The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: SteelyBob on March 08, 2022, 09:49:25 PM

Title: Wiki on aviation
Post by: SteelyBob on March 08, 2022, 09:49:25 PM
The wiki has a small section on 'aviation', in which it quotes from, amongst other things, a flight dynamics book which lists a set of assumptions:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/d/d0/Coriolis-match.png)

The wiki introduces this by saying:
Quote
Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth.

...and concludes it by saying:
Quote
Note: The document does not go on to "unsimplify," to give its students accurate dynamics. The word 'coriolis', for instance, appears a single time.

Is anybody actually seriously holding this up as proof of a FE? If you are an ardent FE believer then the first two assumptions are clearly something you believe to be true anyway, but the second two are demonstrably false. Aircraft are not of constant mass (they burn fuel and become lighter) and they are not rigid (as anybody who has observed the wings on an airliner bending will know). The list is therefore quite clearly, as it says itself, simplifying reality for the purposes of building a useful mathematical model of flight - mass changes can be neglected because they are relatively slow with respect to time and therefore don't effect the dynamics of flight. The earth can be treated as flat because, from a short-term modelling perspective, it makes very little difference.

Introduce navigation, and things get very different, just as if you want to discuss aerodynamic flutter, for example, then the rigidity assumption goes out the window. The assertion that instruments are built to assume a flat earth is demonstrably false - gyro based nav systems, for example, have to correct for transport and rotation errors. Likewise pilots are taught about globe navigation, great circles etc at an early stage in training.

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2022, 10:04:24 PM
Quote from: wiki
Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth.

Quote from: SteelyBob
The earth can be treated as flat

It sounds like you are supporting the premise of that Wiki page, that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Is anybody actually seriously holding this up as proof of a FE?

Where does it say proof? It's an interesting point of aviation. The rest of that Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Aviation) cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.

https://youtu.be/lKrYOX-j5_A?t=645
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: jimster on March 08, 2022, 10:40:15 PM
I told my software engineer friend about FE. He told me he was the programmer who wrote the routing software for the Canadian Air Traffic Control System. The US uses airways, set routes like interstates. The Canadians wanted to route their planes straight from departure airport straight to the destination for each airplane (routing around collisions, of course). He wrote the program that figured out the distance and direction. He said he used the spherical geometry equations straight out if a textbook and they worked perfectly. Obviously, they did much qa, and the system has been in use for decades, many planes arrive where they intended to go daily. If the earth was flat, the equations would be wrong and the pilots would not find an airport where the software sent them. The longer the route, the more the difference.

You can do this yourself, actually. Do the spherical trig math to calculate the distance between two cities, for Tom Bishop, make that two cities on the same land mass, perhaps Beijing and Madrid. For some reason, Tom Bishop thinks gps doesn't work over water. The RE 3d trig answer will match google maps, airline schedule, time/speed/distance of airliner flight, lat/long per wikipedia, etc, and no evidence at all for the FE distance calculation, whatever that might be.

Find a discrepancy between any RE info sources or the math calculations and prove FE! I will be your disciple. And I will make a lot better video than the one you just posted. His production values, scripting, delivery, etc is just bad regardless of the truth of his content. FYI, this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does. People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 08, 2022, 10:55:13 PM
Quote from: jimster
I told my software engineer friend

Sure you did.

Quote from: jimster
People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.

I really doubt that amateurs wrote the documents presented in the video.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: jimster on March 08, 2022, 11:15:41 PM
Pilots say they are flying level when they are flying at constant altitude. The curvature is ignored for aspects that are local, and they talk as though the earth is flat for convenience. Curvature of the earth mainly needs to be considered for navigation, just as he read. Locally, FE = RE or close enough. At 1000 miles, big difference.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRay2R9S0GU


Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: ichoosereality on March 09, 2022, 12:06:03 AM
Of course effects not large enough to make any difference in a particular situation are ignored.   When judging whether you need to fill up your car's tank to get to a particular destination do you account for the humidity?  It does make a difference but of course not remotely big enough of one to worry about when deciding to go to the store first or the gas station first.   When learning to fly the focus is on controlling the plane and it will be quite a while before you fly even out of sight of the airport from which you took off.  Why would dealing with great circle routes etc make any sense in that situation?  Continue on to the point of planning trips of 1000s of miles and new things will have to be considered.  This is the same as the fact that NASA uses Newtonian mechanics to fly around the solar system despite knowing that the more accurate description is special and general relativity.  But start dealing with the clocks in GPS satellites and relativity must be considered.  Isn't all that obvious?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2022, 11:22:37 AM
Why would the assumptions need to be made, if the conditions in those assumptions are already satisfied?

If the Earth is ALREADY flat, why would this need to be specified as a "simplifying assumption" ?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: SteelyBob on March 09, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: wiki
Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth.

Quote from: SteelyBob
The earth can be treated as flat

It sounds like you are supporting the premise of that Wiki page, that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

Well, let's get our facts straight here, as you seem to be confusing a few things. That flight dynamics course is not for pilots, but rather undergraduate aeronautical engineers. It goes far, far deeper into flight dynamics than any pilot training course would. You won't find may pilots conversant with eigenvalues, for example. Moreover, that specific course is for a very specific thing - modelling aircraft behaviour over short time periods. To model the earth as round would make for far, far more complex equations, without adding any real value to the models. The same is equally true for modelling mass changes due to fuel burn, or the distortions of the wings and fuselage as the aircraft manoeuvres. Both of those things happen, just as the earth is spherical, but there is no value in the effort required to model them in the context of the subject being discussed. For other subjects, such as long-range performance, the situation is clearly very different, and appropriate modelling assumptions need to be made.

Locally speaking, for most human activities, the earth might as well be flat. This is not evidence of the earth actually being flat; it's just a consequence of the very large ball we live on compared to our size as humans living on it. It looks exactly as you would expect it to look if you are 6 feet tall living on a 25,000 mile circumference ball.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Is anybody actually seriously holding this up as proof of a FE?

