Flat Earthers think planes can't work on a globe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2023
- Get the limited time AtlasVPN offer - get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
Please consider supporting the channel by making purchases through my Amazon affiliates: geni.us/Affiliate
PATREON: / davemckeegan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Music by Bensound.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#globe #science #flatearth #plane - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the SUMMER DEAL expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Dave
BTW as a pilot, you can't use 550mph to make your points. 550mph doesn't matter as your talking about groundspeed really. All that matters in the air is the indicated air speed.
Dave, there’s a bit more to this, and it may not satisfy astute flerfs (is that an oxymoron?). Pitch stability by design prevents a correctly trimmed plane from deviating from a constant distance from the centre of the Earth. In reality, trim is never perfect so the autopilot maintains pressure altitude in cruise flight. And because (ignoring weather effects) air pressure remains constant at constant distance above mean sea level, the autopilot adjusts the pitch trim to maintain a constant pressure altitude, and follow the curvature of the Earth. So yes, in reality a plane is constantly pitching down (at a _very_ slow rate) as it flies around the globe.
Good video as always, but...
Another VPN scam ad = Another thumb down.
@@cosmefulanito5933 How is it a scam?
30 seconds in and there is a typical scam VPN sponsorship.
Thats why I stopped my Patreon because you clearly make enough from them paying you to advertise.
Not only do planes work just fine on a globe they use flight plans that will only work if the Earth is a Globe.
I have been asking flat Earthers to debate me on this topic for years and they ALL run.
One way to silence them is to ask for a flight plan based on an alternative to the Globe and provide the equations used to prove it.
They run, every time.
I'm surprised they won't debate you ... Usually they'll accept the debate and then just yell 'nu-uh' at everything
@@DaveMcKeegan I tell them in advance that for the debate they will need to produce a flight plan and explain the non globe equations they used to derive the distances and directions.
I'll bring my Globe based equations and the corresponding flight plan.
Showing up empty handed is an instant defeat...
They're not going to debate a trained, experienced, and articulate pilot on matters of air travel, because they know that they'll get absolutely shredded.
You may also get responses like "bUt MAtHs iS oNlY NumBErS oN pApEr" because using formulas and equations to predict things and succeeding every single time isn't proof. Proof is only stuff like.. spraying water on a a beach ball or floating eggs in water and drawing wrong conclusions from it.
Oh Wolfie you just reminded me. Last week Mike Jones was trying to claim that haversine equation and vincenty's formula are Euclidean and only work for a flat earth. Pointed out that they are spherical trigonometry and dealing with the surface of a sphere for haversine and oblate spheroid for vincenty's and thus non euclidean. He is still convinced that he knows better though.
I wrote aviation gps software for 25 years. I assumed the world round, so used great circle math to calculate target headings. Had the world been flat, thousands of pilots would have gotten lost.
Yeah but have you considered how NASA uses 50 million dollars per day to make comments like this and also photoshop
I have the same observation with ballistics. Gunners have been doing computations assuming that the Earth is round and they regularly hit their targets.
Ahh that explains the Bermuda Triangle 😂, joking btw.
@ghost307 oh, you think artillery is accurate? The only thing more accurate than enemy incoming fire is friendly incoming fire!
😂😂😂😂
@@qlqnenwhere can I get some of that NASA cash?
I heard this argument once before. I basically just explained that it's no different from a ship sailing on the sea. The ship doesn't need to nosedive to do this either.
Nice seeing you here, David
You must be the intelligent one. A ship is operating at sea level not 40,000 above it there DA.
@@tommosher8271 It doesn't matter how high it is, Tom. I don't know why you thought it would.
Never expected to see you here. Hi David!!
@@tommosher8271Yeah? Boats don't all float at exactly the same height, some dip further into the sea, some stay closer to the surface. Submarines can control a ballast that changes their normal depth beneath the sea. The same is true for airplanes to some extent, they have a standard cruising altitude relative to their speed, lift, and weight.
A flat earther dies and goes to heaven.
He comes face to face with god and asks "Is the earth really flat?"
God responded "No, the earth is a sphere."
"Holy shit i didn't know the conspiracy went THIS far"
Edit: I seemed to have started a war 🤭🤭🤭
😂brilliant joke
WAIT THIS IS BRILLIANT
Well, the scriptures do not say anything about a sphere.
God is a conspiracy. Wake up.
God is not a conspiracy, however, the fake virus is certainly a conspiracy against humanity!@@sophiafakevirus-ro8cc
This is my absolute favorite flat earther argument. It perfectly displays how confidently stupid they are; the true epitome of flat earthers.
So ignorant they don't even know how much they don't know.
This^
Keep on truckin'. 🤙
My favorite argument is their failure to understand speed in a frame of reference. I had an argument with a flerf one time and even showed physical models to explain the issue. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn't wrap his head around the idea of a frame of reference.
The scenario was the speed of a car vs the speed that the Earth is rotating. The rotational speed at the equator on average is roughly 1000 mph West to East. He couldn't understand how a car heading East to West on the surface would still be traveling West to East. I used the math and directions (as well as models that I referred to earlier) to show him how it works. I even dumbed it down to a 3rd grade level and he still couldn't get it. It is quite simple, when heading the same direction as the rotation you add the cars speed to the rotation speed, so a car going 60mph in relation to the surface of the Earth, the car would actually be traveling 1060mph in the same direction as the rotation, but when heading the opposite direction as the rotation you subtract the cars speed from the rotation speed, so a car going 60mph in relation to the surface of the Earth, the car would actually be traveling 940mph in the same direction as the rotation. He kept asking how a car driving forward could be travelling backwards and couldn't grasp the concept that frames of reference are not only separate, but also required.
@@jasonpenn5476 Next time just ask him how he thinks people are able to walk up and down a railroad car in motion.
@jasonpenn5476 Gravity alone answers that for a 3rd grader. You're using math that is a bit higher (7th grade). But, yes.
Gravity is also a downward pull that is constant around the globe. So, despite its spin, that force is enough to control and dictate speed. Of course, this isn't *always* true, due to elevation and thrust.
Point being, traveling 600mph on a plane or 60mph in a car, when you throw a ball uo, it comes back down to you.
Flerfers ignore or simply do not know how large the earth is.
