The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: A_Dino_Thing on December 12, 2017, 10:31:04 PM
-
So I'm doing a school project on the Flat Earth and I wanted to know a couple things:
How do you explain eclipses?
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
If the World is flat, then how do you explain ships on the horizon seeming to rise up out of the ocean as they come to shore instead of just appearing if the world was flat?
Thanks for the help.
-
Please see the FAQ and the wiki.
-
The Shadow Object that causes eclipses is unknown.
Universal Acceleration is proposed as a stand-in for gravity. It is the consensus of the round earthers on this forum that there is no way to distinguish Universal acceleration from Gravity. In other words, you cannot disprove Universal Acceleration for somebody who does not believe in space travel. It also appears to be the consensus of round earthers here that Universal Acceleration is unnecessary, since gravity lines would act nearly parallel downward on a flat Earth if the Earth were essentially infinite or large in size compared to the known world.
Your third question is the most obvious difficulty for flat earthers. And it appears that the only answer they are able to give is flat-out denials. Ships do not (appear to) arise. The sun does not rise and set. Cities do not rise revealing themselves beginning with the tops of the highest buildings as one approaches them on the ocean. There are no (apparent) risings and settings. Flat denials are all you will get.
-
The Shadow Object that causes eclipses is unknown.
To add: But it is definitely NOT earth and it must be capable of presenting a circular shadow the same size as the one that earth gives according to the RE model......
-
I should clarify that "you cannot disprove Universal Acceleration" if you are not willing to accept the abundant proofs of the approximate spheroidal shape of the earth/world. It's actually quite easy to disprove Universal Acceleration by the following proof:
1. Postulate A, Universal Acceleration cannot "attract" people to the "bottom" of the earth, but would "repel" them.
2. Postulate B, if people are living all around an approximately spherical concave outward earth (Round Earth or RE), some are on the "bottom" relative to others.
3. Conclusion C, a Round Earth cannot exhibit attraction by linear or centripetal acceleration.
4. Assertion D, the apparent (observable) position of the sun, moon, and stars from every point in the world at every date and time cannot be predicted by any flat earth model, but can be predicted by a Round Earth model.
5. Assertion F, the measurable ground distances among any four remote points in the world cannot be approximately predicted by any flat earth model, but can be predicted by a Round Earth model.
6. Conclusion G, a Round Earth model is more completely descriptive than a Flat Earth model.
7. Conclusion H, Universal Acceleration does not fit the more descriptive model of the world, comparing between Flat Earth and Round Earth.
-
@OP
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.
Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.
And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.
Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.
And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.
-
@OP
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.
Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.
And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.
Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.
And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.
That's pretty much how it is, with the omission that scientific research is followed by setting up a hypothesis that seems to allow for what is observed, then experimenting and researching to see if it can be disproved. Which is why scientific ideas and explanations change and develop as ideas are either proven through experimentation and observation or disproved and an amended hypothesis developed.
Roger
-
Your third question is the most obvious difficulty for flat earthers. And it appears that the only answer they are able to give is flat-out denials. Ships do not (appear to) arise. The sun does not rise and set. Cities do not rise revealing themselves beginning with the tops of the highest buildings as one approaches them on the ocean. There are no (apparent) risings and settings. Flat denials are all you will get.
I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
-
I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Well, okay. I stand corrected. They make up their own physical laws for the rising and setting of ships, cities, and mountains; they call these laws "perspective". Is it correct, however, that they deny the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars?
-
I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Well, okay. I stand corrected. They make up their own physical laws for the rising and setting of ships, cities, and mountains; they call these laws "perspective". Is it correct, however, that they deny the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars?
Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.
-
Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.
And I suppose that doesn't count as denial either. And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
Then it's most accurate to say they have a physical law they call perspective that has features to explain all the apparent risings and settings of sun, moon, stars, cities, ships, and mountains?
-
And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
-
Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.
And I suppose that doesn't count as denial either. And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
Then it's most accurate to say they have a physical law they call perspective that has features to explain all the apparent risings and settings of sun, moon, stars, cities, ships, and mountains?
It's certainly not inaccurate. I hesitate to cite the accuracy of the statement, only because I don't fully understand what they're saying. Perspective seems to both physically affect things, and not at the same time. It feels like a very solipsistic idea to me.
-
And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
I have read all that the conman Rowbotham has said on the subject. Unfortunately, constantly quoting a pseudo scientist with very flawed methods and who was proven to be unstable and dishonourable, is not going to get any serious thinkers falling for that nonsense. His experiments and ideas were formulated 150 years ago and none have stood up to serious examination. Try reading up on some of the more advanced scientific investigation and research carried out since. or better still carry out some research and experimentation of your own in the real world. My own experiences as a pilot and offshore sailor have already shown me beyond any doubt that Rowbotham's pseudo science is tongue in cheek humour to baffle the masses. In modern terms 'He's having a laugh'.
Roger
-
His experiments and ideas were formulated 150 years ago and none have stood up to serious examination. Try reading up on some of the more advanced scientific investigation and research carried out since.
Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old?