Where does it say proof?
Well, aside from the title of the video you posted immediately below this question, and in the link on the page we are discussing, I had rather assumed that, given it was in the 'Flat Earth wiki', you were using it in your evidence pile for reasons the earth is flat, just as the creator of the video you linked to is doing.

It's an interesting point of aviation. The rest of that Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Aviation) cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.

 Interesting, indeed, but if you don't acknowledge that the people using the flat earth assumption don't actually think the earth is flat then you are being dishonest with your work.

https://youtu.be/lKrYOX-j5_A?t=645

This video is unbelievably, terribly bad - I'm surprised you're associating yourself with it. I watched a few snippets:

 - the discussion around Tomahawk versus SAM engagements. This is just, again, a complete twisting of a simplifying assumption with it being some evidence of a FE. The ranges involved in a SAM versus cruise missile are trivial compared to the curvature of the earth. A flat earth model is therefore completely reasonable. Note the other assumptions made - straight and level flight (despite the fact that cruise missiles manoeuvre), level terrain, one missile per engagement - these are all simplifying assumptions. They are not necessarily what occurs in the real world.

- at 17:15 he angrily rants about a similar flight model to the one linked to in the wiki. He keeps saying 'a rigid aircraft of constant mass', seemingly oblivious to the fact that aircraft are not actually rigid, and they aren't of constant mass either, and the world isn't flat, but all three make for much simpler calculations when you're designing aircraft. He rants on about challenging a 'glober' to find a paper where flight dynamics are modelled using a round earth. That ain't gonna happen, because it would be a ridiculous piece of work. If you're modelling a short period oscillation, or dutch roll, or some other aspect of stability or control, then the tiny, tiny shift in the weight vector as the aircraft moves a few hundred metres around the planet would make a ludicrously small difference to the answers obtained, despite it causing a major, major headache in terms of complexity. Citing this as evidence for the earth being flat merely betrays a lack of understanding of the specific subject, as well as science in general.

- He undermines his own argument later on, and indeed yours, when he looks at the text around 21:00 onwards - it gives a great example of the limitations of a flat earth assumption. It's fine for short range activities, but when you need to consider longer distances, the flat earth assumption can no longer be used. That is staring him in the face - he even highlights it himself (25:00) - he seems to try to wave it away but to be honest his argument was somewhat incoherent and it's not really clear what he's trying to say.

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2022, 02:09:57 PM
Quote from: SteelyBob
Well, let's get our facts straight here, as you seem to be confusing a few things. That flight dynamics course is not for pilots, but rather undergraduate aeronautical engineers.

Did I say that the document was for pilots, or did I say it supported it? Please engage in reading comprehension. The fact that the plane is built to fly over an FE supports the ideas and premise given in the page that pilots are taught to fly on an FE. The premise in the Wiki also includes the engineering: "Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth."

Quote from: SteelyBob
Locally speaking, for most human activities, the earth might as well be flat. This is not evidence of the earth actually being flat; it's just a consequence of the very large ball we live on compared to our size as humans living on it. It looks exactly as you would expect it to look if you are 6 feet tall living on a 25,000 mile circumference ball.

Considering that aircraft navigation and engineering is often given as evidence for a RE in these discussions, and it is assumed that planes and missiles and supersonic jets account for curvature and Coriolis, your comment rejects this notion as false.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Well, aside from the title of the video you posted immediately below this question, and in the link on the page we are discussing, I had rather assumed that, given it was in the 'Flat Earth wiki', you were using it in your evidence pile for reasons the earth is flat, just as the creator of the video you linked to is doing.

The Wiki doesn't call much of anything it cites as "proof". This is your own assumption and interpretation.

Also, the creator of that video did not write the Wiki. The commentary of the Wiki is not that author's. You are wrong there. If the Wiki links to something of related interest in its "Related References" section, and that author of that external content calls proof, it does not mean that the Wiki is actually doing so. Please apply some reading comprehension before wildly assuming things.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Interesting, indeed, but if you don't acknowledge that the people using the flat earth assumption don't actually think the earth is flat then you are being dishonest with your work.

I don't see any reason to include that many of the sources from contemporary academia cited the Wiki cited believe in RE. That should be obvious to most people. Sorry that you had a tough time figuring that out.

Quote from: SteelyBob
- the discussion around Tomahawk versus SAM engagements. This is just, again, a complete twisting of a simplifying assumption with it being some evidence of a FE. The ranges involved in a SAM versus cruise missile are trivial compared to the curvature of the earth.

If you had bothered to research it you would have found that the Tamahawk cruise missile discussed in the video at the 11 minute mark has an accuracy of about 5 meters and range of about 1,500 miles.

(https://i.imgur.com/y6sQC9Z.png)

Too short and too inaccurate to be affected by earth curvature, I'm sure.  ::)

Quote from: SteelyBob
He rants on about challenging a 'glober' to find a paper where flight dynamics are modelled using a round earth. That ain't gonna happen, because it would be a ridiculous piece of work.

Anyone can see that a missile with a range of 1,500 miles and an accuracy of 5 meters will be affected by the curvature of the Earth. That you think it is unnecessary to account for the curvature of the earth is a ridiculous position. Quite obviously a levelly flying missile is continuously gaining altitude as the earth curves away, and that would need to be accounted for to maintain such range and accuracy.

Your response to a request to show that such things are actually using curvature is "ain't gonna happen", and is a ridiculous failure to support your position.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: SteelyBob on March 09, 2022, 03:17:46 PM
Quote from: SteelyBob
Well, let's get our facts straight here, as you seem to be confusing a few things. That flight dynamics course is not for pilots, but rather undergraduate aeronautical engineers.

Did I say that the document it was for pilots, or did I say it supported it?