Maybe if the flight was circumnavigating a bowling ball, sure. But the Earth is a BIT bigger than that.
A big globe the earth is
Yeah, I've marvelled at some of the flat earth videos where they hold a toy plane next to a globe which would be the length of Southern America and somehow think that is meaning full (not to mention some of them appear to think it's like flying "down" a hill)
This one is easy to counter anyway... does a plane flying along the equator needs to steer north permanently to follow it? :P
@@timolynch149 There's a video of a guy holding a small plane over a small globe complaining about how it's "flying upside down". Never mind the fact that the plane he was using was bigger than Australia.
Just a smidgen bigger. A wee tad larger, just by a bit
An acquaintance of mine believes in the flat Earth theory. I tried to explain to him that I admire his curiosity and that it's good to question everything, but that he was still mistaken. I frequently fly from BER to LA/LV, so I recorded videos for him, measured various things on the plane, and took images of the stars and moon in Vegas, among other experiments. However, it didn't change anything; he wants to BELIEVE in flat earth and it has nothing to do with seeking the truth.
I went out of my way for this bs. Now I know the earth is a sphere for 110%, instead of 100%, but he still knows 0.
"We don't know how it works but it's not that."
"Literally no flat earthers has ever claimed that" - referring to claims you can find in every single flat earthers video.
@@privateinformation2960so why did a NASA employee said that all space content is literally CGI ? Why did I spot the cable from the harness of the scientist in "orbit" ? Why did we "go" on the moon woth a washing machine microchip in 1972 but still.dont have a moon base in 2024 ? Before you call the nasa whistleblower a liar remember, edward snowden, remember julian assange, chelsea manning, the guy from.boing who was executed recently, and be a decent human being.
I like how even a photographer by trade can explain the basic physical concepts that these people seem to have totally missed
It's oftem not so much "missed" and more "but I don't agree with physics because I want reality to be different / feel special so I just make up some nonsense I can't prove"
Being a professional photographer gives him some very relevant specialist knowledge.
@@timolynch149
To be fair, the answers to some of the questions they pose can seem a bit unintuitive - But I agree that it's basically a gesture of defiance, and there's no excuse for pretending that the sun vanishes in the distance.
Not to mention that there are no flat earth surveyors. He did a video on that topic as well.
@@gerontodon Also, going through the English school system gives you at least basic physics, which can be entirely lacking for Americans.
Pilot and aircraft owner of 60 years here... (ex aerospace engineer too...)
When I flew in Australia, I did fly upside down... part of the time.
Gee, that was fun!
And I can also verify that the Earth is really, really... really BIG!
"But that's just peanuts compared to space!"
R.I.P. Douglas Adams. You are missed more as the years pass.
@@John.0z Miss him too!
Met him a few times...
Ahhhh, see, gotcha there.
Australia doesn't exist. So you proved you're a NASA/Illuminati schill.
Sarcasm. We all know the Earth is perched on a turtle's back!
One thing flerfs have never been able to explain to me....
If my sister has flown from Australia to Los Angeles, and I have flown the opposite direction from Australia to the UK, and my UK ex has flown from London to New York.... Then the east edge of the earth must be on the other side of California and the west edge must be on the other side of New York.
So how the fuck do flerf Americans drive east out of California, fall off one side of the earth, and then suddenly appear on the other side and drove to new York.
Is it a Pacman type thing where you magically appear on the other side, or a cylinder earth
And if we live on a cylinder or a Pacman plane..... *WHY THE FUCK CANT WE BE LIVING ON A GLOBE*
Plus the fact that they keep on with the simple parabolic formula for 'drop' (which works to all intents and purposes for quite a distance... thanks surveyors and mathematicians,,,) yet refuse to use R?
,,, have been to Antarctica and I never saw a penguin with an AK47!
You can lead a flat earther to a globe, but you can't make him comprehend scale.
Seriously, scale is the main issue here. These are people who are incapable of perceiving anything outside human scale. They're actually expecting to see curvature in their front yard.
so... the scale makes the curvature disappear?
@OskarTBrand in short, yes.
From one end of my yard to the other, the curvature of the earth is negligible.
science and logic are not your strongest sides, are they @@wickederebus
@@OskarTBrand that is genuinely how scale works. the earth is far bigger than it is even possible for us to comprehend as humans. you can literally do this same thing on a graph. open up desmos (website), and type in a formula that makes a circle (x^2 + y^2 = [any positive number]). then start zooming in. there comes a point where there is no more curve visible. it's still a circle, you've just zoomed in too much to be able to tell now. this is you. you are a very tiny human on a huge earth. you can't see enough of it.
@@OskarTBrand "science and logic are not your strongest sides, are they"
Thanks for stealing a round-Earther's argument commonly levied at you. A lot of you can't just stop with simply lying.
Well explained, but you do realise the flat earthers were lost by minute two. I’m a pilot and sailor, trying to explain the principles of flight or navigation just goes over their tiny little heads. Respect to you and your assistant.
"How did you manage to become an engineer expert on every thing ?"
"I once tried to debunk a flat earther claim"
From failed photographer to Professor. Professing bunkum 😁
You cant teach dumb people who's got there minds set
If the earth is round then why cant i fit it in my pocket like other round things such as coins and eggs?
This is actually a way more coherent argument than many that I've ACTUALLY heard from flat earthers
I’m a pilot, and flerfs rabidly arguing that planes prove flat earth is, to put it mildy, insults me, to the core…
They are really good at insulting people with their complete misunderstanding and denial of basic sciences.
Good you should feel insulted I'm insulted by the chemicals you spray on us so you can keep flying or that you help hide the flat earth with your ignorance.
Buzz Aldrin had a great way to handle people like that.
OK, strictly speaking he was a moon hoaxer, but still applicable.
@@tomstamford6837 - oh yeah, he was dope when he gave that moon hoaxer a healthy serving of his knuckle sandwich 🤜
@@tommosher8271 The chemicals they spray on you? Poor little insect. 😂🤣🐞
As a pilot I can confirm 2 things. 1: on long distance flights I am not constantly pushing the nose down. 2: Chemtrails aren’t real.
Chem trail proponents will not believe you. Condensation trails are basic physics and chemistry but they would rather believe a baseless, complicated conspiracy theory than apply Occam's razor.
