Oops! NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth | |
Benjamin (OP) User ID: 73525517 Cyprus 03/03/2017 01:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 03/03/2017 01:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70940335 United Kingdom 03/03/2017 02:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 50020486 United States 03/03/2017 02:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... But da erfs is flat! Antartic ice wall! Derp derp derp! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70482696 United States 03/03/2017 02:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | they are referring to a non rotating cylindrical model..picture a globe with the poles lopped off to flatness, this is what they mean by cylinder...I believe they specifically ran models like this to push the globe model...it doesn't mean its flat it just means they were fully aware that the debate was not over |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70482696 United States 03/03/2017 02:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | they are referring to a non rotating cylindrical model..picture a globe with the poles lopped off to flatness, this is what they mean by cylinder...I believe they specifically ran models like this to push the globe model...it doesn't mean its flat it just means they were fully aware that the debate was not over Quoting: Anonymous Coward 70482696 adding to my own here...this wasn't new either folks..this issue of the poles being flat or the middle "bulging" as they say..it has never been settled officially.... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73349675 United States 03/03/2017 02:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... There is no end to this asshole's sympathizing stupidity. Why do you deny basic math? There is no curvature. The stars above us have never moved out of place, yet we're supposed to be spinning and endlessly moving through space. You are a fucking idiot or oaid to post lies, either way fuck you. |
Cybored User ID: 74285960 United Kingdom 03/03/2017 02:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Information is the most dangerous weapon of all ... "A computer is like air conditioning – it becomes useless when you open Windows" - Linus Torvalds |
Benjamin (OP) User ID: 73525517 Cyprus 03/03/2017 02:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Here is another government document, this time from the FAA that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA [link to www.faa.gov] |
Benjamin (OP) User ID: 73525517 Cyprus 03/03/2017 02:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 03/03/2017 02:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Here is another government document, this time from the FAA that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA [link to www.faa.gov] Here is what it actually says: "The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat Earth and that we here assume the development frame was the NorthEast-Down frame. This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft equations of motion. This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle. The model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3. " Again, they're deliberately simplifying their calculations since they don't need to account for the Eotvos or Coriolis effects for their purposes. That is not proof earth is literally flat. If I model earth as a cube in a computer and run an experiment on that model it doesn't mean earth is literally a cube just because it might locally show similar results in certain conditions. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73803770 United States 03/03/2017 02:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... There is no end to this asshole's sympathizing stupidity. Why do you deny basic math? There is no curvature. The stars above us have never moved out of place, yet we're supposed to be spinning and endlessly moving through space. You are a fucking idiot or oaid to post lies, either way fuck you. Those stars are hundreds to billions of light years away, with the speed we are traveling through the galaxy you are honestly an idiot to think that we'd be able to detect the movement without the right instruments and calculations. And did you ever think about the fact that those stars are also moving, with the closest ones likely moving along a similar path and at a similar speed? On top of it, they do move in relation to the rotation of the earth and the seasons. Even a moran can't deny that. I think flat earthers are even dumber than people who believe in the god of the bible. |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 03/03/2017 02:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... There is no end to this asshole's sympathizing stupidity. Why do you deny basic math? There is no curvature. The stars above us have never moved out of place, yet we're supposed to be spinning and endlessly moving through space. You are a fucking idiot or oaid to post lies, either way fuck you. Sorry, what were you saying? |
Benjamin (OP) User ID: 73525517 Cyprus 03/03/2017 03:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Benjamin (OP) User ID: 73525517 Cyprus 03/03/2017 03:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 70482696 United States 03/03/2017 03:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Here is another government document, this time from the FAA that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA [link to www.faa.gov] Here is what it actually says: "The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat Earth and that we here assume the development frame was the NorthEast-Down frame. This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft equations of motion. This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle. The model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3. " Again, they're deliberately simplifying their calculations since they don't need to account for the Eotvos or Coriolis effects for their purposes. That is not proof earth is literally flat. If I model earth as a cube in a computer and run an experiment on that model it doesn't mean earth is literally a cube just because it might locally show similar results in certain conditions. they are "simplifying" because the rotation never is a factor in any flights...on the reentry models nasa is clearly trying to make the case that running simulations without rotation results in missing the landing...but for some strange reason no one else has to worry about this but nasa...strange no? these forces of nature that can move things as light as air or hold an ocean to earth have no effect on aircraft in the practical sense.... |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 03/03/2017 03:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: The Deplorable Astromut Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Here is another government document, this time from the FAA that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA [link to www.faa.gov] Here is what it actually says: "The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated assuming a flat Earth and that we here assume the development frame was the NorthEast-Down frame. This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft equations of motion. This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle. The model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3. " Again, they're deliberately simplifying their calculations since they don't need to account for the Eotvos or Coriolis effects for their purposes. That is not proof earth is literally flat. If I model earth as a cube in a computer and run an experiment on that model it doesn't mean earth is literally a cube just because it might locally show similar results in certain conditions. they are "simplifying" because the rotation never is a factor in any flights...on the reentry models nasa is clearly trying to make the case that running simulations without rotation results in missing the landing...but for some strange reason no one else has to worry about this but nasa...strange no? these forces of nature that can move things as light as air or hold an ocean to earth have no effect on aircraft in the practical sense.... Not in the sense of affecting the handling characteristics, flight characteristics, needed for these simulations etc. But yes, in terms of navigation over long hauls it is a huge factor. This is why quote mining makes you look like an idiot. Last Edited by Astromut on 03/03/2017 03:19 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74303733 Canada 03/03/2017 03:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... It seems common sense had more credibility then? Is that what you mean?? Computing power doesn't override common sense.. |
The Deplorable Astromut Senior Forum Moderator 03/03/2017 03:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... It seems common sense had more credibility then? Is that what you mean?? Computing power doesn't override common sense.. And common sense doesn't override reality. Earth isn't flat just because airplanes can be evaluated in simplified simulations. |
Buellmph User ID: 67674133 United States 03/03/2017 03:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73085799 United States 03/03/2017 07:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth” Quoting: Benjamin 73525517 If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”? [link to www.nasa.gov] Because they were modeling an aircraft in flight and to simplify the computations they used a model of a flat stationary earth. Computing power was much more limited in 1988... Here is another government document, this time from the FAA that makes a Flat Earth reference. On page 32, It states … So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat. But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work. For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles. The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be! This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT! You can download the document directly from the FAA [link to www.faa.gov] It is NOT necessary to constantly dip the nose. The plane will take care of that for you. Lift is opposed to gravity. When the direction of gravity changes, the plane self adjusts with no outside input necessary. If it didn't then you would lose lift and it would be flying against its trim. it is such a gradual and constant change it isn't noticed. |