My own experiences as a pilot and offshore sailor have already shown me beyond any doubt that Rowbotham's pseudo science is tongue in cheek humour to baffle the masses.
An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.
-
'Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old'
Absolutely not, but it is wrong when it is proven so or when the theory cannot be substantiated. The wheel is an even older idea, but far from being wrong it has proved to be the best solution fore the problems it solves.
An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.
No appeal to authority, just experience and observation. As a glider pilot and instructor with about 2500 flights in my logbook, I have had to use visual and gps navigation, observed large objects disappearing below the horizon, seen the sun disappear behind the horizon whilst making a descent from height in the evening. Seen it appear with height after a launch at dawn on too many occasions to count. As a sailor I have regularly sailed out of site of land and watched things disappear below the horizon and navigation markers appear above it. I have used GPS and radar to confirm my dead reckoning and bearing based navigation. I have used AIS to check course and speed of other vessels and confirmed them with radar and bearings and plotted courses using gps for confirmation that have been accurate to a few feet. I can give you more if you wish from a lifetime of observation and experience, none of which would work on a flat earth.
What is your own experience as a pilot that convinces you the earth is flat? Are you actually an experienced pilot or just done some basic training? If you are seriously telling me that you have an ATPL licence and have flown using the highest category of commercial licence available, I would have to say that you are either not a flat earther and are trolling or are not telling the truth. Who have you piloted for and what aircraft, how many hours?
Roger
-
'Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old'
Absolutely not, but it is wrong when it is proven so or when the theory cannot be substantiated. The wheel is an even older idea, but far from being wrong it has proved to be the best solution fore the problems it solves.
An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.
No appeal to authority, just experience and observation. As a glider pilot and instructor with about 2500 flights in my logbook, I have had to use visual and gps navigation, observed large objects disappearing below the horizon, seen the sun disappear behind the horizon whilst making a descent from height in the evening. Seen it appear with height after a launch at dawn on too many occasions to count. As a sailor I have regularly sailed out of site of land and watched things disappear below the horizon and navigation markers appear above it. I have used GPS and radar to confirm my dead reckoning and bearing based navigation. I have used AIS to check course and speed of other vessels and confirmed them with radar and bearings and plotted courses using gps for confirmation that have been accurate to a few feet. I can give you more if you wish from a lifetime of observation and experience, none of which would work on a flat earth.
What is your own experience as a pilot that convinces you the earth is flat? Are you actually an experienced pilot or just done some basic training? If you are seriously telling me that you have an ATPL licence and have flown using the highest category of commercial licence available, I would have to say that you are either not a flat earther and are trolling or are not telling the truth. Who have you piloted for and what aircraft, how many hours?
Roger
I had a license to kill. I worked all over the world. My main job was as a stunt pilot working for a sports aircraft factory. I was actually their demo pilot / salesman. Rich old men would ring up and ask for a demo of the aircraft before they purchased, as would military organisations and flying clubs. I had an aircraft given to me by the factory that sat at my local airfield. I'd do airshows, turn on the smoke, do a few rolls and what not, and visit people at their private strips, side-slipping my machine into tiny microlight grass fields. If they bought an aircraft, I'd fly Ryan Air to the factory with them, and then help them fly the 2 day trip across Europe to get their new aircraft home, teaching them how to wring its neck on the way. I used to always fly back via Denmark, because you could avoid tax registering the aircraft there, but once that loophole closed so we'd go straight after that.
I flew with Airline Captains, Flight instructors and enthusiasts with thousands of hours. And I'd be teaching them. Even the military guys would throw me compliments on my execution and would ask me to show them the envelope before they tried to tear the wings off it.
I also had more hours on type of that aircraft than anyone else on earth, so I also worked for the CAA doing annual permit renewals and flight tests for them. I was rated to test and sign off any aircraft up to about the size of a spitfire on their behalf. I wrote the POH for that aircraft and had the factory change designs based on my feedback.
I don't know how many different aircraft I have flown, but my favourites include a Long-Ez, a Stearman and a Zlin 526. I also have a healthy dislike of glider pilots having nearly been cut in half by a climbing towplane that came from under me trailing a steel cable that I likely had a closure speed of over 300mph on. The guy just had his nose in the air and couldn't give a crap about anyone else, nor were their any notams or nearby glider areas. All I saw from under my nose was whooosh - aircraft ... cable cable cable ... whoosh - glider. And was he on the radio to anyone? lol, no.
However due to the financial crisis, airlines bunching their knickers over oil prices at the time and a multi-year recruitment freezes, it was becoming a hobby more than a career as I hemorrhaged cash. I now own an IT company instead. But I still don't like glider pilots. >:(
-
;D ;D ;D Haaaaa. Nice one Thork, you nearly caught me with your porkies, and there was I thinking 'should I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Tow aircraft using steel cables to launch a glider, now that would be really interesting and illegal!! I'm glad you enjoy flying on flight sims on the computer, me too and of course if I discount my years of flying real gliders and light aircraft, I could also add all the aerobatic, military and civil aircraft I have flown all over the world just like you :) If you want to have a go at flight sim gliding, try the Condor programme, it's the only one that gets anywhere near real soaring.