Of course... That is why you get paid hush money on top of your salery every month, just to deny this. 😉
Of course you would say that. You're in on it. The last people we should trust on this are pilots because they are part of the hoax. *Wake up people! Do your own research!*
alright Jared we gotta start asking the government for our hush money, ive been keeping the true shape of earth a secret for too long without compensation
- "1: on long distance flights I am not constantly pushing the nose down"
Well, actually YOU ARE, but it is automatic.
Aircraft pitch forward about the pitch axis by ~one degree for every 70 miles flown, all while the aircraft maintains "Level flight".
Old school gyros (artificial Horizons) will NOT show this while modern fiber-optic gyros WILL.
However, the pilot will never see this raw data from the FOGs, only "derived" values that have a moving reference frame that rotates with the changing gravity vector.
I flew from Iceland to Seattle for 9 hours. The sun started to set as we took off in Iceland. Our cruising speed was almost the same as the rotation of the earth. I got to watch a 9 hour sunset! Flat earth can't do that 🥳👽
You were on a plane going over 1000 mph ? Be fr ? Most commercial fly a few hindered mph
@@LegaciesLiveForever At midsummer, Dillenger's long sunset is very possible at those lattitudes. Not at midwinter, of course. Remember, it's a globe with a tilt.
Flying to Sydney from LA, I've seen dawn over the China Sea that also lasted for hours. It's beautiful.
@@nycbearff why do we have to take a plane in the first place if we rotating so fast we could stay stationary in the sky and wait for certain places to reach us right ? Also what’s direction does earth curve ? Is it south east to west , north ? I’ll wait ?
@@LegaciesLiveForeverI'm confused why a curve should have a direction.. The earth is spherical. Anything away from you is curving downwards.
No matter how clear and simply detailed the explanation, it will remain forever beyond the grasp of the average, smooth-brained flerf.
Perhaps if you frame it this way... "The Earth is round and smooth like your brain." they would have a better chance at undrstanding.
I think I've seen explanations for flerfs about where down is for like 10 years, they still aren't getting it.
@@nightmareTomek They wil never get it as long as they deny the existence of gravity. They know full well that if they admit to gravity existing they will have to give up their flat Earth delusion.
@@chrisantoniou4366 Well, how stupid must someone be to not get where gravity points to, after all these explanations, and while he's trying to debunk the model. I know they won't get it.
However if they'd come up with some fantasies how gravity is working differently than science says, it would be far less stupid than deny it altogether.
Like I don't know, they could claim the gravitational pull is just 1/10th of what science is saying, and the pizza is standing on a giant iron turtle. That would be idiotic of course, but LESS idiotic than trying to explain it with density.
@@nightmareTomek "Density" does explain why gravity isn't necessary for flat Earthers... just not in the way they think... 😂😂😂
As an ex RAF aircraft technician your explanation was fairly detailed and completely correct, well researched Dave, good work. As we know Flerf's of all abilities are unable and/or unwilling to accept 3 dimensional thinking but people with still functioning "reality acceptance" thinking can easily see the truth to your explanation.
Imagine a plane flying around a huge sphere with constant gravity all over its surface- This is easier and more logical than
any Flat-earth model
Flat earthers are the reason shampoo has instructions
And children … they are uneducated too but they have an excuse . I mean come on it’s okay that you have to go to school to learn to become a doctor because you have to get educated but other people that are uneducated it’s not acceptable. How do you decide what group of uneducated people get a reprieve?
@@sd9295 Most children know more about physics and aerospace engineering than the average flatty.
The flat earthers' argument comes down to "If planes didn't constantly use thrust and lift to maintain constant altitude they would not maintain a constant altitude."
Yes, in fact the pilot and or the avionics are making adjustments constantly, even if the earth were flat they would have to. Plus as I think you are saying, even in perfectly level flight, that is not key, key is that lift is just enough to maintain altitude.
funny that NASA uses documents that purport to aeroPLAINS flying over a static flat non-rotating earth....
They don't even understand lift because they don't believe that gravity even exists.
yeah that called stalling and falling out of the air that relates to NOT MAINTAINING CONSTANT ALTITUDE! DUH! have you ever been of the ground?When is your next shot due>? I'll advise against it....
@@stanlee4217 Have you ever studied to become a pilot or an airplane mechanic? I've done both and there are MANY people who have. But please, do explain us how we're all wrong....
And I suppose you're also much more knowledgeable than the people who've dedicated their lives to creating vaccines and other medications.... again, please do explain how you've become so much more knowledgeable than people who've specialized for DECADES in their fields. I think it's a nice trick, you should teach me :)
Funfact:
the plane would have to be moving at 790 m/s (or 2844 km/h) for you to feel 1% lighter while maintaining a constant altitude.
For you to need to "nose dive" you would need to be moving faster than the orbital speed for a given altitude
So basically you need to be an SR-71 pilot to feel it.
@@just9911 Not even the Blackbird was fast enough to generate that effect.
@@lukemills237 the max speed (unclassified) of an SR-71 was over 3500 kilometers per hour.
@@lukemills237 I should have been clear - I mean to feel 1% lighter, not needing to nose dive.
For example, the orbital velocity for 10km (~35000ft) is 7.8km/s. That is around Mach 22 for reference.
I love these videos so much. I've never been a flat earther, but I've always wondered how this stuff works anyway. And since my dad passed away, I can't bother him with random questions like these.
I thought everyone knew:
Flying is the Art form of falling to the ground.....
And missing with style!
But watch out for flying parties.
This is possibly the most revealing flat earth claim in terms of their utter lack of understanding of primary school physics.
Yes I agree. Thinking a plane could fly off into space shows a complete lack of understanding of basic physics and aerodynamics.
Even when you explain it to them the average flat Earther is not smart enough to get it.
and then they blatenly claim that their stupidity has the same value as facts and understand.
or reality.
@@Wolfie6020Although your expertise in physics in aerodynamics is unquestioned, to be more precise one also needs to grasp orbital mechanics (I.E. leaving a planetary body involves great velocity, not just direction) as well.
Have none of the left the country? Gone on holiday attended conferences in different countries??
