First of all the plane has 'lift' so it is not falling due to gravity, and it's in atmosphere so it's not like we are talking about a satellite in orbit. So I don't see how that applies at all.
Second the plane traveling 2200mph, has to drop 595.7 miles in one hour to follow earth's curve. This is far beyond any terminal velocity even of a very aerodynamic object. But again, it's not falling due to lift. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, does no one see how ridiculous it is for a plane to drop 9.9 miles per minute? By all appearances it's flying straight and level, not following some dramatic earth curve trajectory.
I was demonstrating that if you take only a portion of the mathematics and ignore the rest, you get strange results. It's exactly the same principle as what you are doing.
I mean all you basically said is gravity makes it work like magic. I am describing the geometric path the plane has to follow if earth is a sphere as we are told. I'm saying it's impossible because if you were following a trajectory that dips 837 feet per second, there is no way you could perceive it as a straight and level path. If you can set aside globe programming we have had from birth, no one perceives this earth curvature when flying at any speed, and how could you not if it's as dramatic as I outlined?
if you were following a trajectory that dips 837 feet per second, there is no way you could perceive it as a straight and level path
Depending on your frame of reference. If you continuously preserve "down" to mean towards the center of the earth, then there is no 837' drop, because you're frame of reference compensates.
If your frame of reference is far from earth looking onward, then gravity doesn't pull the plane your perspective's "down" the entire time, but instead the angle of incidence of the force of gravity shifts continually, maintaining a direction inward toward the center of the earth.
You oversimplify and then say "impossible" instead of thinking it through.
I guess draw a diagram of the plane's initial and final locations, and draw the vectors where you think gravity and lift are directed at each location. Should be apparent, but I guess for some it isn't.
Alright, I appreciate you addressing it seriously. And I get what you are saying that as gravity shifts as you go around the curve it makes this 'drop' unapparent for lack of a better word. I just don't agree that gravity could hide any hint of flying an arc that dramatic (due to the speed).
Incase you were interested in addressing another FE proof for shits and giggles. Here is a video explaining how their gyroscopes work, and how they cannot possibly function on a rotating/Orbiting sphere. Essentially if you flew from USA to Australia your gyro which is meant to orient you to a level runway, would show that you are upside down. Airplane Gyros hold their rigidity in space regardless of gravity, inertia, rotation or any other motion. This issue has turned countless pilots into FE's and many have been fired or grounded over the issue.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRBuIFBed0tq/
Sorry this is 3 days late.
Squared formulas just dont work our of context. If you take a curve squared you would wind up with a curly cue shape as it gets exponentially tighter squared. Same with gravity.
I share you view that this place is not at all what we are told. And I have found that if you run down any conspiracy theory they all have enough to back them up. This place is crazy.
All that aside planes are not falling at 600 miles an hour. They would be following the curve. flat flight. Flat flight is measured by where you are, not a mile away. How high do they say you have to be to see the curve? Way the heck up there. IF that is true it seems to me that it would not be noticeable to maintain level flight.
Again I do not believe we have been told the truth about anything.
First of all the plane has 'lift' so it is not falling due to gravity, and it's in atmosphere so it's not like we are talking about a satellite in orbit. So I don't see how that applies at all.
Second the plane traveling 2200mph, has to drop 595.7 miles in one hour to follow earth's curve. This is far beyond any terminal velocity even of a very aerodynamic object. But again, it's not falling due to lift. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, does no one see how ridiculous it is for a plane to drop 9.9 miles per minute? By all appearances it's flying straight and level, not following some dramatic earth curve trajectory.
I was demonstrating that if you take only a portion of the mathematics and ignore the rest, you get strange results. It's exactly the same principle as what you are doing.
I mean all you basically said is gravity makes it work like magic. I am describing the geometric path the plane has to follow if earth is a sphere as we are told. I'm saying it's impossible because if you were following a trajectory that dips 837 feet per second, there is no way you could perceive it as a straight and level path. If you can set aside globe programming we have had from birth, no one perceives this earth curvature when flying at any speed, and how could you not if it's as dramatic as I outlined?
Depending on your frame of reference. If you continuously preserve "down" to mean towards the center of the earth, then there is no 837' drop, because you're frame of reference compensates.
If your frame of reference is far from earth looking onward, then gravity doesn't pull the plane your perspective's "down" the entire time, but instead the angle of incidence of the force of gravity shifts continually, maintaining a direction inward toward the center of the earth.
You oversimplify and then say "impossible" instead of thinking it through.
I guess draw a diagram of the plane's initial and final locations, and draw the vectors where you think gravity and lift are directed at each location. Should be apparent, but I guess for some it isn't.
Alright, I appreciate you addressing it seriously. And I get what you are saying that as gravity shifts as you go around the curve it makes this 'drop' unapparent for lack of a better word. I just don't agree that gravity could hide any hint of flying an arc that dramatic (due to the speed).
Incase you were interested in addressing another FE proof for shits and giggles. Here is a video explaining how their gyroscopes work, and how they cannot possibly function on a rotating/Orbiting sphere. Essentially if you flew from USA to Australia your gyro which is meant to orient you to a level runway, would show that you are upside down. Airplane Gyros hold their rigidity in space regardless of gravity, inertia, rotation or any other motion. This issue has turned countless pilots into FE's and many have been fired or grounded over the issue. https://www.bitchute.com/video/hRBuIFBed0tq/
Sorry this is 3 days late. Squared formulas just dont work our of context. If you take a curve squared you would wind up with a curly cue shape as it gets exponentially tighter squared. Same with gravity. I share you view that this place is not at all what we are told. And I have found that if you run down any conspiracy theory they all have enough to back them up. This place is crazy. All that aside planes are not falling at 600 miles an hour. They would be following the curve. flat flight. Flat flight is measured by where you are, not a mile away. How high do they say you have to be to see the curve? Way the heck up there. IF that is true it seems to me that it would not be noticeable to maintain level flight. Again I do not believe we have been told the truth about anything.