn't the curved surface you are talking about.
The curved surface is sea level.

They use an altimeter to maintain altitude.

Your using their word trickery
No, I'm not.
I'm clearly explaining why you are wrong.

Planes measure altitude based upon air pressure, air pressure which is roughly proportional to altitude.
So by measuring that pressure they know their altitude above sea level.
If they maintain that altitude, they naturally follow the shape of sea level, regardless of what that shape is.
They don't need to measure that shape or know that shape and make course corrections based upon it.
Instead, their course corrections are based upon altitude.

To fly over a curved surface at the same altitude
Planes do it all the time, it's trivial.

As I said before
Repeating the same BS wont help you.
Especially as you have already contradicted yourself.

Now again, care to stop with the deflection and explain how the FE magically gets a horizon, or admit you can't and that you know the existence of the horizon is proof Earth is round.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #155 on: June 15, 2024, 10:41:22 PM »
It is the fast movement of planes, which covers over a very measurable curve that would require a constant descent we would measure in feet per minute on our instruments, and it proves no curvature exists at all

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #156 on: June 15, 2024, 10:42:39 PM »
It is the fast movement of planes, which covers over a very measurable curve that would require a constant descent we would measure in feet per minute on our instruments, and it proves no curvature exists at all
You have had that BS entirely refuted before, and fled like a lying coward.
Again, if you want to that BS again, go back to the thread and try it there.
Don't try it here.

Here, you can explain what magic causes the horison in your delusional fantasy.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #157 on: June 15, 2024, 11:05:31 PM »
Why would thye need to keep adjusting down?

Do things not naturally fall down on a flat earth?


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #158 on: June 15, 2024, 11:54:19 PM »
Air pressure isn’t precise enough to accurately measure for specific altitudes, they each span over miles of altitudes.

The air pressure can confirm a general altitude in air, but not measure for specific altitudes in air. They also vary in size and altitudes due to temperatures and other factors.

Altitude is measured from a known altitude on the ground, then it depends on other instruments which measure for ascent, level flight, and descent. if we tried to use an altimeter alone to measure altitude, only using air pressure would not be accurate, even if it helps enough to fly and land down.

The fact is, planes actually do measure the surface of Earth as flat, with two matching measurements, for a level and horizontal flight path, and the same altitude over that level flight path, which is further confirmed to be the same altitude at the end of flights.

Nothing can excuse it as flying over a curved surface, it would either have to fly a constant descent measurable in feet per minute on instruments, to stay at altitude above the ball Earth, or fly level over a curving, and the altitude can’t be measured for.

Saying that planes make adjustments for curvature is simply nonsense.

Curvature would already be known to exist, at a specific rate of curve over a distance.

They would already adjust for it, with speed and rate of correct descent to all flights.

Why would we possibly need to adjust for curvature if it’s already known for rate of curvature, over the entire Earth being at the very same rate?  They wouldn’t touch the settings for curvature during flights.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #159 on: June 16, 2024, 12:01:48 AM »
How fast are they moving forwards in ratio to how fast they are NAUTRUALLY falling down?



So then... given the round earth cirucmference, does it still not-make-sense?

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #160 on: June 16, 2024, 02:11:58 AM »
Air pressure isn’t precise enough to accurately measure for specific altitudes, they each span over miles of altitudes.
Yet that is what aircraft typically use to maintain altitude.
You are basically just saying that the error in altitude from that instrument would also make any tiny change due to the curvature insignificant and already contained by other corrections.

It also means that when they fly "level", they aren't even keeping a constant altitude, and instead are ascending and descending.
So not a chance that is flat.

Great job refuting yourself yet again.

Altitude is measured from a known altitude on the ground, then it depends on other instruments which measure for ascent, level flight, and descent.
If they attempted to use dead recoking, the error would make them crash.
And guess what the vertical speed indicator uses? Air pressure.
And pilots don't time how long it takes to get up there.

if we tried to use an altimeter alone to measure altitude, only using air pressure would not be accurate, even if it helps enough to fly and land down.
Again, admitting your claims are pure BS.