A simple way to illustrate how that works is to attach a small plane perpendicular to a clock hand. During a full rotation of the hand, the plane also perform a full rotation while remaining perfectly horizontal relative to the up/down direction provided by the clock hand and at the same altitude relative to the clock center.
flattard: "clocks are not real, its an illusion, fish-eye lenses and holograms and such"
@@fredthe47thYeah, they can't comprehend that "down" means "in" towards the Earth's core on a spherical model. To them, gravity points "down" past the South Pole on a globe into nothingness for no reason at all. This means, in their view, all of Africa, Australia and South America would get instantly spaced, and everyone else in the northern hemisphere should be tumbling away or walking at a constant tilt. It's very incorrect and cartoonish to think about, but that same imagined ridiculousness is what they use to justify their "less" ridiculous models.
Flat Earth is so fucking stupid I cant believe its even a subject in 2023!!!! I love it!!!
Now if only we can get them to address the same point about ships on the flat earth and going east or west with constantly having to steer the ship left or right.
If you look at the flat earth disk you see the shortest distance paths are very similar to the great circle routes used on the spherical earth.
That happens all the time. The other day our flight captain took a dump and in no time we were passing by the ISS and the moon wasn‘t too far either. I am just happy that we didn‘t crash into the dome.
In other words, gravity goes down.
Addendum: Down is where the ground is.
yEaH bUt tHeN WhY dOesN'T tHe PlAnE fALl ofF tHE eArTH?!
More like towards the centre of the earth. Human perception of down is not an accurate perception of reality.
@@LineOfThybecause of thrust and pressure
@@Frizzleman
Down (general): The direction pointing towards the most significant center of mass within the current relevant reference frame.
Down (specific, Earth): The direction pointing towards the exact center of mass of the planet Earth.
You're wrong. And, frankly, you _really_ should have known better.
I literally had a flerf on Reddit argue that because gravity is down, people not at the North Pole would just fall off, because they would get pulled "down". I pushed them to explain which way is "down" and why gravity would work in that direction. They just kept saying "because that's down". It was like talking to a parrot.
Excellent video. Just a minor correction, the reason for the difference in pressure is not that "the path is longer" on the upper side, and therefore "it has to speed up". As you can see from the animation showed also in the video the two separated flows don't meet up at the end because one is much faster. So it's not really the length of the foil, but a more complex reason that lies in the particular shape. The best way to explain it is skipping the "length" part and only saying that the airfoil causes a difference of pressure between the upper and the lower surface. Note that this correction DOES NOT change in any way what he explained in the rest of the video, this comment is only meant to avoid common misconceptions about airfoils.
EDIT:
Btw, thank you all guys, I love that we can all have peaceful conversations in these comments even if sometimes there's some disagreement, I love when people on the internet just peacefully understand each other's view. (Yes, that should be normal behaviour, but as you know unfortunately that's definitely not normality)
yeah its a super common misconception and even pilots will repeat it
Correct. The best way to explain lift is to skip Bernoulli (because most people don't know how to use it correctly) and use Newton's third law: The wing pushes the air downwards, and the opposite reaction is lift.
yup, I'm not sure why the "longer path" theory is bounded around so much, as it doesn't really make a load of sense, there's no reason a fluid should speed up just because its on a longer path than the flow it was seperated from. At least the way I've been taught and think about it is that it happens because of the high pressure experienced at the front of the airfoil. The oncoming stream of air "squishes" the air against the airfoil. Part of this creates the stagating air at the front but above that is the air is essentially forced to accelerate faster like a nozzle, and sticks to the surface because of the boundary layer. The same thing happens on the bottom too except the friction is greater because of its angle into the airstream, so it goes slower. And then the pressure differencial combined with the downwash gives you your lift.
Actually he did a pretty good job of correctly explaining Venturi and Bernoulli. According to Venturi, when restricted, air will speed up so as to attempt to appear to travel en mass at the rate of unrestricted air. To do this the restricted air must move faster. How successful a wing is at getting the air above and below to match up after the wing while creating measurable amounts of lift determines how efficient it is. Less efficient wings create less drag and require more air speed. More efficient wings create more drag and require less air speed.
I totally agree. Though it does play a small part if the Bernoulli effect was the only reason for lift there would be no downwash under a helicopter and no air felt behind a propellor.
When I was a flying instructor we explained this to our students and focussed on the simple deflection of air and the opposite reaction on the wing creating lift and induced drag.
This is one of the most clear, helpful videos I’ve seen in, not only for debunking flat earthers but for my own understanding
Wouldn´t it be great if going into space would be this easy!😂
I still wouldn't trust Ryanair 🤣
It is curious how Flerfs seemingly ignore the fact that in order to “circumnavigate” a flat earth, pilots would be need to constantly turn left/right to fly due east/west.
Can you imagine what the "nearby sun" would do for long airline routes?
That is also true on a globe. Lines of latitude are not geodesic or straight. If you simply point east in the the northern hemisphere and move forward without a continual turning correction to the north, you will end up heading more and more south. Only lines of longitude point straight, due to them being “large circles” all focused on ONE point of the globe (a north or south pole). Of course you still need to make navigation corrections to make sure you are oriented directly at your pole of choice. The only exception traveling East/West on a globe is the Equator, simply due to it’s size (maximum circumference of the sphere) where no North/South corrections are needed to travel straight (assuming perfect directional stability).
@@DoctorShocktorThe amount of left/right that would be required on a globe is minimal, though, such that I'd bet money that no human could detect it without the use of external instruments.
@@DoctorShocktorairplanes don't fly directly east or west. They travel "great circle" routes which don't require left/right directional changes.
But the currently fashionable disk shaped flat earth has it's own direct routes which don't go directly east and west and which, in the northern hemisphere are very similar to great circle routes.
The attitude of the aircraft is adjusting by 1 degree per 111 km. That takes 8 minutes at 450 Knots.
Meanwhile the Earth curves by the same amount so there is no apparent change in the nose attitude relative to the horizon.
This is very easy to understand for most people but Flat Earthers fail at geometry and physics.
It's like they think an airplane is only a little smaller than the planet.
Airplane functionality lessons with a side of dissing on the flerfers; love it
The thing to remember about a plane flying through the air is that it is ALWAYS a battle between keeping it up and falling.
