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.
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.
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)
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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"
@@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.
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.
I have the same observation with ballistics. Gunners have been doing computations assuming that the Earth is round and they regularly hit their targets.
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!
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!
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 🤭🤭🤭
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 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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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 - 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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Год назад+10
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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. :)
Also, another thing that shows that curvature of the earth is a real thing can be seen by opening analogue gyroscopic instruments (like the artificial horizon). Since the gyro will remain orientated as the inertial system in which it was started after a few hours of flight you would notice that the instrument is indicating a slightly wrong angle, that's because the gyro angle reference would still be parallel to the starting position, whereas the plane would be slightly angled because of earth's curvature (this phenomena is called apparent precession). For this reason the gyroscopic instruments like the artificial horizon have correction systems to turn the gyroscope so that it follows earth's curvature. This kind of system is in every kind of gyroscopic instrument but on the older analogue ones it's a physical thing that is attached to the gyro so you can literally see it with your own eyes. Minute 4:40 in: ruclips.net/video/b6XzGgOkWtQ/видео.html Minute 5:55 and 8:00 in: ruclips.net/video/aFmq5N4oOc4/видео.html (sorry it's in italian, but you can see the physical thing that's explained as a drawing in the first video, so the language doesn't really matter)
Wolfie6020 actually did a video showing the inner workings of a gyro instrument (artificial horizon) and showed how it will self-correct during flight. ruclips.net/video/z1QGRPVBZvw/видео.html
Some do. Don't think we can possibly onvent something too absurd for them to believe. There are many flat Earthers who subscribe to the "personal dome" model, similar to rendering in first-person video games.
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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). :-)
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.
@@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.
You missed the opportunity to point out the spinning trim wheel in the cockpit shot. It's the spinning wheel with the white stripe next to the pilots knee. This wheel allows pilots to adjust manually in case the electrically powered trim motors fail.
If you have ever been in a cockpit during flight, you may have noticed that the trim wheel keeps spinning back and forth all the time. That's because people back in the cabin keeps moving back and forth, and in doing so shifts the CG (centre of gravity) slightly, and the autopilot compensates for that in order to maintain level flight.
@@royeb63 I've flown a plane, but it had manual trim. But yes, you are correct. Autopilot generally controls the trim. Pilots usually do it through switches on the yoke.
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.
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.
If the world is flat and not rotating how come it takes 4 hours and 21 minutes to fly from Melbourne to Perth (Australia) but only 3 hours and 35 minutes to fly from Perth to Melbourne????????
Yes, the earth is a globe. But it is not "obvious" and "common sense". Consider the number of people over thousands of years who have believed the earth was flat based on what they could readily see. It took some careful observations and deep thought to move from a flat earth model to a globe model. My favorite observation is that, to an Australian, the man-in-the-moon is upside down.
@@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?
@@cardinalRG did you watch the full video? i think you didn't, but let me sum it up: Due to changes in aair pressure following the earth's curvature, the planes thrust and lif change very slightly cauusing the plane to basically self correct course WITHOUT NEEDING TO DO A FUCKING NOSEDIVE the self correction is so small it's unnoticeable, being 0.002 degrees per second MEANING PLANES DON'T NOSEDIVE.
@@cardinalRG I was referring to the scale model they used in the demonstration If the plane was truly to scale with the globe that he was using, the plane would've ben as small as the point of a pin next to a 12 inch diameter globe. Instead, it would be, if it were to that scale, a 5000 mile long plane or longer, which would mean that it would have to dip
@@dragonweyr44 --No, friend. The aircraft wouldn’t have to dip no matter how large it is compared to the Earth. Remember, a _downward_ movement means getting closer to the Earth’s mean surface, and in level flight, no part of the aircraft does that, but instead remains at the same altitude. This is true of an A380 circling the Earth or a tennis ball, or any other spherical object regardless of relative size.
