Flat-earthers love to present hundreds and hundreds of silly arguments. Some of them might make a tiny bit of sense, others are completely nonsensical and incomprehensible. On the more incomprehensible and ridiculous side is this one:
"If the Earth was a globe, then airplanes would need to be constantly pitching down when they fly, in order to follow the curvature of the Earth."
And that's it. That's the entire argument. They don't explain any further. They don't explain what exactly is the problem that they are seeing in that.
Yes, they seriously present that argument as I presented it above, without any further arguments or points, apparently because it, all on its own, shows something impossible and ridiculous, or something that everybody knows that just doesn't happen. They present it as if it were somehow completely self-evident what the "problem" is, without having to explain it any further.
My answer that argument is: "Yes, so what?"
Seriously. So what? So what if airplanes need to be constantly pitching down when flying longer distances? What's the problem? Why is that a problem? Why do you consider it somehow self-evidently not true?
I don't think that even they themselves can fully explain what the supposed "problem" with this is. What I think is happening is that, like always, their concepts of things are at the intellectual level of a toddler, and when they imagine an airplane having to "pitch down" they think that the pilot needs to push the control column ie. yoke forward by quite an amount, which rather obviously doesn't happen, as everybody can see.
If that's their mental picture, I really have to wonder how on earth (hah!) they come up with it. Rather obviously the Earth is so immensely large that the amount of "turning downwards" that an airplane needs to do in order to maintain altitude is absolutely minuscule and almost imperceptible. And, in fact, is being done by the autopilot (which is constantly trying to maintain the same altitude, ie. distance from sea level).
In fact, the autopilot is constantly needing to make micro-adjustments to the pitch of the plane in order to compensate for differences in air pressure, winds, turbulence and so on. Those things are several orders of magnitude more significant than the tiny amount of adjustment needed to compensate for the curvature of the Earth.
In fact, even if the pilot had to fly manually for some reason, he would be doing the same thing: Constantly adjusting the orientation of the plane to maintain altitude because air pressure differences and winds are constantly slightly throwing it off.
And, by the way, these adjustments are mostly done by so-called "trims", the adjustment being called "trimming", rather than moving the yoke. The autopilot constantly trims the aircraft in order to maintain a constant altitude, it doesn't move the yoke. (When you adjust the "trim" of the aircraft, it means that the position of certain ailerons are permanently set to a particular position, with the goal of keeping level flight. This is not done by keeping the yoke in a particular position, but by adjusting these trimming ailerons.) Of course flatearthers have absolutely no idea of any of this because they don't do any research.
And by the way, all passenger planes have an extremely accurate inertial navigation system (that consists of gyroscopes and other devices) that very accurately measure the orientation, direction and position of the airplane. And yes, these devices do detect how the plane is slowly but surely "pitching down" as it flies long distances. It can be measured and these devices do so, and this is taken into account when these devices estimate where on Earth the airplane currently is.
This is similar to how flat-earthers love to constantly quote the big scary numbers of the velocity of the Earth around the Sun and the galactic center, without any further explanation. They just quote the numbers... and that's it. That's the entire argument. No further explanations or points. It's like the numbers alone are supposed to be the argument and it should somehow be self-evident what the "problem" is supposed to be.
Comments
Post a Comment