Our special Earth

[atpollard]

No, I am not. However, it is a shock to many people (including myself when I first came across this), because the various lies in media are very prevalent on this subject.

This is the direct link from NASA I referenced on page 1 of this thread: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

This is the text in this link to which I refer, which is under section "Summary"

This report documents the derivation and definition of a linear aircraft model for a rigid aircraft of constant mass flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. The derivation makes no assumptions of reference trajectory or vehicle symmetry. The linear system equations are derived and evaluated along a general trajectory and include both aircraft dynamics and observation variables

Don't believe me. Click the link and read it for yourself.

Ok, I am not going to debate a flat Earth. There is simply no evidence that I can present that would convince you, and no evidence you can present that will convince me. So I am just going to set that whole question aside.

What I will discuss is that NASA article you posted a link to. I am a Licensed Architect (AR 94005) with several decades of experience in Civil Engineering and a hobby fascination with WW2 aircraft design. I can read the equations on that paper and it NOT what you claim it is. The analysis of aerodynamic forces in 3 dimensions (like flying parallel to a curved surface) are complex and can be efficiently modeled as if an aircraft of non-variable weight (which a real aircraft is not since as it burns fuel, it is constantly loosing weight) flying over a flat plate. This is comparable to the method of calculating the area under a curve by treating it as a series of rectangles and addFind the area of all the rectangles. A curve is not a series of infinitely small rectangles, but calculus treats it as if it were. In the same way, an aircraft is not a constant weight flying over a flat plate, but for purposes of designing the aircraft, it is treated as if it were. An aircraft is actually variable weight flying parallel to an irregular surface (even on a flat earth).

That paper presents the math that starts with the actual conditions and derives the mathamatical equations for the assumed design condition of constant weight over a flat plate. Even if the Earth is flat, that is not the point of the paper.

 

[Stravinsk]

Ok, I am not going to debate a flat Earth. There is simply no evidence that I can present that would convince you, and no evidence you can present that will convince me. So I am just going to set that whole question aside.

What I will discuss is that NASA article you posted a link to. I am a Licensed Architect (AR 94005) with several decades of experience in Civil Engineering and a hobby fascination with WW2 aircraft design. I can read the equations on that paper and it NOT what you claim it is. The analysis of aerodynamic forces in 3 dimensions (like flying parallel to a curved surface) are complex and can be efficiently modeled as if an aircraft of non-variable weight (which a real aircraft is not since as it burns fuel, it is constantly loosing weight) flying over a flat plate. This is comparable to the method of calculating the area under a curve by treating it as a series of rectangles and addFind the area of all the rectangles. A curve is not a series of infinitely small rectangles, but calculus treats it as if it were. In the same way, an aircraft is not a constant weight flying over a flat plate, but for purposes of designing the aircraft, it is treated as if it were. An aircraft is actually variable weight flying parallel to an irregular surface (even on a flat earth).

That paper presents the math that starts with the actual conditions and derives the mathamatical equations for the assumed design condition of constant weight over a flat plate. Even if the Earth is flat, that is not the point of the paper.

Re: Bolded. LOL

We need to build an aircraft to fly over something that doesn't exist in reality. Da Spinning Globe is real! But we need to design an aircraft that flies over an Flat earth that DOESN'T spin!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[atpollard]

Re: Bolded. LOL

We need to build an aircraft to fly over something that doesn't exist in reality. Da Spinning Globe is real! But we need to design an aircraft that flies over an Flat earth that DOESN'T spin!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Calculate the area beneath a curve (like the flow curve of a pump).
Tell me how you did it.

Is your flat earth perfectly flat?
That I can personally disprove. My house is on a hill and I have climbed to the top of a mountain.
Would you design your aircraft based on the irregular terrain of a mountain below it, so that each foot forward it travelled, it's altitude above the ground changed, or would you design the aircraft based on the assumption that it was flying over PERFECTLY level terrain (even though we know the real airplane will fly over actual mountains)?

Wake up.
The paper has NOTHING to do with a flat earth and everything to do with the Mathamatics of simplifying assumptions.

 

[Cassia]

Calculate the area beneath a curve (like the flow curve of a pump).
Tell me how you did it.

Is your flat earth perfectly flat?
That I can personally disprove. My house is on a hill and I have climbed to the top of a mountain.
Would you design your aircraft based on the irregular terrain of a mountain below it, so that each foot forward it travelled, it's altitude above the ground changed, or would you design the aircraft based on the assumption that it was flying over PERFECTLY level terrain (even though we know the real airplane will fly over actual mountains)?

Wake up.
The paper has NOTHING to do with a flat earth and everything to do with the Mathamatics of simplifying assumptions.

What is the Mathamatics of simplified assumptions and is that an exact science?

 

[Stravinsk]

Calculate the area beneath a curve (like the flow curve of a pump).
Tell me how you did it.