The fact is, planes actually do measure the surface of Earth as flat
Repeating the same lie wont help you.

Nothing can excuse it as flying over a curved surface
Except basically every fact of how they fly.

They would already adjust for it, with speed and rate of correct descent to all flights.
No, they wouldn't, as the adjustments they need to do are insignificant and already taken care of by the other adjustments they make.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #161 on: June 16, 2024, 02:45:31 AM »
Horizons are not physical edges on Earth’s surface.

When there is a physical edge on a surface, that is not a horizon, which is only a visual phenomenon called perspective and vanishing point.

You’re already aware that when the surface appears to rise upward in the distance, it is not a physical rise of the surface, right?

Why do you think it is an endless effect on a flat surface, while a physical edge that cuts off the surface with a line across the surface on a curved surface?

Perspective doesn’t just make the surface appear to rise unless cut off by a real edge on a curved surface.

Curved surfaces don’t appear to rise unless they’re almost a flat surface, which is what it really is.

We can all see that the surface is flat, while appearing to rise due to perspective.

We don’t know what a curved surface of three miles long would really look like, only what a flat surface looks like on Earth.

The only way you’ll understand what a flat surface looks like, which has a horizon on it, is if you first accept a flat surface is really flat.

Imagine a microscopic sized person on a big flat table.

He could not see the whole table, he would see it appear to rise upward and then form a horizon, inches from him on the table. 

To you, he would see the whole table, and a horizon form on its edge, wherever it is. But horizons appear at all sorts of distances away, so you think they are all edges on a curved surface?  You don’t see an edge 3 miles out when higher above the surface, you see it further away from that point.

Except if the surface was curved, then it would curve much more at 6 miles out than at 3 miles out, right?

But it keeps rising up, when the surface curves more and more than at 3 miles out. It would not rise up with more and more of a curve downward with more distance out.


Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #162 on: June 16, 2024, 08:59:59 AM »
Horizons are not physical edges on Earth’s surface.

When there is a physical edge on a surface, that is not a horizon, which is only a visual phenomenon called perspective and vanishing point.

You’re already aware that when the surface appears to rise upward in the distance, it is not a physical rise of the surface, right?

Why do you think it is an endless effect on a flat surface, while a physical edge that cuts off the surface with a line across the surface on a curved surface?

Perspective doesn’t just make the surface appear to rise unless cut off by a real edge on a curved surface.

Curved surfaces don’t appear to rise unless they’re almost a flat surface, which is what it really is.

We can all see that the surface is flat, while appearing to rise due to perspective.

We don’t know what a curved surface of three miles long would really look like, only what a flat surface looks like on Earth.

The only way you’ll understand what a flat surface looks like, which has a horizon on it, is if you first accept a flat surface is really flat.

Imagine a microscopic sized person on a big flat table.

He could not see the whole table, he would see it appear to rise upward and then form a horizon, inches from him on the table. 

To you, he would see the whole table, and a horizon form on its edge, wherever it is. But horizons appear at all sorts of distances away, so you think they are all edges on a curved surface?  You don’t see an edge 3 miles out when higher above the surface, you see it further away from that point.

Except if the surface was curved, then it would curve much more at 6 miles out than at 3 miles out, right?

But it keeps rising up, when the surface curves more and more than at 3 miles out. It would not rise up with more and more of a curve downward with more distance out.






Can circles not have tangents?
Is there not a physical point where the curve rieaches a max?

Whats the outline of a ball?

Whats an outline???????


*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #163 on: June 16, 2024, 03:24:41 PM »
Horizons are not physical edges on Earth’s surface.
They certainly act like it in every way, just being a very smooth edge, just like a ball.