You said:
Quote
that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

That's not a course for pilots. It matters not, to be honest - I just thought you might be open-minded and interested in accuracy / learning something new rather than just being defensive.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Locally speaking, for most human activities, the earth might as well be flat. This is not evidence of the earth actually being flat; it's just a consequence of the very large ball we live on compared to our size as humans living on it. It looks exactly as you would expect it to look if you are 6 feet tall living on a 25,000 mile circumference ball.

Considering that aircraft navigation and engineering is often given as evidence for a RE in these discussions, and it is assumed that planes and missiles and supersonic jets account for curvature and Coriolis, your comment supports the notion that this is false.

Yes, aircraft navigation is often given as evidence for RE, as are things like gyro systems. And those things cannot use a flat earth assumption, as indeed described by the evidence presented in the video you yourself linked to. This is really simple stuff - if it's short time frames or short ranges, then FE is a valid simplifying assumption. If the time period is long, or the ranges large, then it isn't. Do you understand that concept?

Quote from: SteelyBob
- the discussion around Tomahawk versus SAM engagements. This is just, again, a complete twisting of a simplifying assumption with it being some evidence of a FE. The ranges involved in a SAM versus cruise missile are trivial compared to the curvature of the earth.

If you had bothered to research it you would have found that the Tamahawk cruise missile discussed in the video at the 11 minute mark has an accuracy of about 5 meters and range of about 1,500 miles. Too short and too inaccurate to be affected by earth curvature, I'm sure.  ::)

Well aware of Tomahawk performance, thanks. Again, you are embarrassing yourself by wading into territory you clearly don't understand properly. I'll say it again - we are talking about a SAM engaging a cruise missile - the range of the cruise missile in that context is irrelevant. The limiting factor is the range of the SAM and the detection range of the controlling radar. Depending on the systems involved, those ranges are likely to be single digit or low double digit numbers of miles - hence the flat earth assumption being valid.

As the text quoted in the video points out, if you wish to understand cruise missile guidance over long ranges, then you can't assume a flat earth.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on March 09, 2022, 06:36:11 PM
Tom, can I ask what your professional experience within aviation consists of?

You do understand that flight dynamics, when applied to an aircraft, is concerned with the stability, and movement, of a body along three axes due to the changing angle of attack to the airflow.

The influence of the shape of the earth at this level is neglible.

In aviation, we make lots of assumptions to simplify things in order to focus on the important areas being studied at the time. When studying flight dynamics, one might assume the earth is flat. When starting to study radar theory, one might assume all aircraft reflect the same amount of radar energy (spoiler, this isn't true either!). In many cases we assume the air is the International Standard Atmosphere, within which are several other assumptions of air pressure, density, temperature, adiabatic lapse rate etc. This doesn't mean we believe the air pressure across the whole earth at sea level is 15 degrees celsius, nor that the air pressure across the whole earth at sea level is 1013.25hPa.

Quote
that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

Are you a pilot? I've never been taught or told that the earth is flat in any of my training to be a pilot, or an air traffic controller, nor have I trained that to any of my trainees over the past 23 years.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2022, 06:42:21 PM
" The fact that the plane is built to fly over an FE supports the ideas and premise given in the page that pilots are taught to fly on an FE. "

No, it's a book on flight dynamics, not a "how-to" for plane construction. Reading up on flight dynamics does not equate with being "taught to fly"

Learning the dynamics of how a car reacts to camber, change of direction etc. does not equate with learning how to drive, nor with build techniques.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: jimster on March 09, 2022, 07:26:23 PM
Tom Bishop,

I want to tell you a bunch of confirmable details on who my friend is and how I know he told the truth, but I do not want to revesal private info so you can see who he is, I don't do that on the internet for obvious general reasons.

Canadian Automated Air Traffic System, known as CAATS, was developed by Hughes Aircraft of Canada, Systems Division (HCSD) (acquired by Raytheon Systems Canada Ltd. in 1997) for NAV CANADA, and MDA was subcontracted by HSCD in 1993. CAATS automates flight data processing between all major air traffic control facilities, managing flight traffic over 5.8 million square miles of Canadian airspace. The CAATS system provides the air traffic controller with all radar, flight data, weather and other information on integrated, high-performance workstations.

Even if I am making it up (I'm not), there are programming departments all around the world doing geolocation programs, navigation programs, etc. They are either using RE equations or FE equations. One of the two gives wrong answers. CAATS is one of them.

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: stack on March 09, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
The rest of that Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Aviation) cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.

From the same document the video cites: "The user is responsible for entering the three-dimensional target trajectory and missile radar operating modes. Additionally, the user may select site-specific terrain or a flat-Earth representation . If a site-specific terrain is selected, the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) is used."

Looking up DTED it states: "DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) is a standard of digital datasets which consists of a matrix of terrain elevation values, i.e., a Digital Elevation Model. This standard was originally developed in the 1970s to support aircraft radar simulation and prediction. Terrain elevations are described as the height above the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 (EGM96) geoid, not the WGS84 reference ellipsoid.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTED

So it looks like if one were to do a straight-up simulation, flat terrain is employed. If one were to select an actual target, a globe Earth (EGM96 Geoid) is used.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2022, 11:04:53 PM
The rest of that Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Aviation) cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.

From the same document the video cites: "The user is responsible for entering the three-dimensional target trajectory and missile radar operating modes. Additionally, the user may select site-specific terrain or a flat-Earth representation . If a site-specific terrain is selected, the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) is used."

Looking up DTED it states: "DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) is a standard of digital datasets which consists of a matrix of terrain elevation values, i.e., a Digital Elevation Model. This standard was originally developed in the 1970s to support aircraft radar simulation and prediction. Terrain elevations are described as the height above the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 (EGM96) geoid, not the WGS84 reference ellipsoid.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTED

So it looks like if one were to do a straight-up simulation, flat terrain is employed. If one were to select an actual target, a globe Earth (EGM96 Geoid) is used.

Is there any evidence that the geoid is actually a 3D sphere?