Getting back to the flat earth though, I don't tell lies and am perfectly happy to relate my real world experiences and observations while discussing flat or round earth theory. You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations. One thing I hate, is folks who profess to be flat earthers, then make up total nonsense or lies to attempt to discredit genuine experience and discussion. Perhaps you would care to relate your own relevant experiments, observations and evidence to reinforce you flat earth views, or disprove spherical earth evidence.
I look forward to hearing from you :)
Roger
-
;D ;D ;D Haaaaa. Nice one Thork, you nearly caught me with your porkies, and there was I thinking 'should I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Tow aircraft using steel cables to launch a glider, now that would be really interesting and illegal!!
Well whatever this configuration is, that's what went past my window. Pretty sure they don't make those cables out of rope.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Aerotowing_glider_remorquage_planeur.jpg)
You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.
I have flown gliders, twice. I found it incredibly boring. You spent your whole time looking for fluffy clouds and hill sides so you can prolong your incredibly dull descent. I might add I was towed up by an air tractor using a steel cable!
If you want to have a go at flight sim gliding, try the Condor programme, it's the only one that gets anywhere near real soaring.
I don't play computer games. I'm an adult.
You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.
Well this going to really wind you up then. Before I became a pilot I did a degree in Aerospace engineering and I used to work in the Flight Physics department for a major manufacturer designing aircraft wings. Specifically I worked in both Loads and Aeroelastics and Aerodynamics departments. And the chances are, you have been on an aircraft that I did a small part of the maths on.
As for my own relevant experience, I have never ever in all my time flying or designing, had to account for curvature on the surface of the earth. All the design makes the assumption earth is flat
(indeed nasa do too if you bothered to check - http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890005752.pdf
The very first line of the summary (page 7 after the contents) sums up how NASA do their aircraft calcs.), and I don't ever remember modifying my altitude to fly a curve downwards as I traveled around a ball.
-
And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
That makes no sense, our observations and measurements prove a round earth.
Why not quote something written recently in modern text.
-
And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
Thank you for kindly sharing the link. The problem with reading Zetetic Astronomy Chapter IX, CAUSE OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm) is that the reasoning is very poor:
1. The explanation of a horizontal trajectory does not square with the hourly trajectory I see. His explanation would have the first degrees of sunrise and the last degrees of sunset taking a very long time, and then the movement at noon being relatively very fast. But instead, a sundial sees the sun proceed in regular angular hourly increments. The sun would have to be speeding up and slowing down for me in Arizona. But then that would ruin the effect for Rowbotham in England.
2. His mention that "ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west" does not square with what I see from Mesa, Arizona in the winter. No matter where he thinks the sun goes, I am not seeing that from Mesa, Arizona in the winter. The sun chart I use for gardening has this charted very accurately for Mesa.
To quote the mind-controlled slaves in "Meet the Robinsons", "I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through. Master?"
-
;D ;D ;D Haaaaa. Nice one Thork, you nearly caught me with your porkies, and there was I thinking 'should I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Tow aircraft using steel cables to launch a glider, now that would be really interesting and illegal!!
Well whatever this configuration is, that's what went past my window. Pretty sure they don't make those cables out of rope.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Aerotowing_glider_remorquage_planeur.jpg)
You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.
I have flown gliders, twice. I found it incredibly boring. You spent your whole time looking for fluffy clouds and hill sides so you can prolong your incredibly dull descent. I might add I was towed up by an air tractor using a steel cable!
If you want to have a go at flight sim gliding, try the Condor programme, it's the only one that gets anywhere near real soaring.
I don't play computer games. I'm an adult.
You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.
Well this going to really wind you up then. Before I became a pilot I did a degree in Aerospace engineering and I used to work in the Flight Physics department for a major manufacturer designing aircraft wings. Specifically I worked in both Loads and Aeroelastics and Aerodynamics departments. And the chances are, you have been on an aircraft that I did a small part of the maths on.
As for my own relevant experience, I have never ever in all my time flying or designing, had to account for curvature on the surface of the earth. All the design makes the assumption earth is flat
(indeed nasa do too if you bothered to check - http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890005752.pdf
The very first line of the summary (page 7 after the contents) sums up how NASA do their aircraft calcs.), and I don't ever remember modifying my altitude to fly a curve downwards as I traveled around a ball.
Sorry Thork but I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe anything you say after your previous post with all the untruths and misinformation. You window that you claim the picture was taken from of the towed glider, is of a gliding and light aircraft club in France and clearly lifted from the internet. The tow rope is a rope with a thousand pound breaking strain weak link. Rope is used because in an emergency release, dropping the steel cable would be highly dangerous. I have never hear of an air tractor at any club I have flown at, so I assume you mean a winch launch, which is where a steel cable would be used which drops back to the airfield, with a small parachute attached to slow its descent. I assume that you flights were the standard two flights that the ATC give in gliders.