When there is a physical edge on a surface, that is not a horizon, which is only a visual phenomenon called perspective and vanishing point.
No it isn't.
The vanishing point is infinitely far away. The horizon is not.

On Earth, we observe the ground appearing at a higher and higher angle of elevation until it reaches the horizon which is below 0 degrees and stops.
Then, by observing objects above the ground (but still below us), we can tell this ground, if we could see it, would be going to a lower angle of elevation.

You’re already aware that when the surface appears to rise upward in the distance, it is not a physical rise of the surface, right?
I am aware that it is a physical angle to the surface.

Why do you think it is an endless effect on a flat surface, while a physical edge that cuts off the surface with a line across the surface on a curved surface?
Simple geoemtry as already explained.
If you are a height h above a surface which is perfectly flat, then a point on that surface a distance of d away from the point directly below you will appear at an angle of:
a = atan(h/d) BELOW you.

This is simple geometry.
It can't stop rising.

Conversely, a round surface will be different, as that h will vary with distance.
If we take a simple approximation for a round Earth, then you will have an additional drop of d^2/2R. This gives us:
a = atan((h+d^2/2R)/d) = atan(h/d+d/2R)
Now we have 2 competing effects. The h/d term from before, as well as the d/2R term.
At small values of d, i.e. d/2R<<h/d, the h/d term dominates, and the angle gets closer to 0. But at large distances, the d/2R term dominates and the angle gets further away from 0.

This means for a curved surface, the ground will have the angle of elevation appear to increase, getting closer to 0, until it reaches the horizon, and starts going back down.

Again, simple images demonstrate this
This is what we would expect for a RE:

The surface "appears to rise" until it reaches the peak at the horizon, and then goes back down with Earth blocking the view to more distant objects (but not if they are tall enough).

This is what we would expect for a FE:

The angle of elevation continues to increase, so the ground continues to "appear to rise", never stopping, never producing a horizon, and never blocking the view.

This is what you need:

Pure magic.

If you want to claim otherwise, you need to tell us what magic stops perspective from working after some distance so it stops appearing to rise, and what magic blocks the view.

Perspective doesn’t just make the surface appear to rise unless cut off by a real edge on a curved surface.
That is exactly what perspective does.
It will make a flat surface below you appear to rise until you reach the edge.
There is no way for it to magically stop.
That is what you have been fleeing from this entire time.

Curved surfaces don’t appear to rise unless they’re almost a flat surface, which is what it really is.
Pure BS.
Curved surfaces DO appear to rise. The question is how much will the appear to rise and for what distance?
If it didn't, then all you would ever see of a ball is a tiny point.
Because as soon as you move away from that point, it "appears to rise".

You can even test this yourself with a simple basketball.
Go put your head above it.
If you straight down (i.e. directly at an angle of elevation of -90 degrees) you will see the ball.
If your delusional BS was true, that is the ONLY spot you would ever see the ball.
But if you increase your angle of elevation, you will see more of the ball.
i.e. the surface of the ball is "appearing to rise".
This continues until you hit the horizon on the ball.
The closer you are to the ball, and the larger the ball, the greater the final angle of elevation. For a sufficent large ball with a sufficiently small height above it, the angle to the horizon will be ~0.

We can all see that the surface is flat, while appearing to rise due to perspective.
No, we can't.
The fact there is the horizon shows it is curved.
You have NOTHING to support your idea of it being flat.

We don’t know what a curved surface of three miles long would really look like
Sure we do. Look at Earth.
But this is you basically just saying you have absolutely no idea if Earth is round or flat.
You don't even know what to look for for such a round surface of Earth, so you just ignore that and blindly assert it must be flat.

The only way you’ll understand what a flat surface looks like, which has a horizon on it, is if you first accept a flat surface is really flat.
So the only way I will understand is if I entirely ignore reality?
No thanks.
I will stick to reality.
Simulations of surfaces is quite trivial.