On NASA's site for the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 - https://cddis.nasa.gov/926/egm96/egm96.html click on "View the EGM96 geoid." at the bottom

The link is dead, but archive.org shows that the "geoid" is a Mercator projection:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010608115920/http://164.214.2.59/GandG/images/ww15mgh2.gif

(https://web.archive.org/web/20010608115920/http://164.214.2.59/GandG/images/ww15mgh2.gif)

The "geoid" is merely the "known" idea that the Earth is a globe, not any kind of 3D spherical model.

Also, the quote you posted is talking about SAMs, not the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

Full quote from the document (https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/techdigest/pdf/V16-N01/16-01-Biemer.pdf):

(https://i.imgur.com/u4CLARF.jpg)

How typically deceptive that you would see that I am talking about the Tomahawk Cruise Missile in my comments and reply with a citation about a different kind of missile.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2022, 11:11:38 PM
That's not a course for pilots.

Fortunately I didn't say it was a course for pilots. I merely said that it supported it.

Quote
This is really simple stuff - if it's short time frames or short ranges, then FE is a valid simplifying assumption. If the time period is long, or the ranges large, then it isn't. Do you understand that concept?

The Tomahawk's 1500 miles isn't a long enough range?

Quote
Well aware of Tomahawk performance, thanks. Again, you are embarrassing yourself by wading into territory you clearly don't understand properly. I'll say it again - we are talking about a SAM engaging a cruise missile - the range of the cruise missile in that context is irrelevant.

If the Tomahawk isn't accounting for curvature, and there is curvature, I don't see how it can run precision maneuvers against SAMS hundreds of miles away without knowing where it is above the earth.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: stack on March 09, 2022, 11:21:13 PM
The rest of that Wiki page (https://wiki.tfes.org/Aviation) cites many more examples in which the earth is treated as flat, including in military missile dynamics.

From the same document the video cites: "The user is responsible for entering the three-dimensional target trajectory and missile radar operating modes. Additionally, the user may select site-specific terrain or a flat-Earth representation . If a site-specific terrain is selected, the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) is used."

Looking up DTED it states: "DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) is a standard of digital datasets which consists of a matrix of terrain elevation values, i.e., a Digital Elevation Model. This standard was originally developed in the 1970s to support aircraft radar simulation and prediction. Terrain elevations are described as the height above the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 (EGM96) geoid, not the WGS84 reference ellipsoid.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTED

So it looks like if one were to do a straight-up simulation, flat terrain is employed. If one were to select an actual target, a globe Earth (EGM96 Geoid) is used.

Is there any evidence that the geoid is actually a 3D sphere?

On NASA's site for the Earth Gravitational Model 1996 - https://cddis.nasa.gov/926/egm96/egm96.html click on "View the EGM96 geoid." at the bottom

The link is dead, but archive.org shows that the "geoid" is a Mercator projection:

https://web.archive.org/web/20010608115920/http://164.214.2.59/GandG/images/ww15mgh2.gif

(https://web.archive.org/web/20010608115920/http://164.214.2.59/GandG/images/ww15mgh2.gif)

Yes, you are correct, that is a Mercator projection. Mercator projection is a "projection" from a globe:

(https://cdn.britannica.com/55/109155-050-2886F564/transformation-Mercator-navigation-projection.jpg)

As for a 3d representation, from your original link:

EGM96 Geoid
(https://cddis.nasa.gov/926/egm96/geoid_050.gif)
30'x30' value of the geoid undulations from EGM96 to 360x360. The image is shown on a Robinson projection of the Earth. Geoid undulations from N. Pavlis (RITSS/NASA GSFC), and image courtesy of J. Frawley (NASA GSFC)>

N.Pavlis (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geoid-height-computed-from-the-gravity-field-model-EGM2008-Pavlis-et-al-2012_fig1_256938953) also has the 3D representation of the Geoid (2008):

(https://i.imgur.com/BoqN7PQ.png)
Geoid height, computed from the gravity field model EGM2008 (Pavlis et al., 2012).
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2022, 11:22:32 PM
It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D spherical model.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tumeni on March 09, 2022, 11:35:36 PM
It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D spherical model.

So ....

How would someone make a 3D Spherical Model such that it would satisfy you (since you're not happy with one computed as above), and which could be rendered in viewable form on your computer screen?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: stack on March 09, 2022, 11:37:37 PM
It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D model.

I don't know what you mean. The DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) used for specific targets uses the EGM96 Geoid, which, in turn, was created from a Gravity field model. You're depiction of the Geoid is a mercator projection. Mercator projections come from a globe source. Not to mention, a gravity model. There's no mystery there.

As far as your comment regarding SAMS versus Tomahawks, I'm not sure why that matters. Looks like SAMS uses IMARS and Tomahawks use TRAMS (TECHNICAL RADAR ANALYSIS MODELING SYSTEM). Again, the document that was in the video references, regarding the Tomahawk TRAMS:

"The simulations use radar range equations to determine the radar performance. Included in the model are multipath calculations, clutter effects, attenuation, and detailed antenna representation. The flyby simulation incorporates the option to use either digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model."

So the Tomahawk, using TRAMS, utilizes the same DTED Geoid as the SAMS IMARS or a "simple spherical Eath model".
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 09, 2022, 11:46:59 PM
It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D spherical model.

So ....

How would someone make a 3D Spherical Model such that it would satisfy you (since you're not happy with one computed as above), and which could be rendered in viewable form on your computer screen?

The one Stack posted isn't even what the RE looks like in RET and is wildly incorrect. This is widely known about that image which is regularly posted here. Not sure how you missed this.

https://ourplnt.com/earth-without-water/

(https://i.imgur.com/ZqYkWH6.png)

It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D model.

I don't know what you mean. The DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) used for specific targets uses the EGM96 Geoid, which, in turn, was created from a Gravity field model. You're depiction of the Geoid is a mercator projection. Mercator projections come from a globe source. Not to mention, a gravity model. There's no mystery there.