Best flat earth debunking channel (as far as I've seen). So many of these channels are condescending, and really don't have more than a rudimentary understanding of what they're talking about. Dave is only mildly snarky when he gets directly attacked by someone, and he clearly knows his shit. He doesn't always get everything correct, but mistakes are few and far between. The kicker for me is that I almost always learn something. It might be about aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, or photography, but there's usually something there. And he's got really novel methods of attacking arguments which often hadn't occurred to me. Always a pleasure when he uploads.
I've heard this argument too from a flat earther. Another argument I've heard is how do people in Australia stay on the earth. Gravity doesn't cut it for them. As a cyclist I'm constantly adjusting my balance to keep myself level. However, these adjustments are so slight and so automatic that I'm not consciously aware that I'm doing it. At any rate I enjoy your videos.
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.
I learn a lot in your videos, what still amazes me is that there are people that think the earth is flat. You are very smart , love how you can simplify it for someone like me to understand. Thanks , have a good day.
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.
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.
Airliners also have automatic pilots which keep the aircraft at the desired attitude relative to the continuously measured local vertical. When you initialise an inertial platform when it's stationary on the ground it uses a set of 3 accelerometers and 3 gyros to level and orient itself. Interestingly, the process is much quicker if you enter your lat and long as then it can allow for the rotation of the Globe beneath it.
Uh no? I get the basic idea you’re stating, but it’s vastly incomplete in both definition and execution. First of all, inertial platforms neither measure nor maintain ANY ALTITUDE, they are horizontal positioning systems. GPS however does have a crude amount of height data available, but no where near the precision needed and supplied by the barometric pressure measuring systems. Next your quote: “desired attitude Relative to the continuously measured local vertical” - First, “attitude” is the pitch of the aircraft, I assume you mean ALTITUDE. But what does the rest of that quote specifically mean? Radar height above the ground? Barometric pressure altitude level? GPS database altitude relative to mean sea level? Automatic pilots are maintaining a LOCAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ALTITUDE (or GPS if otherwise not available) which means following a locally measured barometric pressure and converting that to an altitude indication (height above sea level) if the pilots have set the proper local barometric pressure. And of course it’s “local and continuously measured” how else would it work?
@@DoctorShocktor uh no. I did mean attitude, and that’s pitch and roll. INS also measure height change the same way they measure horizontal motion, by integrating the output of the vertical accelerometer into vertical velocity and distance. Vertical position is of course updated with the Bari input, just as the horizontal position in filtered with GPS to calibrate the drift rate. I was trying to illustrate that the behaviour of an INS in itself disproves the flat earth hypothesis. I clearly failed.
@@DoctorShocktor Actually, some modern aircraft use inertial smoothing to help with altitude control. In some situations, you may see both the captain's and F/O's altimeters disagreeing with selected altitude. This is next level up stuff. It was in one of my engineering training manuals, but I can't find any internet references to it at the moment.
@@ImperrfectStranger Fortunately it was in my post-grad aerosystems course. It's generally done by kalman filtering and can result in pretty accurate 3-axis velocities and displacements. These filters combine the short-term accuracy of the IN with the long-term accuracy of the GPS and baro inputs. It used to be particularly important for weapon aiming but now not so much as we have terminal guidance via laser designator or other homing sensors. Not something that concerns airliners too much though.
An inertial platform has to do a fair bit of 'running on the spot', as the earth is rotating in space. If mechanical gyros are used they will try to remain stationary in SPACE not relative to the earth. Laser ring gyros are little different. Mems devices as well. Straight accelerometer platforms are simpler, particularly for short excursions. If the earth was flat there would be no problem.