Imagine a microscopic sized person on a big flat table.
As they are above the table, they would see the entire table (assuming that table is actually flat).
This is because there is nothing blocking the view.
Even more important, if there is another object on that table top somewhere, he would be able to see it, without any of it hidden.

Compare this to a microscopic sized person on a big round ball.
They would see the ball appear to rise up, until almost reaching 0 degreees, before producing a horizon.
If they were to observe an object moving away from them, they would see it reach that horizon and appear to sink.

The round surface matches what is seen on Earth. The flat surface does not.

But horizons appear at all sorts of distances away
Horizons, other than those from things like mountains, appear at a distance away depending upon your altitude.

But it keeps rising up, when the surface curves more and more than at 3 miles out. It would not rise up with more and more of a curve downward with more distance out.
As above, a = atan(h/d+d/2R)
We can easily find the point where it should stop appearing to rise and instead appear to go down.
We do this by finding the point where the change is 0.
As h/d+d/2R is always positive, and atan(x) is an increasing function when x>0, we can simplify and just find when the change in h/d+d/2R is 0.
To do this, we differentiate and set it to 0.
-h/d^2 +1/2R = 0
1/2R = h/d^2
d^2/2R=h
d^2=2Rh
d=sqrt(2Rh).

And we see that as you increase in elevation, the horizon gets further away.

This also matches simple observations of balls.
If your eye right up close, you can see a small portion of it. As you get further away, you see more of it, i.e. the horizon is more distant.

Even a child could understand this.
So why are you still playing dumb?

Even you have implied to understand it, at least if you understand that going higher is equivalent to having a smaller ball as you can just scale the entire system.

Again, what magic produces the horizon in your fantasy?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #164 on: June 21, 2024, 08:41:43 PM »
Just pile on bs with more bs, and then nobody notices where it all started from, or thinks about it anymore!

Why do planes travel over the Earth, in the air above Earth, with a path of level flight, doesn’t mean they always stay in level flight, it means they adjust for level flight when they fly off level and correct for it afterwards, to fly level again…

Travelling over Earth, at great speeds, would cover a long distance of Earth’s surface in a short time span, so to suggest that planes fly and land perfectly means they are adjusting for ‘curvature’ in flights, but they don’t even realize how they adjust for ‘curvature’ in flights, or even know what RATE of Earth’s ‘curvature’ would be, when nobody seems to mention it, as an actual figure of measurement of the very Earth’s surface, and how could any measurement be more important and significant to know, to tell the world about, to mention all the time, that our ball Earth, has such a curve on it, everywhere on Earth, and that it’s been MEASURED to be that rate of curve, since that’s really important, to measure it, first of all.

Or if they cannot measure it, specifically at a valid rate, or only about 8 inches per mile curvature, not ever more specifically measured by anyone at all, since they first measured it as 8 inches per mile, roughly or about 8 inches per mile, they told us….

Any other measurement we’ve done, in the past, that is still measured again and again, especially when they are more important and significant measurements, of our air or atmosphere, temperatures, think about how many measurements of our surface are done, have always been done, in the past, except the one measurement that would be more important to know and measure accurately all the time, day after day, forever….

Surveyors of today, have instruments which can measure over surfaces of more than one mile, that they rarely have projects of a mile long, has already been done, and still is done…

The actual surface would be clearly known and precisely measured, and it always IS known and measured by those surveyors. 

The surveyors know, as we all know, that the surface over any area of Earth is not perfectly uniform, not all the very same thing. Except for still and calm waters, that is.

Don’t try telling me that surveyors only work on smaller areas for their projects, small or large or tall or short, are bs terms. Quantify the term, or don’t say it at all.





*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #165 on: June 21, 2024, 09:58:03 PM »
Just pile on bs with more bs, and then nobody notices where it all started from, or thinks about it anymore!
That does seem to be what you are doing.
You can't justify your delusional BS, so you just spout more, and when that fails you just keep spouting more.