Your comments about not modifying your altitude to fly around a curved ball are not the comments of a pilot, they are the comments of someone who follows Eric Dubay's theories. Whether or not you were involved in the design of aerofoils or wings is irrelevant as aerofoils would work in the same way on a flat or globe earth.
What I would like to know is what experiences your piloting and navigation have given you to prove that the world is flat. I have 2 friends that are current commercial pilots flying heavies across the world, one of whom was the youngest female captain ever for Air Canada and is still flying Airbus A380s, the other currently on Airbus A319s for Easyjet. I have another friend who was the youngest ever Canadian Airforce fighter pilot who subsequently had 35 years as senior Captain with Air Canada, and another younger friend who is an aerobatics pilot and also runs the Utterly Butterly Stearman wingwalking team. I have discussed a flat earth with all of them and they have all agreed it is totally impossible. Google them if you wish, I wouldn't want you to think I am giving you false information. Perhaps you would like to meet one of them to discuss your theories and experiences :)
As for not playing computer games, I thought your whole business involved playing with computers!
Roger
-
This is an air tractor. Also known as a Pawnee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Tractor_AT-802
They often have windstruts as they are used for crop dusting and fire fighting. This means they are built like tanks and very good for hauling things like gliders into the air and then sideslipping down very fast to get back on the ground with their wings not in any danger of bending. I attach an image of one doing just that job below.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Remorqueur_Pawnee.jpg)
It isn't my fault you haven't flown many places or experienced different types of gliding. I forgot before, I happen to have an old friend who owns a motor glider and I've been in that too. I expect you'll tell me a glider with an engine is also impossible and that I have been playing too much Kerbal space program. ::)
These aircraft don't 'drop' the cable. They release at the glider end and the ruddy cable dangles around behind them as they come in to land. The buckle release thing is a meaty bit of metal and it bounces and flies around like no ones business as the plane lands. And those cables are pure steel. Get one of those in your prop and its goodnight. They are heavy too.
I do not mean a winch launch. Booker Airfield near me uses a winch. Denham use Tow aircraft. My airprox was with a tow aircraft, not a winch. I was too high for a winch to bother me and there was an aircraft on either end of the rope. Just because you don't have a vast experience of different airfields doesn't mean I do not. You are obviously a club pilot who always flies from the same airfield every single time and have no concept of aviation outside of your little 5 mile bubble.
I'm not interested in your friends. I know more pilots than I care to. I trained with them at a flight school, worked with them, sold aircraft to them, did air shows with them, dated them, lived with them, am related to them and they all think the world is round. They also think that fiat currency is a legit system not based on fraud and backed by central banks with real assets. They can all be blissfully wrong about things they don't look into deeply.
-
I assume that you flights were the standard two flights that the ATC give in gliders.
No.
One flight was after 3 days of demoing my company's aircraft to an airschool that had gliders. After all the flights I had done with them, they wanted to say thank you and took me on a glider flight as I mentioned I'd never been in one.
The second was because the company I worked for got it into their heads that our stunt aircraft would make an excellent tow aircraft. I spent all day towing people up to height in a Robin with their instructor ... Oh that's right, I had towed a glider myself! I'd have mentioned it earlier but I couldn't make you look stupid if I gave you all the info at once. Again at the end of the day they towed me for the last flight of the day. It was a stupid idea and I knew it was stupid before I went. It would be like buying a dodge Viper to tow a caravan, but I got paid for my feedback to the factory. :-\
-
I don't ever remember modifying my altitude to fly a curve downwards as I traveled around a ball.
I've never understood why anyone would think planes would have to adjust their altitude in this way. If I have a picture of a circle and a plane on top of it and I spin the circle round the plane transverses the circle without ever having to dip its nose.
Same could be argued against the flat earth map that planes would have to keep banking left or right to keep on the curved longitude lines to circumnavigate the plane.
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
-
It isn't my fault you haven't flown many places or experienced different types of gliding. I forgot before, I happen to have an old friend who owns a motor glider and I've been in that too. I expect you'll tell me a glider with an engine is also impossible and that I have been playing too much Kerbal space program. ::)
These aircraft don't 'drop' the cable. They release at the glider end and the ruddy cable dangles around behind them as they come in to land. The buckle release thing is a meaty bit of metal and it bounces and flies around like no ones business as the plane lands. And those cables are pure steel. Get one of those in your prop and its goodnight. They are heavy too.
I do not mean a winch launch. Booker Airfield near me uses a winch. Denham use Tow aircraft. My airprox was with a tow aircraft, not a winch. I was too high for a winch to bother me and there was an aircraft on either end of the rope. Just because you don't have a vast experience of different airfields doesn't mean I do not. You are obviously a club pilot who always flies from the same airfield every single time and have no concept of aviation outside of your little 5 mile bubble.
I'm not interested in your friends. I know more pilots than I care to. I trained with them at a flight school, worked with them, sold aircraft to them, did air shows with them, dated them, lived with them, am related to them and they all think the world is round. They also think that fiat currency is a legit system not based on fraud and backed by central banks with real assets. They can all be blissfully wrong about things they don't look into deeply.
