I think I see the difference in understanding might be coming from. In my point of view, these planes don't need to descend because the gravity is uniformly distributed from the center of the earth and thus is relative to its altitude. To basically fly off the earth (ie not descend 2400 ft in your example) in my point means that they need to continue to climb relative to the surface. Since this is not happening, in my view, means that marinating altitude is already factoring in the curvature.
Well I appreciate the honest answer instead of all the angry emotional morons that typically respond to FE posts. My goal in this post was to draw a picture of how dramtically the earth curves, and exponentially more so the faster and farther you travel (obviously). I've pointed out this question to 2 Navy pilots, and 1 commercial pilot in real life. One navy pilot was completely stumped, the other 2 pilots gave the same answer as you but I could tell they were unsettled with their answer. I know little of aerodynamics, but when I asked if following this earth curve at 2200mph, does gravity allow you to ignore any maneuvering or aerodynamic effect or decending 873.7 feet per second? They all just looked disturbed.
Another question they could not answer, and is some of the most rock solid evidence we live on a fixed plane, the gyroscopes planes use cannot function on a rotating Orbiting sphere. A gyroscope holds its orientation in space regardless of gravity, inertia or any other motion. So if you flew from CA to Australia, the gyroscope should say you are nearly upside-down. Not to mention earth's rotation and orbit effecting it. They need these gyroscopes to orient the plane over a flat and level runway. This concept has woken up countless pilots, and many have been fired or grounded for pointing it out. One gyroscope manufacturer claimed the gyro is corrected through GPS, but this would not account for earth spin or orbit. And many pilots find that their gyro keeps working even when GPS stops functioning. It is a purely mechanical device. This pilot explains the concept:
Analogy is turning left in a car. You slightly turn the wheel and car starts turning. Unless you turn the wheel back to the right you'll continue turning. Thus even if there were a curvature to compensate for it would only require one minute adjustment but a constant recalibration. So it really comes back to examining the distance traveled and whether it indicates spherical geometry imo
You can feel the car turning though. Every regular plane trip goes through this process: taxi (level to ground), takeoff (at incline), level (except for turbulence, which you definitely feel), descent (at decline), landing (level). If your theory were true, then the higher altitude you fly at, the longer the trip would be.
I think I see the difference in understanding might be coming from. In my point of view, these planes don't need to descend because the gravity is uniformly distributed from the center of the earth and thus is relative to its altitude. To basically fly off the earth (ie not descend 2400 ft in your example) in my point means that they need to continue to climb relative to the surface. Since this is not happening, in my view, means that marinating altitude is already factoring in the curvature.
Well I appreciate the honest answer instead of all the angry emotional morons that typically respond to FE posts. My goal in this post was to draw a picture of how dramtically the earth curves, and exponentially more so the faster and farther you travel (obviously). I've pointed out this question to 2 Navy pilots, and 1 commercial pilot in real life. One navy pilot was completely stumped, the other 2 pilots gave the same answer as you but I could tell they were unsettled with their answer. I know little of aerodynamics, but when I asked if following this earth curve at 2200mph, does gravity allow you to ignore any maneuvering or aerodynamic effect or decending 873.7 feet per second? They all just looked disturbed.
Another question they could not answer, and is some of the most rock solid evidence we live on a fixed plane, the gyroscopes planes use cannot function on a rotating Orbiting sphere. A gyroscope holds its orientation in space regardless of gravity, inertia or any other motion. So if you flew from CA to Australia, the gyroscope should say you are nearly upside-down. Not to mention earth's rotation and orbit effecting it. They need these gyroscopes to orient the plane over a flat and level runway. This concept has woken up countless pilots, and many have been fired or grounded for pointing it out. One gyroscope manufacturer claimed the gyro is corrected through GPS, but this would not account for earth spin or orbit. And many pilots find that their gyro keeps working even when GPS stops functioning. It is a purely mechanical device. This pilot explains the concept:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRBuIFBed0tq/
Analogy is turning left in a car. You slightly turn the wheel and car starts turning. Unless you turn the wheel back to the right you'll continue turning. Thus even if there were a curvature to compensate for it would only require one minute adjustment but a constant recalibration. So it really comes back to examining the distance traveled and whether it indicates spherical geometry imo
You can feel the car turning though. Every regular plane trip goes through this process: taxi (level to ground), takeoff (at incline), level (except for turbulence, which you definitely feel), descent (at decline), landing (level). If your theory were true, then the higher altitude you fly at, the longer the trip would be.