An aircraft in the cruise will be maintaining a steady pressure altitude, either under control by the pilot or the autopilot. And yes, it will have to continuously pitch downwards in order to do that. But the pitch rate will be so slow as to be completely imperceptible to anyone - including the pilot. Think of it this way: For a subsonic aircraft, it will be pitching down at less than half the rotational rate of the hour hand on an analogue clock. Sit and look at such a clock for a while and see if you can perceive it moving. You can't. And then realise that the aircraft pitch rate will be half that. (I've spent my career in flight simulation, global navigation, ATC, and Safety Assurance, and I have plenty of experience in that field. I have flown as a pilot and a passenger throughout that period. I know for a fact that all aircraft navigation is calculated based on the Earth being a globe.)
Wrong. They all know that the earth is flat and did not move. But they cannot speak about it. They do not want to risk a good paid Job only to tell the truth.
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.
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.
@@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.
Hey there! While i agree of course with the conclusion, the whole aerofoil thing is not the primary reason for why planes fly. Despite that, it is still thought in a lot of physics textbooks and such. If the aerofoil was the primary reason, how would planes be able to fly upside down? The real primary reason in the deflection of air molecules to another direction, thus a change in momentum occurs propelling the plane upwards. Don't get me wrong, the aerofoil effect is certainly a thing, just not that much of an effect.
Sorry, it’s more complex than that and many scientists and engineers now are separating into various camps and concepts, it’s VERY conceptual and up to one’s expertise, and point of view regarding the huge amount of variables. I.E. loads of info, pick your favorite conclusion.
You've already busted the Flat Earth "model" by 4:00, when you casually mention there being less air at higher altitudes. Flerfers think that it's impossible to have an atmosphere on a planet that's surrounded by a vacuum. To do this, they have to ignore actual mountains of evidence (ie- how climbing a mountain perfectly demonstrates the thinning atmosphere with increasing altitude).
Yes, most flatties accept that atmospheric pressure drops with increasing altitude, but it seems impossible for them to understand that this pressure drop continues all the way down to zero (vacuum) at very high altitudes. It's a malfunction in their brains, probably. They just keep yapping the stupid: "you can't have pressure next to a vacuum without a container". 😂
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@Eman_Puedama Also, going through the English school system gives you at least basic physics, which can be entirely lacking for Americans.
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?
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!
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.
"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
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... 😂😂😂
"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.
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
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’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. 😂🤣🐞
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
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.
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??
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.
Rotation and curvature haven’t been proved
@@Cormac-jd2kx
Except by the og comment and everybody else.
@@projectpitchfork860
Unproven
The vaxx was proven effective and millions believed it 😂😂😂
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.
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!!!
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.
I thought everyone knew:
Flying is the Art form of falling to the ground.....
And missing with style!
But watch out for flying parties.
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 - 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is one of the most clear, helpful videos I’ve seen in, not only for debunking flat earthers but for my own understanding
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
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.
Tell them their car does the same thing, and they don't nosedive into the ground.
"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.
🤷♂️
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.
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.
@@BrianWelch-vc7xycan confirm I’m under 18 and I still know this stuff 😂
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.
ruclips.net/video/hKw0b5vFXYI/видео.html
There's no way anyone who actually believes the earth is flat will be able to understand any of this.
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.
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.
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.
Also, another thing that shows that curvature of the earth is a real thing can be seen by opening analogue gyroscopic instruments (like the artificial horizon). Since the gyro will remain orientated as the inertial system in which it was started after a few hours of flight you would notice that the instrument is indicating a slightly wrong angle, that's because the gyro angle reference would still be parallel to the starting position, whereas the plane would be slightly angled because of earth's curvature (this phenomena is called apparent precession). For this reason the gyroscopic instruments like the artificial horizon have correction systems to turn the gyroscope so that it follows earth's curvature. This kind of system is in every kind of gyroscopic instrument but on the older analogue ones it's a physical thing that is attached to the gyro so you can literally see it with your own eyes.