Why do planes travel over the Earth, in the air above Earth, with a path of level flight, doesn’t mean they always stay in level flight, it means they adjust for level flight when they fly off level and correct for it afterwards, to fly level again…
And importantly, they do that with a feedback look.
They see their position and attitude, and modify that to maintain their course.
They do NOT fly based upon dead reckoning.

i.e. they don't need to know about the curvature, or know how much to correct for, they would just need to see their altitude is wrong, and adjust to correct it.

Just like to follow a surface, I don't need to know exactly what that surface is and how to change my course to follow it blind.
I can monitor my position relative to the surface and correct it to maintain a distance.

Just like an oven doesn't need to know exactly what to do to maintain temperature. If it did it would be useless for cooking as changing what is in it would change that requirement.
Instead, it has something to measure what the temperature is, and heats as needed to get to the required temperature.

how could any measurement be more important and significant to know
Quite easily.

If a plane wants to land, it needs to know the location of the runway relative to the plane.
The curvature of Earth for that doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if the runway is an inch lower than they thought.

And if you want to know about Earth in general, then the bigger thing to talk about is the radius.
Saying they need to say your 8 inches per mile squared, is just pathetic pedantic BS.

Or if they cannot measure it
They have measured it.
Such as through the angle of dip to the horizon.

Now, care to explain how the horizon magically forms?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #166 on: June 22, 2024, 12:20:27 AM »
Altitude is set on ground altitude of the planes.

This is the reference point for the plane’s true altitude.

So what happens when the plane lifts off the ground, to measure its altitude?

Altitude is measured by other instruments, like the VSI for one, which measures the air pressure around the plane, as a variable of more or less over periods of time.

So if a plane ascends sharply, it measures more feet per second or minute of its ascent,
which is sent to the altimeter, and measures how many feet to add on to the plane’s altitude along the way.

Air pressure is less and less at higher and higher altitudes, so it does help confirm altitude readings on a plane are valid, but they don’t measure air pressure FOR its actual altitudes.

Level flight is not from having the same altitude, the flight being flown level is what makes the altitude stay the same after its flying level!!

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #167 on: June 22, 2024, 01:16:39 AM »
They don’t see if their altitude is wrong, how does it go wrong, all of a sudden? Level flight makes for same altitude, easy as that.

Any adjustments are from external causes, that make them adjust their flight paths for it, and then return to the normal path again, if it’s possible, it might not be possible, so they have a new flight path set up from that point.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #168 on: June 22, 2024, 01:46:13 AM »
They don’t see if their altitude is wrong, how does it go wrong, all of a sudden? Level flight makes for same altitude, easy as that.

Any adjustments are from external causes, that make them adjust their flight paths for it, and then return to the normal path again, if it’s possible, it might not be possible, so they have a new flight path set up from that point.

Which has what to do with instrumentation that converts pressure to an altitude and flys to stay in that pressure band that corresponds to that altitude.  Compositing for things like temperature and density, the air pressure 30,000 feet above London is the same air pressure 30,000 feet above New York on a spherical earth.  And if a jet stays in the pressure band, the vertical speed indicator isn’t going to show a change. 

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #169 on: June 22, 2024, 01:48:44 AM »
They don’t see

Now.  Want to stay on topic.

This thread is about “ Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo”. And measuring amount of curvature with photos and fixed objects. This thread has nothing to do with airplane instrumentation. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22466
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #170 on: June 22, 2024, 02:37:07 AM »
So what happens when the plane lifts off the ground, to measure its altitude?
The plane uses air pressure, GPS or radar.

Altitude is measured by other instruments, like the VSI for one, which measures the air pressure around the plane, as a variable of more or less over periods of time.
No, the VSI does NOT measure the altitude.
It works on a similar principle to the altimeter, but it basically has 2, and finds the difference.

They don't need the VSI to tell them their altitude.
They can measure the pressure directly.