As far as your comment regarding SAMS versus Tomahawks, I'm not sure why that matters. Looks like SAMS uses IMARS and Tomahawks use TRAMS (TECHNICAL RADAR ANALYSIS MODELING SYSTEM). Again, the document that was in the video references, regarding the Tomahawk TRAMS:

"The simulations use radar range equations to determine the radar performance. Included in the model are multipath calculations, clutter effects, attenuation, and detailed antenna representation. The flyby simulation incorporates the option to use either digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model."

So the Tomahawk, using TRAMS, utilizes the same DTED Geoid as the SAMS IMARS or a "simple spherical Eath model".

The document says that TRAMS is used only for simulating one-on-one encounters. It does not state that the Tomahawk travels 1500 miles based on this.

(https://i.imgur.com/mUCdD0X.png)
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: stack on March 09, 2022, 11:57:26 PM
It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D spherical model.

So ....

How would someone make a 3D Spherical Model such that it would satisfy you (since you're not happy with one computed as above), and which could be rendered in viewable form on your computer screen?

The one Stack posted isn't even what the RE looks like in RET and is wildly incorrect. This is widely known about that image which is regularly posted here. Not sure how you missed this.

https://ourplnt.com/earth-without-water/

(https://i.imgur.com/ZqYkWH6.png)

It's a gravity model. Used by the Tomahawk TRAMS and SAMS IMARS. Unless the document in your video is wrong.

It says that the last 3D model you posted is "computed from" the gravity field model. It's not actually a 3D model.

I don't know what you mean. The DTED (or Digital Terrain Elevation Data) used for specific targets uses the EGM96 Geoid, which, in turn, was created from a Gravity field model. You're depiction of the Geoid is a mercator projection. Mercator projections come from a globe source. Not to mention, a gravity model. There's no mystery there.

As far as your comment regarding SAMS versus Tomahawks, I'm not sure why that matters. Looks like SAMS uses IMARS and Tomahawks use TRAMS (TECHNICAL RADAR ANALYSIS MODELING SYSTEM). Again, the document that was in the video references, regarding the Tomahawk TRAMS:

"The simulations use radar range equations to determine the radar performance. Included in the model are multipath calculations, clutter effects, attenuation, and detailed antenna representation. The flyby simulation incorporates the option to use either digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model."

So the Tomahawk, using TRAMS, utilizes the same DTED Geoid as the SAMS IMARS or a "simple spherical Eath model".

The document says that TRAMS is used only for simulating on-on-one interactions. It does not state that the Tomahawk travels 1500 miles based on this.

(https://i.imgur.com/mUCdD0X.png)

I don't know what 1500 miles or one-on-one has to do with anything. The long and short is that the document says that Tomohawk simulations when targeting something specific, use TRAMS which is based on digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED - A geoid) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model.

Unless the document is wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to add.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on March 10, 2022, 07:33:31 AM
Fortunately I didn't say it was a course for pilots. I merely said that it supported it.

Can you explain why you say this?

Quote
pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

Quote
and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth.

Quote
The fact that the plane is built to fly over an FE

This is all nonsense. Again, what is your aviation background? Aerodynamicist? Pilot? Aerostructure engineer? I mean to make such statements one hopes you have some formal training and experience, to be able to say the things about pilot training and aero engineering as you are.

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 10, 2022, 08:29:48 AM
When learning any skill, the syllabus should reduce the number of ancillary variables to the minimum possible in order to teach the particular skill being taught. Learning to drive a road vehicle, the student's first experience will probably be driving around a deserted car park.  This in no way denies the existence of road junctions, motorways, opposing traffic; it merely permits attention to the initial skills of steering, clutch, gear changing and so on. 

As skills are mastered, new variables are introduced until the student learns all the skills necessary, subject to his ability to master them.  The graduate knows of the further existence of trailers, tracked-vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, but only needs to learn those skills if his job or interests require it. 

So with flying; the basic student does not need to consider Earth curvature, so it can be ignored up to the skill and licence required of a private pilot.  This does not deny the existence of intercontinental travel, but global navigation knowledge only becomes necessary if the pilot has the intention, and ability, to pilot himself over global distances. 

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 11:18:08 AM
Quote from: SteelyBob
Is anybody actually seriously holding this up as proof of a FE?
Where does it say proof?
Well, aside from the title of the video you posted immediately below this question, and in the link on the page we are discussing, I had rather assumed that, given it was in the 'Flat Earth wiki', you were using it in your evidence pile for reasons the earth is flat, just as the creator of the video you linked to is doing.
Do you understand the different meanings of the words, "proof," and, "evidence," and if so, why do you like to throw one in place of the other so much?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: SteelyBob
Well, let's get our facts straight here, as you seem to be confusing a few things. That flight dynamics course is not for pilots, but rather undergraduate aeronautical engineers.

Did I say that the document it was for pilots, or did I say it supported it?

You said:
Quote
that pilots are taught to fly over a FE, as demonstrated in that guide from a flight dynamics course.

That's not a course for pilots. It matters not, to be honest - I just thought you might be open-minded and interested in accuracy / learning something new rather than just being defensive.
Are pilots prohibited from attending the course?

What's your point?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 11:24:45 AM
N.Pavlis (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geoid-height-computed-from-the-gravity-field-model-EGM2008-Pavlis-et-al-2012_fig1_256938953) also has the 3D representation of the Geoid (2008):

(https://i.imgur.com/BoqN7PQ.png)
Geoid height, computed from the gravity field model EGM2008 (Pavlis et al., 2012).
Tell us all, where do the gnomes, fairies, and ogres live on this marvelous place you provide?

I cannot believe you accept this crap as reality.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on March 10, 2022, 11:47:26 AM
Is there any reason why the articles on aerostudents.com that refer to the globe aren't quoted? There are quite a few that refer to orbital dynamics too. Even that Flight Dynmics article goes on to talk about reference frames with an axis coming from the center of the Earth.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 12:01:39 PM
Is there any reason why the articles on aerostudents.com that refer to the globe aren't quoted? There are quite a few that refer to orbital dynamics too. Even that Flight Dynmics article goes on to talk about reference frames with an axis coming from the center of the Earth.
Feel free to quote the references to "the globe," if you feel you are being slighted by their absence here in this thread.