Oh Dear calm down, I am a trying to find out your experiences as a pilot that give evidence that the earth is flat and you are now resorting to attacking me and my integrity.
I took my instructors and advanced instructors course at Booker in 1976 with Brian Spreckley the then world champion and did much of it in a Motor Falke. There are a number of motor glider types including those with retractable Rotax engines which avoid having to land out on a cross country flight. I am not going to get into an argument with you but suffice it to say that I have over 2500 flights in my logbook covering most of the gliding sites in the UK and still know many of the instructors from across the years at those sites.
You misread my post when I said that tow ropes are dropped, that is only in an emergency, they are released by the glider pilot then the tug aircraft (Not Tractor) returns with it to the airfield. Now not all, but most tug pilots drop the rope on the field before landing as there have been a number of accidents in the past from ropes snagging on fences. See the BGA accident records for details.
You mentioned winch launching at Booker, but I am afraid there certainly isn't any winch launching there, only aerotow where I have used their excellent and very powerful Pawnee tug aircraft. I am also sorry to say that you are also wrong about aerotowing at Denham, there is no glider flying there at all. BGA website will confirm.
Because so much information that you have posted is factually incorrect,and you are unwilling to answer my one flat earth question I will respectfully refrain from discussing anything more about flying on this thread.
Roger
-
Roger Roger, what's your Vector, Victor?
So you've gone from never having heard of aircraft towing, to being at an airfield that only does towing and saying you used their Pawnee aircraft (and then say they don't use an air tractor - a Pawnee is an air tractor), and then you try to give me a lesson on them dropping cables when I know for a fact they don't.
Being as you allegedly know Booker (I doubt it very much), you should know I flew from a few bases like Stapleford, North Weald and the one 2 miles from my house ... White Waltham. I have been to Booker many times. I demoed to their air school. I delivered aircraft to clients there. It was one of the few places that had a female air traffic controller ... Only Cranfield and North Weald stick out as other small airfields with women. It had a very expensive cafe and I did aerobatics at their aeroexpo twice and a static display with a tent and models in hot pants draped over my aircraft 3 times! I also met Nicholas Lyndhurst at Booker at an Aeroexpo and invited him to sit in my aircraft. When he declined I said "Don't be a plonker all your life, Rodney". For a comedian, he didn't have a very good sense of humour ;D.
Anyway, my flying credentials far out-weigh yours, so you can drift off to another thread you feel more comfortable in.
-
So I'm doing a school project on the Flat Earth and I wanted to know a couple things:
How do you explain eclipses?
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
If the World is flat, then how do you explain ships on the horizon seeming to rise up out of the ocean as they come to shore instead of just appearing if the world was flat?
Thanks for the help.
Does anybody still want to talk about the OP? To be fair it looks like the poster got bored and didn't bother to come back ::)
Roger
-
Isaac Newton discovered what Einstein would later rename the equivalence principle.
Ships on the horizon ... nope, can't do it.
Its in the wiki. Why would we do his homework for him? These are FAQ questions.
Besides, this is such a boring part of the flat earth society. The simple Q&A. Surely the history is far more fascinating? Rowbotham's use of human brains for phosphorous experiments at the university of Edinburgh. He got those brains from Burke and Hare. His subsequent creation of a phosphoric acid soft drink that would later be sold and marketed as Coca Cola! Links to Deism and the FE battle with the illuminati. Galileo's middle finger of modernity, the law suits with Alfred Wallace, the cult of Voliva, Aristotle and his prime movers, the symbolism of Ophanim and their role in the heavens, the tale of the monk who found the edge of the world ...
And we get "explain gravity". >:(
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.
-
Exactly the same as if a picture of a plane is positioned on top of a circle and then the circle rotated through 180 degrees. Same result in that the plane is now over the opposite side of the circle but no alteration of the plane required. Surely it's down to gravity's pull towards the centre of the sphere?
-
Exactly the same as if a picture of a plane is positioned on top of a circle and then the circle rotated through 180 degrees. Same result in that the plane is now over the opposite side of the circle but no alteration of the plane required. Surely it's down to gravity's pull towards the centre of the sphere?
Rotating the earth would take quite a lot of energy to turn it around. You are getting something for nothing here. Imagine the gyroscopes on the aircraft. They provide resistance to being moved in such a way. And yet you are claiming an energy free reversal of position. No steering, no compensation ... just upside down in time and space.
-
Sorry I was just making the point that when viewed from another perspective you get the same result. I just can't see why a plane needs to dip it's nose to circumnavigate a globe when it's just rotating around the centre of the circle as it were.
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.
And if you fly halfway around the world on the FE, you've turned 180 degrees to keep North the same direction. Same deal. Q&A though, not the place to be getting in a deep discussion.
-
It feels like hell might freeze over, but Baby Thork is right about Air Tractors. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of them.
https://airtractor.com/
They're different from Pawnees, but they look sort of similar.
The name comes from the agricultural usage of the aircraft, you see.
-
It feels like hell might freeze over, but Baby Thork is right about Air Tractors. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of them.
https://airtractor.com/
They're different from Pawnees, but they look sort of similar.