The pilots don't have to lower the altitude of the plane to account for the curvature of the earth, they have to lower the amount of lift needed to keep it up at altitude. Oh, it's not much, as you point out, and, in the grand scheme of things, it is imperceptible compared to all the other things they are accounting for, but it's there.
A plane is always falling. The challenge is what you have to do to keep it up.
Of course, the problem is the whole concept of "tilt the nose down." Down with respect to what? Down with respect to the surface of the earth? No, you don't do that. You keep it level with respect to the surface of the earth.
Maybe even slightly up for all I know. 🤷♂️
@@michaelsorensen7567 For sure!
@@michaelsorensen7567 Yes. Typical cruise attitude is slightly nose up, depends on type and load, of course. Having the nose exactly on the horizon normally would result in a gentle descent, afaik.
This video points to just how much deeper and more interesting physics and science is than flat earthers can understand... and often how much we can miss if we're just focused on the most basic science that arguing with flat earthers sometimes requires.
Also, we can see just how deep the lack of basic cognition is in the flat earth brain. You have to go deep into Africa to find a lower IQ.
When flerfers drive down the road at night, they look up at the moon and think it’s following them.
Most underrated comment in this thread.
There's no way anyone who actually believes the earth is flat will be able to understand any of this.
A detail. Planes, sometimes, crash. The natural tendency of any flying object heavier than air is to fall (gravity is the scientific name and description of how all that "things fall" even babies know, works). If anything, pilots don't correct the position of the plane down to prevent it from flying into space, but correct it in all possible manners to prevent it from crashing against the ground - even when landing.
You've forgotten how many flerfs genuinely don't believe in gravity. You are absolutely correct though. Not slamming into the dirt at the speed of sound is definitely a nontrivial task.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875disbelief has yet to provide levitation, however
@@michaelsorensen7567 I think Douglas Adams was on to something when he wrote that the secret of flying was merely forgetting to fall.
@dustinbrueggemann1875 How to fly in 2 easy lessons. As per Douglas Adams.
1. Very easy. Throw yourself at the ground.
2. Not so easy, and involving forgetting why. Miss the ground.
Achieved lesson one years ago. Still practicing for lesson two.
@@dustinbrueggemann1875
Or rather throwing yourself at the ground and missing.
With every video you do, Rusty is getting smarter than every flat earther.
I hate to say it, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Even Kent Hovind is smarter than a Flerf, but only marginally.
Rusty started out smarter than every Flat Earther.
@@Mark_Agamotto1313_Smith "Even Kent Hovind is smarter than a Flerf, but only marginally."
Only marginally, yes, but certainly not smart enough to fool the IRS.
im still new around here... can i assume Rusty is the cute doggo?
Flat Earth is so stupid it is simutaneously making humanity both smarter and dumber
Hey Dave. Airline captain here. Recently found your channnel and love the content. I recently had a visitor to the flightdeck after landing (grown adult) who started with a similar line of questioning. "Hey how do you land a plane on a curved ball?"... "Sorry, what?"... "How do you land a plane on a curved ball surface"... "Well if the ball is big enough the runway is treated as pretty flat"... "Ha, thought you'd say that! So have you ever seen the curve?"... "Well as the globe is so big it's hard to see unless at very high altitudes"... "right! "... "Ok well our service ceiling, max altitude, is 41000ft and even though that's pretty high the horizon curve is still hard to see but you can make it out. It's a gentle subtle curve even at that altitude"... "well, why do they call it the horizon then? Because it's horizontal! Ha!"... and then he walks off...
What I appreciate flying here in Australia is that there is few flerfs, that, and people that hire you on a private jet are generally not flerfs... hope that I don't have to deal with them when I start flying airline sometime next year.
Next time, just answer the first question, "Because of the globe map you and I use to drive around." If he persists, just keep asking to see his map. After all, their map is the one and only proof they have of the globe Earth. All of them. :)
loonies!
@CaptainJammo Please, please, please, for your own safety and the safety of your passengers, don't let people like that in your cockpit again.
Saying a plane has to constantly nosedive is either an example of flat earthers not understanding how big the globe is or they think planes are all several times faster than Concorde
Actually, it’s not a matter of scale or velocity, but simply of geometry. No aircraft, regardless of size or velocity, must dive in order to maintain level flight over the spherical Earth. In level flight, the aircraft remains at a constant altitude throughout, so no it makes no upward _or_ downward movement (dive).
It depends on reference frame, really. When your reference frame is relative to the Earth’s surface, you won’t notice that you’re “losing altitude” to an observer in a fixed position outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. The plane only appears to lose altitude *because* it’s not losing altitude relative to the surface - and given the only reference frame inside the plane is the ground, you cannot perceive the drop from a reference frame you cannot see.
KSP taught me about shifting center-of-gravity the hard way, and about trim through fixing my own faulty plane designs.
Any mission Jebedaih survives is a good one.
Any plane that stays up long enough to click "EVA" and "Deploy parachute" is a good one. Any plane that Jeb survives without bailing out is a great one!
Flat earthers should try playing KSP, they might actually learn something 😂
@ Nah, they'd lose their shit at all the handwaving estimations the physics engine has to make to stay realtime. That or they'd try to build a kraken drive in real life and kill us all.
@ them two seconds into playing "Look at that, I see the curvature, Kerbin is the exact same size as Earth and I dont see any curvature on Earth"
KSP overall is an exellent teacher.
As a noob the first thing is to lauch a rocket straight up but as you progress you need nobody to tell you that curving your rocket is the best way to get into orbit. It is funny how, even if you do not understand this concept, you will naturally adapt do this just as Rocket scientist did while learning spaceflight.
Excellent video - one of my favorites so far. The "other" factors, wind, weight distribution, temperature, etc. far outweigh any adjustment needed for curvature adjustment. And the discussion on the general physics of flight was very well done.
Flat earthers confuse 'flat' with 'level'.
Level being exactly 90 degrees to the perpendicular, which is an imaginary line drawn directly to the centre of the earth. Obviously, whenever you move , this relationship changes imperceptibly and has to be compensated for.
"Plumb" changes by one degree for every ~70 miles moved across the surface of the earth. We measure this with fiber-optic gyros.
Tell them their car does the same thing, and they don't nosedive into the ground.
Wolfie has also spoken to flat earthers about how those constant and minute adjustments more than compensate for Coriolis effects too.