Minute 4:40 in: ruclips.net/video/b6XzGgOkWtQ/видео.html
Minute 5:55 and 8:00 in: ruclips.net/video/aFmq5N4oOc4/видео.html (sorry it's in italian, but you can see the physical thing that's explained as a drawing in the first video, so the language doesn't really matter)
Wolfie6020 actually did a video showing the inner workings of a gyro instrument (artificial horizon) and showed how it will self-correct during flight.
ruclips.net/video/z1QGRPVBZvw/видео.html
Very thorough and yet simple. It’s hard to say all this in a TikTok or Facebook comment. Well done!
It's like they think an airplane is only a little smaller than the planet.
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.
Some do. Don't think we can possibly onvent something too absurd for them to believe. There are many flat Earthers who subscribe to the "personal dome" model, similar to rendering in first-person video games.
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.
Actually, as a pilot curvature of earth does not exist. All is calculated, navigated and flown as flat service
How many boosters have you had?
@@keveng8232 you are obviously not a pilot.
@@ronprince1478You guessed wrong. Go ask pilots in person yourself if they adjust for curvature or earths motion.
@@keveng8232 I am a pilot. And a sailor. I have to navigate in both cases.
Wouldn´t it be great if going into space would be this easy!😂
I still wouldn't trust Ryanair 🤣
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?
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
Airplane functionality lessons with a side of dissing on the flerfers; love it
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"
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.
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
Flatearther "But something word salad...."
Every bird that migrates "Shut up you idiot, the earth is a ball! We looked!" 😆
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.
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.
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.
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.
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). :-)
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.
You missed the opportunity to point out the spinning trim wheel in the cockpit shot. It's the spinning wheel with the white stripe next to the pilots knee.
This wheel allows pilots to adjust manually in case the electrically powered trim motors fail.
If you have ever been in a cockpit during flight, you may have noticed that the trim wheel keeps spinning back and forth all the time.
That's because people back in the cabin keeps moving back and forth, and in doing so shifts the CG (centre of gravity) slightly, and the autopilot compensates for that in order to maintain level flight.
@@royeb63 I've flown a plane, but it had manual trim. But yes, you are correct. Autopilot generally controls the trim. Pilots usually do it through switches on the yoke.
I've tried to explain this to flat Earthers many times. Next time I'll just refer them to your video. Well done. 😁
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.
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.
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
If the world is flat and not rotating how come it takes 4 hours and 21 minutes to fly from Melbourne to Perth (Australia) but only 3 hours and 35 minutes to fly from Perth to Melbourne????????
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!
Just like a plane cruising at 33,000 ft--This explanation will go right over a FE head.
Nice one Dave.
It is so sad that you have to explain this. To most normal people, this is just obvious and common sense!
great vid as always
Who said flerfs were normal?
Normal people don't understand flight. That's just a sad fact.
Yes, the earth is a globe. But it is not "obvious" and "common sense". Consider the number of people over thousands of years who have believed the earth was flat based on what they could readily see. It took some careful observations and deep thought to move from a flat earth model to a globe model. My favorite observation is that, to an Australian, the man-in-the-moon is upside down.
I learned something from this video, so it’s not all bad.
@@thomasw.eggers4303 That's an old myth. Most civilizations knew it was a globe for most of history.
It's like driving through a parking lot full of speed bumps then running over a coin. You're not going to notice.
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.
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.
Flat earthers DO realize that planes, even the largest planes on Earth, aren't thousands of miles long, right?
This is the only way their model works
It's not a matter of scale. No aircraft, regardless of how large, would have to "nose down" to follow the Earth's curvature.
@@cardinalRG did you watch the full video? i think you didn't, but let me sum it up:
Due to changes in aair pressure following the earth's curvature, the planes thrust and lif change very slightly cauusing the plane to basically self correct course WITHOUT NEEDING TO DO A FUCKING NOSEDIVE the self correction is so small it's unnoticeable, being 0.002 degrees per second MEANING PLANES DON'T NOSEDIVE.
@@cardinalRG I was referring to the scale model they used in the demonstration
If the plane was truly to scale with the globe that he was using, the plane would've ben as small as the point of a pin next to a 12 inch diameter globe.