With this, they don't need to do any special corrections to account for the curve, as maintaining their altitude will do that for them.

Even if you just want to use the VSI, that still uses the air pressure, so again, it does't matter about the curve.

Now again, care to stop with the pathetic BS and explain what magic causes your horizon or admit that the horizon is clear evidence that Earth is round.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #171 on: June 22, 2024, 04:53:45 PM »

The plane uses air pressure, GPS or radar.

No, the VSI does NOT measure the altitude.
It works on a similar principle to the altimeter, but it basically has 2, and finds the difference.

They don't need the VSI to tell them their altitude.
They can measure the pressure directly.

With this, they don't need to do any special corrections to account for the curve, as maintaining their altitude will do that for them.

Even if you just want to use the VSI, that still uses the air pressure, so again, it does't matter about the curve.


The airspeed indicator tells a pilot their horizontal velocity, and the altimeter advises pilots of their current altitude, but how does a pilot know how fast that altitude is changing? For this you need to consult your aircraft’s vertical speed indicator (VSI).

The vertical speed indicator (VSI) is one of the six-pack of instruments that is in the cockpit. It displays an aircraft’s rate of climb or descent in hundreds of feet per minute (in the United States).

The VSI gathers its measurements via the pitot-static system. You may also hear the vertical speed indicator referred to as a variometer, Vertical Velocity Indicator (VVI) or a rate-of-climb indicator.
………

The VSI provides information about the rate of climb or descent in feet per minute or meters per minute, while the airspeed indicator measures the aircraft's speed relative to the surrounding air in knots or kilometers per hour.

Working in tandem, they help pilots maintain precise control during level flight, ensuring they can monitor altitude changes accurately using data from the pitot tube, which senses dynamic air pressure to calculate airspeed.


https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/aircraft-vertical-speed-indicator-vsi-how-does-it-work


Altitude is height above O feet or sea level altitude, not height above mountain ranges, etc.

Radar doesn’t measure true altitude above sea level or 0 feet altitude, nor does GPS measure true altitude above sea level or 0 feet altitude.

Again, there is simply no possible way to measure true altitude over a surface which has mountains above true altitude at sea level. Unless you know the exact altitude of the mountain, and know it hits the exact peak of it, and by that point, the plane is well past that mountain.

They have to set the plane’s true altitude on the ground, then calculate the altitudes from their instruments like the VSI, which measures air pressure around the plane over time and speed, and send the data to the altimeter, which also measures the air pressure to confirm both measurements match up exactly, or close to it. The IVSI is a newer, faster instrument than the VSI, and measures altitude within moments, throughout.

Look up the info yourself, I’ve just posted a source to help out. Don’t try bs about me not showing sources, at least I read about what I’m talking about from sources, unlike yourself.

*

gnuarm

  • 399
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #172 on: June 22, 2024, 04:58:34 PM »
If GPS doesn't measure "true altitude above sea level", what is it measuring?

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #173 on: June 22, 2024, 06:09:49 PM »
If GPS doesn't measure "true altitude above sea level", what is it measuring?

It doesn’t measure the altitude, that’s for sure. Assuming ‘space’ was actually an infinite area and Earth was a puny ball speeding through it for infinitely, and we all were stuck to the speeding ball by a magical glue force inside the ‘core’ of Earth ball, we finally come to having thousands of ‘satellites’ that go around and around the ball by that same magical force not quite pulling them to Earth, but making them spin around the ball instead, just if the objects can ramp up to thousands of mph before that, in Earths atmosphere, and rise up into space the same path as before….


This makes these satellites spin around Earth, but close enough to transmit and receive data from millions of little gps instruments all at once, and so do other satellites in space, positioned elsewhere above Earth ball.