The name comes from the agricultural usage of the aircraft, you see.
Hi Doug,
Pawnees have been used for years as crop sprayers because of their strength and all around visibility. I have no experience of agricultural flying or their terminology, although I suspect the word 'Airtractor' is used by the manufacturer in the sales to the agricultural world, seems like a good ploy as it's Farmer friendly. In the UK Gliding world, towing aircraft are universally known as 'Tug aircraft' or simply 'Tow planes', with the pilots being called 'Tug Pilots'. Wheeled tractors are frequently used for towing gliders on the ground because of their low speed ability and torque, and using the word 'Tractor' for a towing aircraft could be confusing. I doubt there are any other experienced glider pilots on this forum, but if there are I'm sure they will be in agreement.
BT is not right about tug aircraft in gliding being called Air Tractors, but may be familiar with that particular aircraft as an Air Tractor from other experiences, but not from the world of gliding :-)
Roger
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.
What you think is straight and level is actually a very large curve. At a local level, the curve is irrelevant and local features are more important. It seems like you probably don't quite understand the globe and how level is determined.
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.
What you think is straight and level is actually a very large curve. At a local level, the curve is irrelevant and local features are more important. It seems like you probably don't quite understand the globe and how level is determined.
The purpose of the trimmer is to reduce load on the control surfaces, so when a pilot settles into a steady climb after take off for example, he would trim the aircraft so that there is no need to constantly pull back on the controls. The same during descent or with any change of altitude. In normal straight and level flight, as BT said, the aircraft would indeed be trimmed for flight with no pressure on the controls being required. The effect would be the same on an RE or FE because the same lift/drag/thrust/weight ratio would be maintained to balance against the downward pull of gravity or the upward movement of UA. Curvature of the earth is irrelevant, because for the aircraft to gain height would require an increase in vertical acceleration and therefore thrust, as would a downward movement require a decrease in both models.
Roger
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)
If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.
What you think is straight and level is actually a very large curve. At a local level, the curve is irrelevant and local features are more important. It seems like you probably don't quite understand the globe and how level is determined.
The purpose of the trimmer is to reduce load on the control surfaces, so when a pilot settles into a steady climb after take off for example, he would trim the aircraft so that there is no need to constantly pull back on the controls. The same during descent or with any change of altitude. In normal straight and level flight, as BT said, the aircraft would indeed be trimmed for flight with no pressure on the controls being required. The effect would be the same on an RE or FE because the same lift/drag/thrust/weight ratio would be maintained to balance against the downward pull of gravity or the upward movement of UA. Curvature of the earth is irrelevant, because for the aircraft to gain height would require an increase in vertical acceleration and therefore thrust, as would a downward movement require a decrease in both models.
Roger
Oh, I understand the purpose of trimming an aircraft and l/d/t/w ratio. I've flown a couple planes in my time, as well. (a 172 and a T-6 Texan) My point was about the concept of straight and level on a curved Earth. The mechanisms used to determine straight and level follow the Earth's curve. As we know, gravity created by the Earth is spherical. In 1g flight, you're flying the curve of the Earth. If BT was truly as educated as he likes to claim, he would know exactly why "straight and level" is a bit misleading in this instance.
-
'Oh, I understand the purpose of trimming an aircraft and l/d/t/w ratio. I've flown a couple planes in my time, as well. (a 172 and a T-6 Texan) My point was about the concept of straight and level on a curved Earth. The mechanisms used to determine straight and level follow the Earth's curve. As we know, gravity created by the Earth is spherical. In 1g flight, you're flying the curve of the Earth. If BT was truly as educated as he likes to claim, he would know exactly why "straight and level" is a bit misleading in this instance.'
My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.
Apart from some P2 in light aircraft my piloting is strictly limited to gliders and motor gliders. I could have converted in just 3 hours plus a GFT to a PPL from my senior instructor gliders rating, but just had no interest in following an engine around, just found gliding more satisfying and quieter. A bit like the difference between sailing and motor boating, give me sailing anytime, particularly if I can get up the mast and see navigation points over the horizon :D
Roger
-
'Oh, I understand the purpose of trimming an aircraft and l/d/t/w ratio. I've flown a couple planes in my time, as well. (a 172 and a T-6 Texan) My point was about the concept of straight and level on a curved Earth. The mechanisms used to determine straight and level follow the Earth's curve. As we know, gravity created by the Earth is spherical. In 1g flight, you're flying the curve of the Earth. If BT was truly as educated as he likes to claim, he would know exactly why "straight and level" is a bit misleading in this instance.'
My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.
Apart from some P2 in light aircraft my piloting is strictly limited to gliders and motor gliders. I could have converted in just 3 hours plus a GFT to a PPL from my senior instructor gliders rating, but just had no interest in following an engine around, just found gliding more satisfying and quieter. A bit like the difference between sailing and motor boating, give me sailing anytime, particularly if I can get up the mast and see navigation points over the horizon :D
Roger
Never been in a glider, but I image it must be pretty amazing. Then again, flying aerobatics with 550 hp on tap ain't too bad, either. It is a bit loud though. ;D
-
My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.