Apparently you aren't understanding. Being a Flat Earther means not believing in the Curvature of the Earth. It doesn't exist except in manipulated photos and CGI.

Is your flat earth perfectly flat?
That I can personally disprove. My house is on a hill and I have climbed to the top of a mountain.
Would you design your aircraft based on the irregular terrain of a mountain below it, so that each foot forward it travelled, it's altitude above the ground changed, or would you design the aircraft based on the assumption that it was flying over PERFECTLY level terrain (even though we know the real airplane will fly over actual mountains)?

Wake up.
The paper has NOTHING to do with a flat earth and everything to do with the Mathamatics of simplifying assumptions.

Of course you can disprove a straw man argument. I did NOT claim the earth is "perfectly flat" - I said it's flat. Of course I allow for hills and valleys, mountains and so forth.

But water, sir - NEVER CURVES. It's always level. You believe the earth is 24,901 miles in circumference? If that is true - this bridge doesn't work:

Edit: My strikeout. I misspoke - clarity in post #35 of thread.

 

[atpollard]

Apparently you aren't understanding. Being a Flat Earther means not believing in the Curvature of the Earth. It doesn't exist except in manipulated photos and CGI.

The point that YOU are not understanding has nothing to do with the Earth (which I stated at the beginning) and everything to do with the need for simplifying assumptions in mathamatical analysis (like assuming that an airplane is flying at a constant weight when it is actually burning fuel and that it is flying over a flat earth when it is actually flying over mountains and valleys). The area under a pump curve can only be calculated through very complex equations, or simplifying assumptions. My point was the need for simplifying assumptions which is what the NASA paper is all about. Deriving formula based on simplifying assumptions.

But water, sir - NEVER CURVES. It's always level.

Actually, this is not true. Fill a glass with water and observe the curve at the edge where the water meets the glass. Then fill the glass above the top and observe the bubble of water that curves above the rim.

So your statement that water NEVER CURVES is easily demonstrated to be patently false.
I have also sailed far enough off the coast to observe a lighthouse rise above the curve of the earth as you approach it. It should not be possible to observe only the top half of a lighthouse on the horizon on a flat earth with level water. This is why you will never convince me (personally) that your flat earth is even remotely plausible.

 

[atpollard]

What is the Mathamatics of simplified assumptions and is that an exact science?

I am not sure Mathamatics is a science, technically speaking, since Mathamatics is an abstract way to model reality.
The NASA paper is a mathamatical proof for the equations used to design aircraft based on the assumptions that the aircraft is flying over perfectly flat and non rotating ground and that the weight of the aircraft is constant. Under real world conditions, the aircraft burns fuel as it flys so it's weight is constantly changing and the ground is not perfectly level, but has hills and mountains and valleys, and the ground beneath the plane is rotating, so it's speed relative to the ground will actually depend on the extent to which it is flying with or against the rotation of the earth. The design equations are based on all of these assumptions intended to simplify the design process to make it manageable. The Mathamatics is directed at deriving and proving the validity of these design equations.

My original statement was correct, but clumsilly worded.

 

[Stravinsk]

Actually, this is not true. Fill a glass with water and observe the curve at the edge where the water meets the glass. Then fill the glass above the top and observe the bubble of water that curves above the rim.

So your statement that water NEVER CURVES is easily demonstrated to be patently false.
I have also sailed far enough off the coast to observe a lighthouse rise above the curve of the earth as you approach it. It should not be possible to observe only the top half of a lighthouse on the horizon on a flat earth with level water. This is why you will never convince me (personally) that your flat earth is even remotely plausible.

The surface of water that is undisturbed never curves. I believe we live on The Circle - Not Globe - of the earth. I've also stated I believe Antarctica surrounds the oceans and keeps them in (Job 26:10). Therefore you have presented another straw man based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Of course water is shaped by whatever container it is contained in, whether that be a round glass, a square box, etc.

But the surface of water is always flat (on the whole, when undisturbed, taking into consideration weather, waves, etc) . You claim to be an engineer. I find it rather ironic that apparently you don't believe in a water level? You know - been used for eons to show flat surfaces?

Edit: Clarity on post #35

 

[Cassia]

I am not sure Mathamatics is a science, technically speaking, since Mathamatics is an abstract way to model reality.
The NASA paper is a mathamatical proof for the equations used to design aircraft based on the assumptions that the aircraft is flying over perfectly flat and non rotating ground and that the weight of the aircraft is constant. Under real world conditions, the aircraft burns fuel as it flys so it's weight is constantly changing and the ground is not perfectly level, but has hills and mountains and valleys, and the ground beneath the plane is rotating, so it's speed relative to the ground will actually depend on the extent to which it is flying with or against the rotation of the earth. The design equations are based on all of these assumptions intended to simplify the design process to make it manageable. The Mathamatics is directed at deriving and proving the validity of these design equations.

My original statement was correct, but clumsilly worded.

I'm almost sure that mathamatics has to be an exact science. I wish Mark was here ...