Then three or more satellites bounce their signals to millions of gps instruments at the exact same time, even while they are spread out from one another in space by hundreds or thousands of miles, or else they’d not be able to triangulate our position and altitude, but it’s not very accurate, they say, and


GPS is not certified to measure for altitude in aircraft.  They didn’t mention that part to us, they said we use gps and/or radar to measure altitude in planes, so I guess jackblack saw that piece and ran with it, immediately believing it was all true….


Now you know it’s not true, that they don’t use gps to measure altitude.




Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #174 on: June 22, 2024, 07:05:42 PM »
Air pressure is the ideal feature within air, to allow us to fly above Earth, travel everywhere on Earth, and most of all, to see how beautiful and amazing Gods creation is, that he gave to everyone of us, and all life on Earth.  To me, it was not caused by random chance, over billions of years from a pile of slush and chemicals fusing in magical forms.

Anyway, the main point, the whole point that everyone must understand, after all their bs is taken away, it will finally be understood for the truth, the facts, with these indisputable measurements of our planes, which DO measure the Earth as flat, by measuring the surface from above, flying in a straight and horizontal path, it does not matter if it has to adjust from a level path in flight, they always use it as their base of flights, that’s what proves they measure for a flat surface, by flying over it in a level, flat path.

They certainly have made up any possible excuses for it, give us any combination of excuses, drop one or two, tell us another one or two, flip flop each again, later invent other excuses, never heard before, but say everyone’s known about it for years and years.

Where’s your ‘gravity’ excuse gone to? About that made up magical force which doesn’t exist, no proof of existing, that was your answer for anything you need it to be?

Wasn’t this super duper force that dwells in the ball Earth core, emanating it’s powerful waves of gravity through thousand of miles above it, as a spherical shaped wave out from the core, and out from the ball surface, upward in the air, where it reaches all airplanes flying above the ball, while pilots have no clue about it, and still don’t have any clue, or if any know it now, they have no idea what to say, how to explain it, why it’s not known by all pilots, why it’s not used at all, etc.

Plus, lasers measure for level with straight beams of light, so gravity is toast right there.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #175 on: June 22, 2024, 07:25:46 PM »

The vertical speed indicator (VSI)

Been through this a hundred times.  The VSI works off a change in pressure differential.

Quote
How It Works: Differential Pressure
So here's how it all works. Let's say you start climbing. As you climb, your static pressure decreases, and as it decreases immediately in the diaphragm. But the instrument casing is a different story. Since the calibrated leak lets air out slowly, it creates a higher pressure in the casing than the diaphragm. When that happens, it creates a pressure differential, the diaphragm is squeezed down, and the gears connected to the VSI needle make it move up.

And the greater the pressure differential, the more the needle moves up.

What happens when you descend? The exact opposite.

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/how-does-a-vsi-work/


Again..

Which has what to do with instrumentation that converts pressure to an altitude and flys to stay in that pressure band that corresponds to that altitude.  Compositing for things like temperature and density, the air pressure 30,000 feet above London is the same air pressure 30,000 feet above New York on a spherical earth.  And if a jet stays in the pressure band, the vertical speed indicator isn’t going to show a change. There is essentially no differential pressure at 30,000 feet above London Vs New York compensating for things like temperature and low pressure cells so there is nothing to drive the VSI that works off differently pressure on a spherical earth. 

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #176 on: June 22, 2024, 07:28:42 PM »

Anyway, the main point,

You have nothing but a pathetic attempt to derail the thread in that “ Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo”. Care to address the actual topic of this thread. Care to stop derailing this thread with something completely off topic. 

*

gnuarm

  • 399
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #177 on: June 22, 2024, 08:05:26 PM »
If GPS doesn't measure "true altitude above sea level", what is it measuring?

It doesn’t measure the altitude, that’s for sure. Assuming ‘space’ was actually an infinite area and Earth was a puny ball speeding through it for infinitely, and we all were stuck to the speeding ball by a magical glue force inside the ‘core’ of Earth ball, we finally come to having thousands of ‘satellites’ that go around and around the ball by that same magical force not quite pulling them to Earth, but making them spin around the ball instead, just if the objects can ramp up to thousands of mph before that, in Earths atmosphere, and rise up into space the same path as before….