Straight and level does not say anything about maintaining curves for earth's surface.
straight
adjective
1.
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
level
adjective
1.
having a flat, horizontal surface.
synonyms: flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb, regular, true; More
Only Round Earthers could take a simple phrase like 'straight and level' and interpret it as 'curved and divergent'.
-
My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.
Straight and level does not say anything about maintaining curves for earth's surface.
straight
adjective
1.
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
level
adjective
1.
having a flat, horizontal surface.
synonyms: flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb, regular, true; More
Only Round Earthers could take a simple phrase like 'straight and level' and interpret it as 'curved and divergent'.
I mean, once again on a FE you're flying 'straight and level' and ending up turned 180° around when doing that same flight. So.....
-
My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.
Straight and level does not say anything about maintaining curves for earth's surface.
straight
adjective
1.
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
level
adjective
1.
having a flat, horizontal surface.
synonyms: flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb, regular, true; More
Only Round Earthers could take a simple phrase like 'straight and level' and interpret it as 'curved and divergent'.
Sigh, only a FEer wouldn't understand the difference between a colloquial term and a dictionary definition. You are NOT flying straight and level. You lack a lot of understanding for someone who claims to be so educated.
-
Sigh, only a FEer wouldn't understand the difference between a colloquial term and a dictionary definition. You are NOT flying straight and level. You lack a lot of understanding for someone who claims to be so educated.
I remember my first ever flying lesson. It was called "straight and level flight". I must of missed the bit when the instructor said "You are NOT flying straight and level".
Interesting that of all the lessons one has such as
Climbing
Descending
30 degree turns
45 degree turns
Slow flight
Stalling
Take Off and Landing
The only one you don't like is the one that pops your rotundity bubble. Or is climbing a 'colloquialism' when you are really losing altitude, slow flight really going extremely fast instead and takeoff an activity whereby your wheels don't actually leave the tarmac?
Straight and level is not a colloquialism. Its a technical description of the activity you perform.
-
my flying credentials
they can't be very impressive if you think any aircraft will fly straight and level without assistance from a pilot.
-
Sigh, only a FEer wouldn't understand the difference between a colloquial term and a dictionary definition. You are NOT flying straight and level. You lack a lot of understanding for someone who claims to be so educated.
I remember my first ever flying lesson. It was called "straight and level flight". I must of missed the bit when the instructor said "You are NOT flying straight and level".
Interesting that of all the lessons one has such as
Climbing
Descending
30 degree turns
45 degree turns
Slow flight
Stalling
Take Off and Landing
The only one you don't like is the one that pops your rotundity bubble. Or is climbing a 'colloquialism' when you are really losing altitude, slow flight really going extremely fast instead and takeoff an activity whereby your wheels don't actually leave the tarmac?
Straight and level is not a colloquialism. Its a technical description of the activity you perform.
1g flight is considered SnL. weight=lift. Please tell me, where is your nose pointing?
-
1g flight is considered SnL. weight=lift. Please tell me, where is your nose pointing?
I could fly a 1g descending turn. Is that straight and level?
Do you know what a barrel roll is?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0df734c91dc7eafcc88dd9c99d3e125e)
How about this? A 1g barrel roll.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9pvG_ZSnCc
Johnston calculated the 1g barrel roll maneuver, conducted twice, was perfectly safe and would prove to the world that the 707 was not only as strong as an ox but as agile as a fighter.
Straight and level? Tell me Einstein, where's your nose pointing?
-
Sigh, I didn't think I would have to spell this out to someone with your level of "experience". Let's start with the FAA's definition of SnL which is maintaining heading and altitude. So again, where is your nose pointing?
-
Sigh, I didn't think I would have to spell this out to someone with your level of "experience". Let's start with the FAA's definition of SnL which is maintaining heading and altitude. So again, where is your nose pointing?
Absolutely dead straight so as you maintain a constant altitude above the beautiful flat earth.
You didn't answer my question for the 1g barrel roll having asserted the definition of straight and level flight being maintaining 1g. Where does your nose point in a barrel roll please? Or will you be gracious enough to admit you were wrong?
-
Sigh, I didn't think I would have to spell this out to someone with your level of "experience". Let's start with the FAA's definition of SnL which is maintaining heading and altitude. So again, where is your nose pointing?
Absolutely dead straight so as you maintain a constant altitude above the beautiful flat earth.
You didn't answer my question for the 1g barrel roll having asserted the definition of straight and level flight being maintaining 1g. Where does your nose point in a barrel roll please? Or will you be gracious enough to admit you were wrong?
Yeah, you're not a pilot.
I already addressed that - I assumed you were experienced enough to know the definition of SnL without me having to be that specific. I was wrong.
-
Sigh, I didn't think I would have to spell this out to someone with your level of "experience". Let's start with the FAA's definition of SnL which is maintaining heading and altitude. So again, where is your nose pointing?
Absolutely dead straight so as you maintain a constant altitude above the beautiful flat earth.