Instead, it would be, if it were to that scale, a 5000 mile long plane or longer, which would mean that it would have to dip
@@leschatssuperstars1741 --Your comment is addressed to me, but was apparently meant for someone else. It doesn't address anything that I said.
@@dragonweyr44 --No, friend. The aircraft wouldn’t have to dip no matter how large it is compared to the Earth. Remember, a _downward_ movement means getting closer to the Earth’s mean surface, and in level flight, no part of the aircraft does that, but instead remains at the same altitude. This is true of an A380 circling the Earth or a tennis ball, or any other spherical object regardless of relative size.
Best flat earth debunking channel (as far as I've seen). So many of these channels are condescending, and really don't have more than a rudimentary understanding of what they're talking about. Dave is only mildly snarky when he gets directly attacked by someone, and he clearly knows his shit. He doesn't always get everything correct, but mistakes are few and far between.
The kicker for me is that I almost always learn something. It might be about aerodynamics, orbital mechanics, or photography, but there's usually something there. And he's got really novel methods of attacking arguments which often hadn't occurred to me. Always a pleasure when he uploads.
I agree, it's educational either way.
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.
I've heard this argument too from a flat earther. Another argument I've heard is how do people in Australia stay on the earth. Gravity doesn't cut it for them. As a cyclist I'm constantly adjusting my balance to keep myself level. However, these adjustments are so slight and so automatic that I'm not consciously aware that I'm doing it. At any rate I enjoy your videos.
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.
I learn a lot in your videos, what still amazes me is that there are people that think the earth is flat. You are very smart , love how you can simplify it for someone like me to understand. Thanks , have a good day.
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.
Constant pressure level chasing by an altimeter can be confusing to flat earthers...
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
Even IF gravity wasn’t a thing, couldn't you just dip the plane once to have it lower at the same rate as the ground?
They can't comprehend that earth is really really big
It's because they never go outside. They think the Earth is the same size as the pictures they see on the Internet.
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.
Airliners also have automatic pilots which keep the aircraft at the desired attitude relative to the continuously measured local vertical. When you initialise an inertial platform when it's stationary on the ground it uses a set of 3 accelerometers and 3 gyros to level and orient itself. Interestingly, the process is much quicker if you enter your lat and long as then it can allow for the rotation of the Globe beneath it.
Uh no? I get the basic idea you’re stating, but it’s vastly incomplete in both definition and execution. First of all, inertial platforms neither measure nor maintain ANY ALTITUDE, they are horizontal positioning systems. GPS however does have a crude amount of height data available, but no where near the precision needed and supplied by the barometric pressure measuring systems. Next your quote: “desired attitude Relative to the continuously measured local vertical” - First, “attitude” is the pitch of the aircraft, I assume you mean ALTITUDE. But what does the rest of that quote specifically mean? Radar height above the ground? Barometric pressure altitude level? GPS database altitude relative to mean sea level? Automatic pilots are maintaining a LOCAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE ALTITUDE (or GPS if otherwise not available) which means following a locally measured barometric pressure and converting that to an altitude indication (height above sea level) if the pilots have set the proper local barometric pressure. And of course it’s “local and continuously measured” how else would it work?
@@DoctorShocktor uh no. I did mean attitude, and that’s pitch and roll. INS also measure height change the same way they measure horizontal motion, by integrating the output of the vertical accelerometer into vertical velocity and distance. Vertical position is of course updated with the Bari input, just as the horizontal position in filtered with GPS to calibrate the drift rate. I was trying to illustrate that the behaviour of an INS in itself disproves the flat earth hypothesis. I clearly failed.
@@DoctorShocktor Actually, some modern aircraft use inertial smoothing to help with altitude control. In some situations, you may see both the captain's and F/O's altimeters disagreeing with selected altitude. This is next level up stuff. It was in one of my engineering training manuals, but I can't find any internet references to it at the moment.