And let's be clear and fair here. They would also completely mask the slight turns that would be required to stay on the equator of a flat earth of the UN flag design (assuming a compass that works the way that compasses do on our Earth).
@@CorwynGC Maybe so, but that just means that most arguments about how avionics works on a flat vs globe earth are, at best, inconclusive.
I do say 'most' because some claims such as "the horizon always rises to eye level" pretty easy to debunk as one gains elevation. It's not a claim specific to aircraft, but certainly includes them if you want to get higher than mountains.
@@synthetic240 Not really. There are plenty of arguments that still work. Flight distance is one such example.
@@CorwynGC Good point. Distances in the south on an AE map are very distorted.
@@CorwynGCThose minute adjustments would not, however, mask the MASSIVE turns that would be required for a flight path originating in and ending in somewhere further north - for example, Edinburgh to Stockholm.
I've tried to explain this to flat Earthers many times. Next time I'll just refer them to your video. Well done. 😁
As an airline captain I approve of this message.
Still waiting for a flerf pilot to debunk it. Flerfs swear they have pilots in their ranks.
I love that having to tip the nose down every now and then is unbelievable to them but constantly having to turn left or right is perfectly fine.
Constantly having to turn left AND right, any time they cross the equator
This was my thought as well. Flat Earthers never discuss flying east or west and not having to correct the turn to stay in their model.
But planes don’t fly directly east-west in either model. They fly in great circles arcs on the globe, and if the earth were flat they’d fly in straight lines. Traveling along a latitude line on the globe would also require turning left or right, except on the equator.
@@origamiswami6272 On the flat earth maps that I have seen, lines of lattitude are circular, otherwise how does a flat earther account for flying continually East or West and never coming to the edge?
@@MaxGrey03 Because planes don’t have to follow lines of latitude. On a flat earth of that type, you’d start going east, and if you travel in a straight line your heading would eventually drift towards south. The same thing happens on the globe too, just to a different degree and the direction of drift depends on your hemisphere. Think about what would happen on the globe if you went a mile away from the South Pole and started walking east in a straight line. If you don’t turn to the right, your heading will drift northward.
Flatearther "But something word salad...."
Every bird that migrates "Shut up you idiot, the earth is a ball! We looked!" 😆
I love how much your dog loves you. When you talk using your hands your dog thinks that you are offering to shake a paw or high 5. He seems like a very good dog. So content to be with you always.
It's not just flat earthers that get confused with this. I was on a debunking channel, can't remember which, where the owner claimed that the plane does dip it's nose but it's automatic and only small inputs are needed. He got quite aggressive when I reminded him that a ship doesn't need to dip its bow to travel round the earth. Same for a submarine and air, like water, is a fluid.
Except it's not automatic, it's just too small to detect. A ship floats on the ocean and based on it's weight, it will stay at that level of equilibrium with the ocean and of course follow the ocean's curve.
Not so with an aircraft. There is nothing that makes an aircraft stay at any pressure level. Trimming the aircraft helps neutralize the forces as much as possible, but just like you can't take your hands off the wheel of a car, no matter how straight you point it down the road, there is no way to not have to make continual control corrections while flying an airplane. That's why autopilots are so important. It would dramatically increase fatigue if the pilot had to manually control the aircraft during teh enitre level flight.
Holding altitude is something that takes time to develop the skill. Private pilots only need to mainating altitude plus or minus 100 feet of desired, commercial pilots, plus or minus 50 feet.
No matter how well you trim out the aircraft for level flight, take your hands off the controls and turn off the autopilot for a minute or two and you are in for the ride of your life.
Not even comparable. The ship is supported by the curved water, so is adjusted automatically. A Plane is free to move vertically within limits, so it DOES need to be adjusted, albeit in very small increments.
@@cryptojihadi265 Wrong
Wrong
@@dnomyarnostaw Have you not watched the video?
They always seem to have an issue with size, leaving that just out there. The size of a plane vs the size of the planet. I'd hate to explain what a scale model means.
Just a quick comparison: smallest model airplane in a cursory search i did was 1:400. At that scale, earth would be a 20-miles wide ball (having a 10 mile radius). :-)
Avionics engineer here, I've tried to explain these principals to flerfers on many ccasions.
Ive even asked for them to show me where my calculations are incorrect for earth curve in navigation systems, weapons systems and comms systems...... not one has replied. Weird that.
And the flerf response to this will be something like "that's dumb" followed my name calling, brow beating, and anything but a reasonable counter to these understood mechanisms.
There is no 'taking curvature into account' as I often hear.
As a pilot, you level off at your required altitude by setting the pitch attitude to where it should be and see what your altimeter does, then adjust attitude as necessary. Once it flies level at the required altitude, trim the aircraft so all the forces are in balance, then you should be able to just let go and it will stay there. If ever the altitude starts to wander, repeat the procedure.
That's it. It really is that simple, almost as simple as letting an autopilot do it for you. You don't need to worry about curvature, because as you say, maintaining altitude already does that.
Once I flew in a small plane after a thunderstorm from Chicago to Niagara Falls. I listened to the pilots channel the whole way. The corrections added up to 28 feet. I think it must have been air pressure changes because of the storm.
The control tower would say something like, we have you at twenty niner niner seven.
@@stephenolan5539 29x97 would be a local altimeter setting.
US altimeters have a calibration scale set in inches of mercury. They take off and land with the local altimeter setting and if they go above a certain altitude, they switch to the standard setting which I think is 29x92.
In the UK, we use millibars as a pressure calibration, with the standard setting being 1013mb... which is the equivalent value of the US setting.
It just makes sure that everybody in the same area is flying on the same setting.
@@ma9x795 All correct. Altimeter settings have nothing to do with earth's curvature, it's as you said, a value to make sure everyone's altimeter shows the same numbers. It depends on the local weather (air pressure). It is in most countries not the actual local air pressure, but a value that makes sure that when you are on the ground on the airport, the altimeter shows the field elevation. E.g., landing in Munich, your altimeter would show something around 1500 ft.
@@givmi_more_w9251 When I learnt to fly, we took off and landed on QFE, not QNH ;)
Better start reading NASA and Air Force documents stating that earth is flat and stationary.
th-cam.com/video/hKw0b5vFXYI/w-d-xo.html
"Why isn't my car driving downwards?! The earth must be flat!"