This makes these satellites spin around Earth, but close enough to transmit and receive data from millions of little gps instruments all at once, and so do other satellites in space, positioned elsewhere above Earth ball.

Then three or more satellites bounce their signals to millions of gps instruments at the exact same time, even while they are spread out from one another in space by hundreds or thousands of miles, or else they’d not be able to triangulate our position and altitude, but it’s not very accurate, they say, and


GPS is not certified to measure for altitude in aircraft.  They didn’t mention that part to us, they said we use gps and/or radar to measure altitude in planes, so I guess jackblack saw that piece and ran with it, immediately believing it was all true….


Now you know it’s not true, that they don’t use gps to measure altitude.

Initially, you said, "nor does GPS measure true altitude above sea level or 0 feet altitude".  I asked, "what does it measure".  Now, you seem to be talking, not about what GPS does or does not do, but what is used in aircraft. 

So, I repeat the question.  If GPS does not measure "true altitude above sea level", what does it measure?

If GPS is not "certified" to measure altitude in aircraft, it is a question of accuracy.  As it turns out, there are infrequent configurations of the GPS constellation, where insufficient accuracy is obtained.  The GPS receivers can calculate when this happens, so it would be indicated.  But if this is being relied upon, for example, during a landing, it might still be used and cause an accident.  However, since this is used as guidance for many vessels and other types of aircraft, I think it works pretty well.

My main point is, I don't understand what you are trying to say about GPS.  It works, and works well.

Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #178 on: June 22, 2024, 08:55:11 PM »
Because the Blackpool image is nonsense that proves anything can be tweaked for what you want it to be.

I’ve already spent months arguing about Saturn and the videos of Saturn, and repeatedly was told they were all crap, that some long scrapped junk was better than any we have today, which is one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, to claim knowledge he has of it, that having a larger aperture than our telescopes, proves it was better than ours.

Entirely ignoring that we have far superior lens, materials, imaging technologies, and more magnification than they could even dream of having back then.

After all sorts of this crap, he suddenly claims that one of those videos, which was taken through a vastly superior telescope than theirs…..doesn’t show it clearly enough, because it’s shot with an iPhone camera, which is a fairly decent camera, and if you look at Apollo video cameras, that junk isn’t close to iPhone videos, so Apollo videos are pure garbage, by that argument.

Every video and image online is junk too. So why did he post them as evidence, makes him a complete hypocrite and liar right there. 

So why should I need to point out to you that your video is crappy and grainy all over it? That is not blatantly obvious to you?

*

gnuarm

  • 399
Re: Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo
« Reply #179 on: June 22, 2024, 09:48:24 PM »
Because the Blackpool image is nonsense that proves anything can be tweaked for what you want it to be.

I’ve already spent months arguing about Saturn and the videos of Saturn, and repeatedly was told they were all crap, that some long scrapped junk was better than any we have today, which is one of the most idiotic arguments ever made, to claim knowledge he has of it, that having a larger aperture than our telescopes, proves it was better than ours.

Entirely ignoring that we have far superior lens, materials, imaging technologies, and more magnification than they could even dream of having back then.

After all sorts of this crap, he suddenly claims that one of those videos, which was taken through a vastly superior telescope than theirs…..doesn’t show it clearly enough, because it’s shot with an iPhone camera, which is a fairly decent camera, and if you look at Apollo video cameras, that junk isn’t close to iPhone videos, so Apollo videos are pure garbage, by that argument.

Every video and image online is junk too. So why did he post them as evidence, makes him a complete hypocrite and liar right there. 

So why should I need to point out to you that your video is crappy and grainy all over it? That is not blatantly obvious to you?

Who the heck are you talking to???