 

[atpollard]

I'm almost sure that mathamatics has to be an exact science. I wish Mark was here ...

Mathamatics: the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).

So from the dictionary definition, it appears you are correct. Mathamatics is an exact science.

 

[atpollard]

The surface of water that is undisturbed never curves. I believe we live on The Circle - Not Globe - of the earth. I've also stated I believe Antarctica surrounds the oceans and keeps them in (Job 26:10). Therefore you have presented another straw man based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Of course water is shaped by whatever container it is contained in, whether that be a round glass, a square box, etc.

But the surface of water is always flat (on the whole, when undisturbed, taking into consideration weather, waves, etc) . You claim to be an engineer. I find it rather ironic that apparently you don't believe in a water level? You know - been used for eons to show flat surfaces?

You know that, too is a simplifying assumption. I can provide many examples of water bodies whose water elevations are different from one location to another. Go check out a flood map. Many things affect water level, but the difference is so slight at the scales we typically encounter that it makes sense to assume a uniform water level.

I deal with wetlands and flood plains as a civil engineer. Storm water is my bread and butter.

 

[Stravinsk]

You know that, too is a simplifying assumption. I can provide many examples of water bodies whose water elevations are different from one location to another. Go check out a flood map. Many things affect water level, but the difference is so slight at the scales we typically encounter that it makes sense to assume a uniform water level.

I deal with wetlands and flood plains as a civil engineer. Storm water is my bread and butter.

If I put a glass of water on the floor, and another glass on a table, yep - you're right they are at different elevations. But the surface of each is still flat.

So notice, sir - I did not say elevation. Yet another straw man. Set them up, knock them down.

 

[Stravinsk]

 

[atpollard]

If I put a glass of water on the floor, and another glass on a table, yep - you're right they are at different elevations. But the surface of each is still flat.

So notice, sir - I did not say elevation. Yet another straw man. Set them up, knock them down.

I have to go to bed, so why don't you read about water meniscus and then reread what I wrote and try again.
You can get a glass and see for yourself. You do not need to take anyone's word for it.

YOU SAID WATER NEVER CURVES.

 

[Stravinsk]

I have to go to bed, so why don't you read about water meniscus and then reread what I wrote and try again.
You can get a glass and see for yourself. You do not need to take anyone's word for it.

YOU SAID WATER NEVER CURVES.

I misspoke. If left unmanipulated, water always seeks to find it's own level. When it reaches that level, and is undisturbed, the surface (the overall surface) is flat. There are no large curved water surfaces on a lake, pond or the ocean outside of smaller curves such waves and that which is caused by weather.

Next time you can pour water over the outside of a spinning sphere and have it stick to it, please get back to me. You keep confusing the issue with containers. In the Globe model, where is the container for all the water? The container is not a container at all but the magical force of Gravity keeping trillions of gallons of water sticking to the rapidly spinning Globe shape.

Oh and btw:

The Globe you believe in is a cartoon:

In the land of the super deceived, North America can shrink immensely in the space of a year. La la la la.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Official image? I doubt that either image is official. Both are just images.

 

[Stravinsk]

Official image? I doubt that either image is official. Both are just images.

Scared to look?

2012

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2159.html

2013

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2013/04/22/earth-day-and-night/

Cartoon!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I did look, they are just images.

Scared to look?

2012

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2159.html

2013

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2013/04/22/earth-day-and-night/

Cartoon!

 

[Stravinsk]

I did look, they are just images.

Yes, just images that are supposed to be real. From Nasa websites. These images are from official nasa websites, and they are cartoons! Unless you believe North America can shrink to almost half it's size in the space of a year.

The Earth is Flat!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, just images that are supposed to be real. They're not. Unless you believe North America can shrink to almost half it's size in the space of a year.

The Earth is Flat!

The images are real, taken from different orbits. One lower one higher. Space has lots of room for orbits

A 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's most recently launched Earth-observing satellite - Suomi NPP. This composite image uses a number of swaths of the Earth's surface taken on January 4, 2012. The NPP satellite was renamed 'Suomi NPP' on January 24, 2012 to honor the late Verner E. Suomi of the University of Wisconsin.

Suomi NPP is NASA's next Earth-observing research satellite. It is the first of a new generation of satellites that will observe many facets of our changing Earth.

Suomi NPP is carrying five instruments on board. The biggest and most important instrument is The Visible/Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite or VIIRS.

Image Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring
Last Updated: July 31, 2015
Editor: NASA Administrator
​

Earth Day (8,192 by 8,192 pixels, 9.1 MB JPEG)
Earth Night (8,192 by 8,192 pixels, 4.2 MB JPEG)

Credit: NASA Earth Observatory images by Robert Simmon, using Suomi NPP VIIRS data from Chris Elvidge (NOAA National Geophysical Data Center). Suomi NPP is the result of a partnership between NASA, NOAA, and the Department of Defense.​