@@ImperrfectStranger Fortunately it was in my post-grad aerosystems course. It's generally done by kalman filtering and can result in pretty accurate 3-axis velocities and displacements. These filters combine the short-term accuracy of the IN with the long-term accuracy of the GPS and baro inputs. It used to be particularly important for weapon aiming but now not so much as we have terminal guidance via laser designator or other homing sensors. Not something that concerns airliners too much though.
An inertial platform has to do a fair bit of 'running on the spot', as the earth is rotating in space. If mechanical gyros are used they will try to remain stationary in SPACE not relative to the earth. Laser ring gyros are little different. Mems devices as well. Straight accelerometer platforms are simpler, particularly for short excursions. If the earth was flat there would be no problem.
An aircraft in the cruise will be maintaining a steady pressure altitude, either under control by the pilot or the autopilot. And yes, it will have to continuously pitch downwards in order to do that. But the pitch rate will be so slow as to be completely imperceptible to anyone - including the pilot. Think of it this way: For a subsonic aircraft, it will be pitching down at less than half the rotational rate of the hour hand on an analogue clock. Sit and look at such a clock for a while and see if you can perceive it moving. You can't. And then realise that the aircraft pitch rate will be half that. (I've spent my career in flight simulation, global navigation, ATC, and Safety Assurance, and I have plenty of experience in that field. I have flown as a pilot and a passenger throughout that period. I know for a fact that all aircraft navigation is calculated based on the Earth being a globe.)
Any flerf who says a plane has to dip it's nose should be asked the following question:
"Do you see cars doing that when they go around a bend?"
You mean across/above a hill-top?
@@irrelevant_noob No, I do not.
@@Kyrelel and why would cars be "doing that" (dip their nose) when going "around a bend" then? 😕
@@irrelevant_noob Exactly. They don't.
@@BrianWelch-vc7xy ... well ofc they don't, since a "bend" would be flat. Why would *_anything_* be dipping on a flat road?! 🙄
I like your concise but easy to understand explanations. good work!
there are 00.00% "flat earth pilots" .... and there are 100% "globe pilots" .... (why is that) ???
I've had several flat Earthers who claimed to be pilots. It didn't take long to expose them as liars.
“There’s 0% 2+2=5 mathematicians, and there are 100% 2+2=4 mathematicians. (Why is that)???”
@@SkullpunkArt flat earthers always fail at math - isn't that ironic ??
Wrong. They all know that the earth is flat and did not move.
But they cannot speak about it.
They do not want to risk a good paid Job only to tell the truth.
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
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).
Hey there! While i agree of course with the conclusion, the whole aerofoil thing is not the primary reason for why planes fly. Despite that, it is still thought in a lot of physics textbooks and such. If the aerofoil was the primary reason, how would planes be able to fly upside down?
The real primary reason in the deflection of air molecules to another direction, thus a change in momentum occurs propelling the plane upwards.
Don't get me wrong, the aerofoil effect is certainly a thing, just not that much of an effect.
Sorry, it’s more complex than that and many scientists and engineers now are separating into various camps and concepts, it’s VERY conceptual and up to one’s expertise, and point of view regarding the huge amount of variables. I.E. loads of info, pick your favorite conclusion.
It's the same as when driving a car: the pressure of the road under the tires keeps it lined up with the (level) road.
You've already busted the Flat Earth "model" by 4:00, when you casually mention there being less air at higher altitudes. Flerfers think that it's impossible to have an atmosphere on a planet that's surrounded by a vacuum. To do this, they have to ignore actual mountains of evidence (ie- how climbing a mountain perfectly demonstrates the thinning atmosphere with increasing altitude).
Yes, most flatties accept that atmospheric pressure drops with increasing altitude, but it seems impossible for them to understand that this pressure drop continues all the way down to zero (vacuum) at very high altitudes.
It's a malfunction in their brains, probably. They just keep yapping the stupid: "you can't have pressure next to a vacuum without a container". 😂