I don't think you understand reference frames, if you are referring to this: "First, let’s examine the inertial reference frame FI. It is a right-handed orthogonal system. Its origin A is the center of the Earth. The ZI points North. The XI axis points towards the vernal equinox. The YI axis is perpendicular to both the axes. Its direction can be determined using the right-hand rule."
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 10, 2022, 12:10:43 PM
Is there any reason why the articles on aerostudents.com that refer to the globe aren't quoted?
Of course there's a reason. Tom cherry picks to suit his agenda.

All he's got in that Wiki page is a one off letter sent in by someone who claims to be someone. It's interesting to note his incredulity in this thread when jimster related a conversation he had with someone who wrote software which uses spherical geometry equations. Compare and contrast that with the credulity he shows about a letter which someone wrote in to a magazine in 1979 which happens to fit his agenda.
And then the Wiki page cites a document which describes a flat earth as a "simplifying assumption".  Simplifying assumptions are, by definition, things which are not true. But they make the model simpler and so long as the differences are negligible then they can be made. Other "simplifying assumptions" are that "the aircraft has constant mass" and "there is constant wind". These things are also not true, they're just simplifications to make the model and maths easier, like spherical cows ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow ). If the earth were flat then they wouldn't have to name it as a simplifying assumption, the fact it's mentioned as a simplification is evidence for a globe.
There's also a whole section in that document about the force of gravity. That is conveniently ignored.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: SteelyBob on March 10, 2022, 12:54:22 PM


Quote
This is really simple stuff - if it's short time frames or short ranges, then FE is a valid simplifying assumption. If the time period is long, or the ranges large, then it isn't. Do you understand that concept?

The Tomahawk's 1500 miles isn't a long enough range?

The Tomahawk's range is irrelevant in the context of what is being discussed in that document. Again, you are merely demonstrating a lack of understanding of the subject matter that you yourself brought up.

Quote
Well aware of Tomahawk performance, thanks. Again, you are embarrassing yourself by wading into territory you clearly don't understand properly. I'll say it again - we are talking about a SAM engaging a cruise missile - the range of the cruise missile in that context is irrelevant.

If the Tomahawk isn't accounting for curvature, and there is curvature, I don't see how it can run precision maneuvers against SAMS hundreds of miles away without knowing where it is above the earth.

Your lack of comprehension should not be confused for being an argument.

Again, read the document carefully. The situation being modelled in that section is a simple engagement of a Tomahawk missile by a SAM - the Tomahawk is on its way to some other target somewhere, and the SAM is trying to shoot the Tomahawk down, not the other way round as you suggest above. It's stunningly obvious if you just read it - it's right there in the intro:

Quote
Detailed one~on~one engagement simulations that model the performance of individual radars and surface~to~air missiles against a single Tomahawk are fundamental to this process.

In order to model that, they have to model both the detectability of the Tomahawk (ie can it be seen by radar, and when) and then the actual engagement itself, and then the survivability of any impact or explosion. A multi-step process. For the detectability, they use a radar model called TRAMS:

Quote
For the detectability analysis, several land~based radar modeling tools are available. One model is the Technical Radar Analy i Modeling System (TRAMS), which simulates a one~on~one encounter between an airborne vehicle (in this case a Tomahawk missile) and a single land~ba ed radar

To be clear, TRAMS doesn't have a flat earth assumption built in - it can use spherical or DTED models. That is to be expected for a radar detection model, as the earth's curvature versus radar antenna elevation and target height is critical in the detection. It later says:

Quote
The flyby simulation incorpo- rates the option to use either digitized terrain information from the Digital Terrain Elevation Database (DTED) provided by the Defense Mapping Agency or a simple spherical Earth model.

The latter spherical model would result in 'flat' terrain, but that isn't the same as thing as a flat earth assumption.

Following detection, the next step is modelling the actual engagement, for which they use IMARS. IMARS does have a flat earth option, or another, more sophisticated round-earth DTED. The FE assumption is understandable in this context, as by definition detection has already occurred, so radar horizon is not a factor.

IMARS outputs a miss distance (between the SAM and the Tomahawk), which is then fed into another model, MECA, which is used to figure out if the Tomahawk survives the engagement or not.

Later in the document this process is used in simulated large scale, multiple missile engagements, but the section we are discussing is just really simple, local 1v1 engagements.

My source for the above is merely the evidence you presented us with. Do you see where you went wrong now?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Action80 on March 10, 2022, 01:16:01 PM
The latter spherical model would result in 'flat' terrain, but that isn't the same as thing as a flat earth assumption.
You are correct.

If you get "flat," then it is FLAT and you assume nothing.

It is rendered AS IT TRULY IS!
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on March 10, 2022, 03:42:20 PM

Of course there's a reason. Tom cherry picks to suit his agenda.

All he's got in that Wiki page is a one off letter sent in by someone who claims to be someone. It's interesting to note his incredulity in this thread when jimster related a conversation he had with someone who wrote software which uses spherical geometry equations. Compare and contrast that with the credulity he shows about a letter which someone wrote in to a magazine in 1979 which happens to fit his agenda.
And then the Wiki page cites a document which describes a flat earth as a "simplifying assumption".  Simplifying assumptions are, by definition, things which are not true. But they make the model simpler and so long as the differences are negligible then they can be made. Other "simplifying assumptions" are that "the aircraft has constant mass" and "there is constant wind". These things are also not true, they're just simplifications to make the model and maths easier, like spherical cows ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow ). If the earth were flat then they wouldn't have to name it as a simplifying assumption, the fact it's mentioned as a simplification is evidence for a globe.
There's also a whole section in that document about the force of gravity. That is conveniently ignored.

Quite.

Cognitive dissonance on a massive, if not global, scale, one might say.

