More government documents referring to a “Flat Earth” …
In a previous blog post entitled NASA refers to “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”, I show you an official NASA document called “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988″, which on page 30 states …
3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
‘This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.’
Here is another government document, this time from the FAA, entitled …
that makes a Flat Earth reference.
On page 32, It states …
So in other words, for all intents and purposes, unless you are traveling at above Mach 3, or intend to travel into low Earth orbit or higher, then you should just consider the earth to be flat.
But if the Earth was truly curved then this would not work.
For example if you were flying from Sydney, on the east coast of Australia to Perth in Western Australia you would have to travel a distance of 2034 miles.
The alleged Earth curvature over that distance should be 522.37 miles. That means that unless the pilot constantly dipped the nose of the plane down towards the ground as he flew, by the time he reached Perth he would be flying at an altitude of 522.37 miles or 2,758,113 feet higher than he should be!
This fact alone proves the EARTH IS FLAT!
You can download the document directly from the FAA here.
If the earth is a spinning globe (oblate spheroid) in the infinite vacuum of space then why does NASA in “NASA Reference Publication 1207 – August 1988” on page 30, refer to a “a stationary atmosphere over a flat, non-rotating earth”?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
Aplanetruth.info 
How thick can you get?! All they’re saying in the first statement is that the calculations in the report don’t account for atmospheric conditions, curvature or rotation.
The second statement is saying that if you’re traveling at less than Mach III and at normal altitude for aircraft, you don’t need to account for curvature, because atmospheric pressure will do that for you.
Picture the atmosphere as a radial gradient around the spherical Earth. The closer to the center of the gradient, the higher the atmospheric pressure, and the further out you go, the lower the pressure. If you pilot an aircraft at a set velocity though the spherical atmosphere, your aircraft will adjust to the curve, because the atmospheric pressure determines how high the aircraft can fly with a given amount of thrust. Thus an aircraft flying at a constant velocity will remain in a constant altitude, and that constant altitude follows the curve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, by your analysis water should be lighter at the surface than at the bottom, when clearly this is not the case.
“radial gradient” + BS scientism term.
So what is the device that measures atomosphere to keep you on the curve?
LikeLike
uhm… water is most definitely less pressurized at the surface and more pressurized at depth. that’s why there’s special gear for deep sea diving. even in a deep swimming pool, if you ascend too fast you’ll get ‘the bends’ or decompression sickness.
“when clearly this is not the case”
What is your evidence that this is not the case? What causes decompression sickness?
LikeLike
Incorrect. They did ‘NOT’ say “the calculations in the report don’t account for atmospheric conditions.”
This report does in fact account for atmospheric conditions if you actually read the report and perform the calculations provided. This report is in clear language, compiled by intelligent people, with no assumptions or vague language. In the second paragraph of the referenced section of the report, It is stated that the linear model that the report covers makes no assumptions.
They did however very specifically and intentionally say in clear language “This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.”
The final 75% of your comment is simply ridiculously inaccurate nonsense undeserving of a response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are talking total bullshit.the earth is a flat plane .We are not spinnining.do some research will you.the earth was flat until the 16th century then we changed it to a ball because the sun and the moon were of a ball shape we had no idea in the 16th century of how to determine what earth it was changed for religious reasons.the earth is flat and it always has been that why NASA refer to a non rotational earth.they admit on their website they have no images of earth only a composite computerised image no real pictures.there are no real pictures of earth as a globe that’s because it’s flat dome covered eco system.give me a break you people.
LikeLike
👏🏻💯💯🙏🏻✝️🕉️
LikeLike
You are confused. Copernicus was about heliocentrism, the shape of Earth was established over 2,000 years ago.
“I am Cyrus (c. 600 – 530 BC), King of the globe, great king, mighty king, King of Babylon.”
LikeLike
RE: The Todd
Incorrect. They did ‘NOT’ say “the calculations in the report don’t account for atmospheric conditions.”
This report does in fact account for atmospheric conditions if you actually read the report and perform the calculations provided. This report is in clear language, compiled by intelligent people, with no assumptions or vague language. In the second paragraph of the referenced section of the report, It is stated that the linear model that the report covers makes no assumptions.
They did however very specifically and intentionally say in clear language “This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.”
The final 75% of your comment is simply ridiculously inaccurate nonsense undeserving of a response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Holly and jwlpeace, Actually, what you are referring to is applied pressure as a result of mass, not weight. Weight is consistent. Decompression sickness is caused by depressurization resulting in gas bubbles within the body.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TOTAL DEBUNK OF ALLEDGED PROOF. The FAA article linked above debunks his whole story. Too bad he didn’t read it.
Flat earth calculation are used to simplify equations for aircraft flights. Flat earth calcs do not apply to aircraft flying faster than Mach 3, space craft or missiles.
“The observant reader will notice that the aircraft equations of motion were calculated
assuming a flat Earth and that we here assume the development frame was the North-
East-Down frame. This implies necessarily that earth rotation and the variation of the
gravity vector with position over the earth were ignored in developing the aircraft
equations of motion. This simplification limits our mathematical model to the flight of
aircraft only. The model will not properly handle the flight of sub-orbital craft and
spacecraft such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites, or the space shuttle. The
model is adequate for all vehicles traveling under Mach 3.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
How can using flat and non rotating in equations when reality is spherical and rotating POSSIBLY SIMPLIFY THE EQUATION ⁉️⁉️
Seriously, please inform me of what I’m missing here…. I mean obviously the ACTUAL process of figuring an equation without all of the variables that’d necessarily be entered if flying over a rotating sphere. However the RESULTS OF ALL THE EQUATIONS WILL BE WRONG! Right? Getting an answer easier doesn’t matter if the numbers are incorrect. Getting formulas and equations from a different reality than the one it’s applied WILL ALWAYS RESULT IN UTTER FAILURE! Definitely not SIMPLIFICATION imo. 🤷🏻♂️🤔🤔🤔🙏🏻🤙🏻
LikeLike
The reason for the rider in the paper is to prevent any criticism that it did not represent the real world,
Do you understand what linear modelling is, do you. It means it is a subclass of models for which substantial reduction in the complexity of the related statistical theory is possible. i.e. the complexity of the model is considerably reduced by making certain assumptions which in the extremely limited context of the specific model can be ignored.
So would you kindly explain the meaning of this equation, which you used as proof.
H.(x (t), u(t), λ(t)) =1+λ^T(t), f(x(t),u(t))
LikeLike
Google real photos of the whole Earth from space and that will pretty much tell you that NASA is fraud. Google photos of Antarctica for space and you’ll laugh your ass off.
LikeLike
Flat earthers are a whole new breed of stupid.
LikeLike
NASA’s Reference Publication #1207. I read it years, decades ago, being a professional navigator. Did you actually understand what the paper was about? Did you understand the maths and physics?
What is interesting however is that a paper from 1988 has suddenly reappeared again in the FE community,
The reason for the rider in the paper is to prevent any criticism that it did not represent the real world,
Do you understand what linear modelling is, do you. It means it is a subclass of models for which substantial reduction in the complexity of the related statistical theory is possible. i.e. the complexity of the model is considerably reduced by making certain assumptions which in the extremely limited context of the specific model can be ignored.
So would you kindly explain the meaning of this equation, which you used as proof.
H.(x (t), u(t), λ(t)) =1+λ^T(t), f(x(t),u(t))
LikeLike
[…] Reported By: APlanetTruth.info […]
LikeLike