You didn't answer my question for the 1g barrel roll having asserted the definition of straight and level flight being maintaining 1g. Where does your nose point in a barrel roll please? Or will you be gracious enough to admit you were wrong?
Yeah, you're not a pilot.
I already addressed that - I assumed you were experienced enough to know the definition of SnL without me having to be that specific. I was wrong.
I asked you to be specific so as I knew that you knew the definition. Turns out you didn't.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/1492p3k.jpg)
Here's my credentials. Class one medical and my license to kill. Note the colour of my license book. Blue. So again, what is your experience? You keep questioning mine.
-
Stinky, just ask him how he can fly his vaunted 'straight and level' path and still get turned around 180° like his vaunted FE requires him to do as well. He appears to be ignoring me when I ask it for some reason. There's no need to question credentials when the exact same thing has to happen on a FE as he claims to be his issue with a RE. It's simply on a different axis of rotation.
-
Yeah, you're not a pilot.
Thork may be terrible, but he is a pilot. I would suggest the lot of you stop accusing otherwise (assuming the evidence he posted doesn't already convince you). Further accusations such as that will be considered low-content.
-
Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.
This is silly and trollish. And you know it. As I have said many times before, and it's even implied in my Title at the left, the earth is for many purposes close enough to flat. And you know it. You know that no amount of trimming of an airplane makes any predictable difference 10 miles out. An airplane cannot be flown at constant altitude for long at all without guidance. You may as well try to ride a bicycle with a locked (trimmed) steering wheel or drive 1 mile down a straight freeway with a locked automobile steering wheel.
-
I also have a healthy dislike of glider pilots having nearly been cut in half by a climbing towplane that came from under me trailing a steel cable that I likely had a closure speed of over 300mph on. The guy just had his nose in the air and couldn't give a crap about anyone else, nor were their any notams or nearby glider areas. All I saw from under my nose was whooosh - aircraft ... cable cable cable ... whoosh - glider. And was he on the radio to anyone? lol, no.
It sounds like your situational awareness is pretty lax. A tow plane climbing out with a glider is moving pretty slow around a known airfield and you came screaming through without checking traffic. I bet they have a healthy dislike of your type as well since an aircraft towing has the right of way over all other engine-driven aircraft. If you were a pilot you would know that.
That was enough to make me think you made up your entire story but since the burden of proof is on you... go for it, show us proof of your vast experience.
Edited: I didn't see your previous post with documentation of a license. I stand by the other statements. The tow plane was in the right and you were in the wrong.
-
If you were a pilot you would know that.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8049.msg136101#msg136101). You can attack his arguments, but lay off the "lol ur not even a pilot" meme. Warned.
-
If you were a pilot you would know that.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8049.msg136101#msg136101). You can attack his arguments, but lay off the "lol ur not even a pilot" meme. Warned.
Noted. I had not seen the previous post.
I would suggest however that a pilot would know that a tow plane has the right of way over powered aircraft and fits the burden of proof arguments that have been going around. I did not see it as an attack on him, but on his claims. And for the record I did not LOL nor did I think it was funny.
-
I think that providing photos or video as evidence of anything has been discounted as anything can be faked, that applies as much to qualifications as anything else. Thork himself has said that on other threads, so you really can't swing it both ways. As a pilot myself, I'm sure he has some experience of flying, but I have already made it clear that I won't discuss flying with him further as he has offered misrepresented information in other places in this thread.
I have attached a photo, not to prove or disprove anything, but to make a point about photographic evidence, if you have the skills, you can do what you like with it. I would though still appreciate a civilised answer to my earlier question as to what aspect of his flying has confirmed to him that the world is flat, whether it is through international navigation, inaccuracies in airway or general navigational maps, or just the view out of the cockpit. Perhaps the view from his aircraft has shown that he can see his destination from hundreds of miles away, rather than appearing over the horizon. As a commercial pilot, how does he plot a transatlantic or oceanic route? I really would like to know.
Roger
-
I think that providing photos or video as evidence of anything has been discounted as anything can be faked, that applies as much to qualifications as anything else. Thork himself has said that on other threads, so you really can't swing it both ways. As a pilot myself, I'm sure he has some experience of flying, but I have already made it clear that I won't discuss flying with him further as he has offered misrepresented information in other places in this thread.
I have attached a photo, not to prove or disprove anything, but to make a point about photographic evidence, if you have the skills, you can do what you like with it. I would though still appreciate a civilised answer to my earlier question as to what aspect of his flying has confirmed to him that the world is flat, whether it is through international navigation, inaccuracies in airway or general navigational maps, or just the view out of the cockpit. Perhaps the view from his aircraft has shown that he can see his destination from hundreds of miles away, rather than appearing over the horizon. As a commercial pilot, how does he plot a transatlantic or oceanic route? I really would like to know.
Roger
Holy hell, is there something difficult about following a simple instruction? Plenty of people here can attest to Thork’s credentials, which is why I said further nonsense about it is low-content. Stick to the arguments.
Since you’ve just come off a 3 day ban, have a week off to decide if you want to keep posting here.