"How come South isn't downhill? Earth must be flat!"
My uncle said earth was flat so. Must be true. No further information needed.
🤷♂️
In order to grow the distance between the plane and the earth - energy is needed to increase altitude
With no increase in power then no increase in distance to the ground
Funny that you never hear flat Earthers talk about airplanes making a constant left or right turn as the head east or west on THEIR model... I always explain it this way: Imagine that you're sitting in a race car on the equator of their flat Earth heading east. How much would you have to turn that steering wheel to stay on that line? The amount would be so tiny that it would seem like you're not turning the wheel at all. And, once you have it turned you would not need to turn it more since the angle would not change.
This one has always baffled me when I hear it from flat earth proponents. Even if one were ignorant of the sheer size of the planet and how any corrections would be so minute as to be unnoticeable, there's another good test to show why this is odd and how the flat earth community doesn't understand the globe earth.
Thanks to gravity, everything is pulled toward the center, yeah? If you got one of those tethered model airplanes that you hold via a wire and spin around, where the wire essentially acts like gravity, the model plane isn't constantly "correcting" for the circular flight. The wire, aka gravity, is doing that for the model plane.
They can't model flat earth that allows plane flight to maintain consistent speed between similar distances on a North vs south hemisphere flight. Any map projection they choose, set a target of say 1000km, and you can show them a generally equivalent flight across country (say, from LA to NY in the northern hemisphere, and across Australia in the southern) that would be impossible on a flat earth model. If they use one that's correctly adjusted for east to west trips, you just need to go from pole to equator on the same projection.
It's ridiculous.
Most flerfers argue that gravity as we know and define it does not exist. It's just the inertia from the great earth disk flying upward really fast. How that works they can never really answer with math.
@@chrismaverick9828 I usually hear arguments about buoyancy and density, rather than upward inertia
@@chrismaverick9828
Gravity is a great debunker of the flat earth 'theory' which is why they refuse to acknowledge it exists.
@@michaelsorensen7567 I think they tried upward inertia first but over the years shifted to the slightly less stupid explanation with density.
What I love is that all these debunking of flat earthers (who I think are idiots) is that I get to learn even more science in the process myself!
One thing I find funny about flat earth is that the US had to go on an arc to drop the bombs on Japan instead of just going on a straight line. What, was keeping a secret about the earth's shape more important than winning a war?
Nicely put together, shows exactly why their arguments are ridiculous. I can picture Oakley watching this and devolving into silly useless points like "Herpaderp he said level that means the ERF FLAT"
I'm still waiting for a flat earther to explain why air gets thinner the higher up you go. Makes no sense without gravity.
The funniest part of that argument for me is they say space can't exist without a barrier because the air pressure would equalise into space 🤔
One tried to tell me that plants give off oxygen and that increases pressure at ground level.
@@stephenolan5539Plants use most of their oxygen up for themselves, so tell the flattards to try again. Most of the Earth’s oxygen comes from microorganisms in the sea, and no, that doesn’t account for the majority of the increased pressure either. Tell them to put oxygen in a closed container at 1 ATM and measure the density. More pressure will appear at the bottom, are there little plants in there making oxygen?
Flat earth doesn't deny gravity.
@@jimwhelan9152 You haven't seen many arguments from flatties, then.
Very thorough and yet simple. It’s hard to say all this in a TikTok or Facebook comment. Well done!
Seriously, I don't think flat earthers actually believe what they say they do. I think they're just trolling and enjoying the attention and income they are able to generate by vigorously arguing for a position they don't actually hold. Like debate club in high school, except if they do it right they get paid well for their efforts.
Evan after a perfect explanation of the basic mechanics of flight that an 8 year old could understand you're still going to get "Yes but Naa Ah, because...." Then word salad follows.
Explain , how a compass works on a constantly moving globe ? I’ll wait
You have to be 8 to be dumb enough to believe this,
@@tommosher8271 I guess you will have to wait until you are eight years old to understand it, then.
@@LegaciesLiveForever Present your theory on why a compass cannot work on a planet. Everything in the universe moves, sparky.
@@LegaciesLiveForever Planetary rotation defines the direction north. A gyrocompass could not work without the rotation of he Earth.
Hey Dave - I really appreciate all your well-researched, knowledgeable, and carefully explained discussions, especially this one as I'm a small aircraft pilot and see you touched on all the important highlights. And watching your responses to this entire flat earth business brings up one of my "what if ..." fantasies. I've thought "What if" I actually won some huge lottery and had money to spare so I could make an offer to the flat earth community; let them pick their most well-known/prominent representative and provide that person with a full "ticket to ride" to the ISS via Space-X. I would think that would put them in a very awkward position - refuse an opportunity to "prove" their position or accept, travel to the ISS, and be forced to concede when they found no wires and likely spend some of their time being space sick because they would be truly weightless. In any case, keep up the good fight.
Problem is, flerfs fight among themselves about how the flat earth thing works. So getting one representative probably not gonna happen. And I have a vision of a flerf flying to the ISS, gazing through the cupola and suddenly screaming and scraping with their nails to "remove the paint" that must be what NASA uses to make it look like a curved Earth. No proof will ever be enough. Ever.
Send them to Antartica to find the ice wall instead, let them suffer a little, why should they have the privilege of having a space flight
Just make sure you give the other side a fair study, oh thats right youtube has cancelled all the educated people on the FE train, now all u get is one sided censorship, hmmm wonder why that is
The great physicist Sir Isaac Newton realised that anything circling the earth is constantly falling towards it. This is perfectly compatible with the concept of a round earth. Any physics course will teach you.
It's like driving through a parking lot full of speed bumps then running over a coin. You're not going to notice.
That very beginning bit of "after a few hours in a flight, you'll be in another country" reminded me how huge Canada and the US are. "In another province/territory" is the only experience I have on planes.
Also Australia. I know that to fly from one end of Europe to the other, eg UK to Cyprus, takes about 4 hours and crosses numerous countries. To go from Perth in western Australia to Sydney in eastern Australia takes a similar amount of time.
On a flat earth, a plane flying along the equator would have to steer to the side all the time.
But this is not the case. Checkmate flerfs :P
Just like a plane cruising at 33,000 ft--This explanation will go right over a FE head.