If one quote from one chapter of one study resource from an introductory course in a university in The Netherlands, and one random letter that is, in fact, talking about the celestial sphere, are all the cherries to be found regarding flat earth in aviation....well, they must be pretty dry and shrivelled up by now.

More than happy to be corrected by Action80 and Tom as to their aviation experience where they were taught how to 'fly over a flat earth'.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 04, 2022, 09:17:52 PM
A little ps to this thread.

The wiki states:

Quote
Royal Air Force College
Taking wrong directions would obviously have dire consequences when flying supersonic in a combat jet, therefore the Royal Air Force teaches their pilots the “real thing”. From the Aug 16, 1979 issue of New Scientist (Archive) we read on p.543:

Earthly

  “  Andrew Hill ("Darwin rules—OK?", 12 July p 127) says "...even in the Spectator, we rarely find serious assertions that the Sun goes around the Earth".

One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of that belief are trivial, but when survival depends on belief, then it matters that beliefs correspond to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the celestial sphere, which is centered on a fixed earth and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common sense observation. The Sun and the Moon move across the inner surface of this sphere and hence perforce go around the earth. This means, that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of the confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as it may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be.

If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will f‌ind that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest. ”
                  —Darcy Reddyhoff, Royal Air Force College

Ignoring the fact that the wiki confuses RAF pilot training with the Royal Institue of Navigation's journal (let alone using an unverified claim about that journal!), I decided to do a little research on RAF pilot training as it's not too far away from my own study for my MA.

I visited the RAF Air Defence Museum at RAF Neatishead in the UK. On display there they have the RAF Navigation Manual used at the time the quoted letter was written.

I had a look. No mention of flat earth, or anything that could be construed to be describing such.

Plenty of mentions of globes and how to navigate on a globe earth, though.

Might be worth editing the wiki a little?

(https://i.imgur.com/YFLvSKI.jpeg/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/ZPKGF8f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gFKNP9m.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rU5owAM.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZYYtNRC.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/K6DgLaH.jpeg)
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2022, 09:36:10 PM
That quote is describing geocentricism, not FE. Those aren't always the same thing. Traditional geocentricism assumes an RE.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 04, 2022, 09:47:36 PM
So therefore when the wiki claims that RAF pilots are ‘taught the right thing’, it means taught a globe earth?

Ok, glad we agree and have cleared that up then!

Might want to make it a little more clear, though.

The first paragraph needs amending then…

Quote
Aviation, or air transport, refers to the activities surrounding mechanical flight and the aircraft industry. Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth.



Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2022, 10:02:33 PM
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, that their gyroscopes show level flight, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 04, 2022, 10:21:31 PM
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: RonJ on May 05, 2022, 02:34:01 AM
I personally took flying lessons for many years and rose up from being a private pilot to getting an instrument rating and then on to getting my commercial pilots license.  Never in all that training did I ever run across any written training material that referred to flying over a flat earth.  My flight instructors didn’t ever refer to the flat earth meme either.  I will admit that when in the cockpit operating an aircraft, that the shape of the earth is of little consequence.  When you are flying an instrument flight plan you will always try to maintain the altitude assigned to you by air traffic control.  This altitude is either a height above the ground or a height relative to a particular reference atmospheric air pressure, when maintaining a particular flight level.  In either case if the earth is a sphere, you are automatically following the curvature and it’s of a minor consequence and you never really know or care about it.  Even the long-haul pilots flying an over the ocean route wouldn’t consider the shape of the earth in their everyday activities.  Their flight route is gotten from a computer and all the pilots need to do is enter two points. 


Anyone using GPS is, by default, using an instrument whose accuracy depends upon the earth being spherical.  This fact is designed into the software that’s being used in every GPS system.  Everything that was previously done manually by a navigator using a sextant now is being done automatically by the software operating inside all GPS units and is completely hidden to the end user.  Certain commercial GPS units can output the raw data that you can download into your computer and do some spherical trig on to verify how the calculations are done if you have the time, knowledge, and desire to do so. 
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 05, 2022, 04:29:05 AM
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TL30VW5hJY&t=4s
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: stack on May 05, 2022, 06:13:22 AM
The video is almost 2 hours long. What are we looking for and where?
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 05, 2022, 06:26:22 AM
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TL30VW5hJY&t=4s

I haven’t yet had time to watch this video, but I assume it goes into great detail on all the Flat Earth pilot training materials, manuals, syllabi etc that would provide the evidence to enable the wiki to say ‘pilots taught to fly over the flat earth’.

It’s strange that the wiki doesn’t link to these directly, perhaps you could add those links in to avoid forcing people to watch 2hr YouTube videos?

Still, there’s a good opportunity to remove the confusing and obfuscatory paragraph about the letter and what that means.

Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2022, 09:42:34 AM
Gonzo, please drop this "Hmmm, how very strange! No doubt this minor issue will be amended momentarily!" facade. If you want to make an argument, just make it.

Similarly, if you want to make changes to the Wiki, your best option is to follow our contributor model and... actually contribute. Simply demanding that someone does work for you rarely works around here.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 05, 2022, 10:12:16 AM
Hi Pete,

I think my argument is clear. The wiki makes claims, then fails to back them up with evidence. It's implying things that aren't the case, with vague language, and when challenged it's admitted some of it isn't flat earth related. Should I be challenging the wiki somewhere else? More than happy to be pointed to a more appropriate location.

The 'contributor model' you speak of, this is the creating a thread in the projects forum? More than happy to write up a new Aviation page for comment if that's what you mean, and post it there.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: RonJ on May 05, 2022, 12:26:35 PM
The statement behind that originally stems from the narrative of the wider Flat Earth movement. There are a number of videos of pilots saying that the gyroscope of their planes don't dip for curvature, that they don't actually take Coriolis into account, that radar on F-15 jets go further that RE should allow, and so on.

A RAF document saying that the earth is round, or even that it spins, is almost irrelevant and does not directly address how pilot are "taught to fly".

I humbly suggest referencing these videos (I note none of them are about pilots being taught to fly over a flat earth as the wiki claims), so we can discuss their merits, rather than the diversionary quote of the letter which you agree is unrelated to FE.

There’s no evidence provided on that page to show that pilots are taught to fly over a flat earth. Just a baseless claim.

Actually, the Wiki does provide a number of links referencing that pilots say they are taught to fly over an FE -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TL30VW5hJY
I did watch the video and can personally attest that it was full of half-truths and implications about flying over a ‘flat earth’.  There were plenty of false implications made in the discussions of the GPS system, aircraft gyro systems, and the flight tracking systems.  Who knows if the statements were made because of ignorance or because it fit in with the sponsors of the show and the fact that there was some promotional time given to his business?  It was funny because this flying service in right in my ‘back yard’ so to speak.  I learned to fly in the same state and area and have 3 or 4 times the flight experience stated by the pilot in the video.  Years ago, I had an electronics shop at a nearby airport and actually worked on aircraft radios and flight navigational equipment including gyros.  My shop was FAA certified.  The flight instructor did state that everyone should do their own research, think for yourself, and form your own opinions.  I did all that and the preponderance of the evidence shows that the earth is a sphere.   
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2022, 05:09:21 PM
I think my argument is clear.
Your argument is obvious but you are (or, well, were) trying your best not to just state what you mean. You have now done so, so I'm happy.

and when challenged it's admitted some of it isn't flat earth related
I see no "admission" here. The part of the page you questioned was talking about geocentrism. You assumed, incorrectly, that it was also talking about FE and spent an excessively long time stating this assumption. You were then corrected on that. Life goes on.

Should I be challenging the wiki somewhere else? More than happy to be pointed to a more appropriate location.
Eh, technically Flat Earth Projects would be more appropriate, but it's hardly a big deal in this case. I can move this thread there if you'd like, or it can just continue here.

The 'contributor model' you speak of, this is the creating a thread in the projects forum? More than happy to write up a new Aviation page for comment if that's what you mean, and post it there.
It was a more general comment - whether it's the Wiki, the forum, or some other area of our site/services, the best way to see the changes you'd like to see made is to put in the work yourself.

But to answer your question more specifically: yes, if you'd like to propose changes to or a rewrite of a page, creating a Flat Earth Projects thread with your proposed changes would be the way to go.

Just to pre-empt some disappointment: if you believe that the page should be rewritten to state the RET consensus on aviation (as seems apparent from your tone thus far), you probably shouldn't expect much success. If you do intend on making an earnest contribution to FE, however, that's always welcome.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: Gonzo on May 12, 2022, 10:29:24 AM
Hi Pete,

Haha, no, no disappointment here!

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with work.

If there is agreement the 'RAF College' section is not about flat earth then can someone explain why is it front and centre on that page? It is confusing for readers. The claim is that 'the Royal Air Force teaches their pilots the "real thing"'. Can anyone explain what that means?
Also:
- The letter quoted from The Spectator has the writer as hailing from 'RAF College Cranfield' when there is not, and has never been, any such place.
- The letter makes no claim about the training of RAF pilots (or indeed anything related to the RAF).
- A quick skim of abstracts from the Journal of Navigation from that period shows no article that is claiming that the Earth is at the centre of the of solar system, or that the sun and the moon actually go around the Earth.

It just seems to have a very tenuous link to anything Flat Earth related. If it remains, perhaps it should be moved to a geocentrism page to avoid confusion?

The next section, 'Study Guide', uses a section of bullet point assumptions from university basic flight dynamics study materials.
The assumptions are:
Quote
-There is a flat Earth
-There is a non-rotating Earth
-The aircraft has constant mass
-The aircraft has a rigid body

This has been critiqued before, but these are common assumptions for basic flight dynamics and anyone claiming the first (and the second) as evidence of flat earth is showing a lack of knowledge. Aircraft don't have constant mass, nor do they have rigid bodies, but making these assumptions allow the teaching, understanding of, complex concepts. Why would the first bullet be given more weight than the others?
In aviation we make many assumptions to allow for quicker and easier calculations/comparisons etc, such as a standard atmosphere of temperature and pressure. This doesn't mean we think the actual atmosphere is like this when encountered in real life.

The first line in the wiki claims:
Quote
"Aviation, or air transport, refers to the activities surrounding mechanical flight and the aircraft industry. Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth."
Then it fails to provide any clear evidence for that.

I will, when time allows, work my way through the linked references.
Title: Re: Wiki on aviation
Post by: BillO on May 17, 2022, 06:59:15 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop
"Discussion on this topic revolves around the assertion that aircraft instrumentation are built to assume, and pilots are taught to fly, over a flat, non-rotating earth."
Neither statement is entirely true.  I have my private pilot's license.  I have both IFR and VFR rating.  Using either way to fly, it does not matter what shape the earth is.  Using VFR you see where you're flying and fly accordingly.  The only instrument you really need for point to point flying using VFR is a good compass.  For IFR you need to rely on your instruments as you may fly in conditions where you might not be able to see the ground.  Amongst the many you need the most important are compass and altitude unless something starts to go wrong.  Today, with GPS readily available, that  is used heavily too.  I recall no one during my training telling me to treat the earth as flat.  It just does not matter from the pilot's perspective as long as he can either see where he is going, or his instruments are giving the information he or she needs.


Quote from: Tom Bishop
Anyone can see that a missile with a range of 1,500 miles and an accuracy of 5 meters will be affected by the curvature of the Earth.
The Tomahawk uses terrain contour matching and/or digital scene matching area correlation for navigation.  Basically a "map" consisting of 3D information regarding the terrain to be flown over and objects that will be encountered along the way is fed into the missile before launch.  It simply uses it's radar and inertia based instruments to follow the map to it's target.  Again, the shape of the earth, or whether it is rotating, is immaterial as long as that map is accurate.