Nice one Dave.
I see the one thing flerfs won’t do is actually use a picture that shows the earth and an airplane in scale, so they can see how small a plane is in relation to earth and how minor the adjustment is to maintain a set altitude.
Not to mention the vast majority of the time the plane is binging flown by the GPS based autopilot. Oh, wait, the GPA system, which is...wait for it... satellites orbiting the globe.
Number one fact about airplanes that flat Earthers seem not to understand. The nose of the aircraft does NOT point in the direction the plane is flying.
Hmm... What?
🙄😬😵💫
I won't be flying any time soon in a plane you attempt to pilot!
@@frontenac5083 When planes land, is the nose of the plane pointing down?
@@MrEjwheelerbut in that example the plane tries to fly up, so im also sceptic of the claim 😅
@@frontenac5083 Most planes achieve "level" flight with a positive pitch angle where the nose is pointed slightly higher than the actual direction of travel. When you combine that with the possibility of crosswinds it can make it so that the plane is moving through the air in a direction that is to one side or the other of where the nose is pointed.
@@frontenac5083 Er... he's right, a planes direction (where it is going) is usually different to its heading (where the nose is pointing).
‘A plane would have to constantly dip its nose!’
A plane doesn’t even dip its nose when landing..
It's dips it nose when descending. Once it gets to crushing altitude it's not dipping down. Flat
My response to this ridiculousness is to point out that if an airplane has to continually point its nose down to keep from flying off into space, then a boat traveling the same path across the ocean would also have to point its nose down to avoid flying off into air.
The same logic applies to anything traveling along what appears to be a straight line on a map.
Good to know submarines and planes fundamentally operate the same, from adjustment of the planes to trimming the vessel
yeah, i mean, they're both flying through a liquid. submarines just fly through a lot denser of a liquid, and have to deal with buoyancy.
@@pharynx007 Planes have to deal with buoyancy too, they just have bigger problems.
You are one of the best flat earth debunkers at the moment, long May you continue
As long as that dog will live❤
I am sad that a movement to debunk flat earth even needs to exist
@@lawrencelopez9839 as long as they milk out innocent people... 💰we need to expose them
what is the current count of people alive today that would need to keep the "secret of FE" alive? several tens millions of people keeping a secret that would be the biggest secret ever? its the silliest thing flerfers think, is that it could ever be kept secret.
More or less anyone who’s not a flat earther
8:25 - I think a good reference for this is watching the hour hand on a clock. The plan would turn nearly 4x slower than this
As Dave has "stolen" (= already mentioned) most of the numbers that I usually list, just one: This downward pitch correction amount to 1cm/second. Of course, every second another cm from the corrected position.
In one hangout, the flatlings came with their usual "the plane would have to dive down 8kms (or so) after 1 hour" - Triumph.
Then one of them (might have been Jeran) made the error and calculated the correction after half an hour - oops, just 2 km.
Again, 15 minutes - just 500 meters 7.5 minutes - 125 meters.
Only then it dawned on him that the square law was just crushing him, and he aborted and kept his mouth shut.
Could I ask the flat earth community to explain how their 'model' accounts for a shorter day in the Falkland islands than in Reykjavik, Iceland, whilst taking into consideration the time difference between the Falkland islands, where its 0515, and Perth, Australia, where its 1615?
Agreed.
But I would have stopped at "Could I ask the flat earth community to explain their model".
Just asking them to come up with one is already a lot to ask.
@@daddy4934So true
I have calculated in the past that the amount of dip in the nose of a plane at 8"/mi will be about equivalent to the thickness of a couple of sheets of paper. I think the thickness of the flat-earthers is much greater than that.
All of their arguments are based on like a city-sized earth, maybe a state‐sized earth. How cute.
Just saw one here in the comments claiming "the ball would be rapidly dropping away".
Even for non-flerfers, the size of the world is really hard to grasp. People in general have issues wrapping their head around large quantities.... even millions or billions doesn't quite compute in our brains. But normal people have a way of accepting answers supported by logic, except for flerfers. Anything their brains can't handle becomes a conspiracy, a falsehood or something the government wants them to believe to keep them dumb. Problem is, no matter what happens or what is being said, they ARE dumb.
They think there's up and down in space.
I've noticed true grasp of scale is something flat earthers really struggle to comprehend- just how small must their mental model of the world be if they seriously use this argument and claim planes have to be constantly dipping down, if they spent more time looking at pictures and videos of the Earth from space and the ISS maybe they'd be able to grasp the sheer size of our planet a bit better.
I havent gone through all comments, but have yet to see one flerfer dare to make any kind argument against this explaination.
I love you science guys. Not only do I constantly learn something new every time I watch but I am endlessly entertained by the complete lack of critical thinking on the side of Flat Earther’s. Thank you for filling my insomniac hours with fun 😊
In other words, planes always find their level.
Same as flat earthers like sayinh about water
Flat Earthers' confusion about how planes fly is based on their utter confusion about what up and down are.
And the effects of local gravity.
One thing that also disproves the flat earth theory is the fact that the gyroscope or the gyroscope data needs to be adjusted as the plane goes around the globe, because the gyroscope keeps its exact position in the universe.
Do you know why they stopped Concorde? It's because they were worried that if one hit the inside of the dome, the pointy nose might pierce it. I rest my case.
Its why airlines have stopped using the A380 ... low bridge ;-)
10:39 Why do flat earthers arrogantly IGNORE this point?
Cos it ACTUALLY answers their ridiculous question! 😅
exactly! even when you're flying constantly at 39000ft above sea level, just watch those ailerons (since you can't watch the rudder and elevators), they're constantly moving to cope with wind and pressure fluctuations and such ... those corrections are 1000x bigger than the correction for the curvature - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. (Auto)piliots are constantly working to keep the plane level while cruising.
I got bored of explaining all this to flat earthers; it didn't matter that I also pointed out that I've had a pilot's licence for 25 years, work on the things every day and so I know what I am talking about, their Dunning-Kruger self-belief in their notion that they know more about stuff than people with actual knowledge and experience of things, always kicked in. And that's because they don't want to be told the truth, they want to think they are special and 'in on a secret'. They'll do the same thing with this video too, I guarantee it. Facts mean nothing to those people.