r/conspiracy: Government Documents Admit Flat Earth?

On page one this document does mention a spherical rotating earth but then states that “...these schemes” (based on a spherical rotating earth) 1) “...are difficult to prove” and 2) “...not suggested to be used as a basis for an online real-time guidance law.”

Page 32 goes on to say:

"Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940020279.pdf

SR-71

Page 8 “...nonrotating Earth...”

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf

page 14: (2) A flat, nonrotating earth

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf

page 8: the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating earth.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf

page 108: aircraft flying over flat, nonrotating earth

page:12 "aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over flat nonrotating earth"

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf

NASA Technical Paper 2835

September 1988

Page 1 Summary:

Flat nonrotating earth

Last page 126: "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with a stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth"

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf

Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform

NASA March 1972

page 2: "The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth"

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720012071.pdf

An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge

NASA 1991

page 11: "The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth"

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf

Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields

NASA 1973

page14 pdf or 6 on actual report:

a) The earth is flat and non-rotating.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf

A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter

NASA

page 17:

“The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with rerpect to a flat, nonrotating Earth.”

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf

Atmospheric Oscillations

Georgia Tech April 1965

Prepared for NASA

page 13: A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf

Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments

NASA June 2002

page 18-19: “These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth.”

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf

Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft

NASA 1988

page 9 pdf or 4-5 on actual doc:

“For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth...”

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf

Time to Climb

page2: “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat earth.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf

25 comments

1 UncleSnake3301 2018-10-13

Sigh....it’s all so tiresome.

1 ilikerealmaplesyrup 2018-10-13

Yeah, I understand. I am not convinced either but what do you think all these documents mean?

1 Adamarama 2018-10-13

It’s for mathematics, you make certain assumptions or starting points to make calculations easier, so assuming a flat earth is basically just saying for the purposes of the calculation a flat earth is assumed, because at the scale of the size of the curvature of the earth it doesn’t make much difference and makes the calculation easier.

1 Qooman 2018-10-13

It’s for mathematics, you make certain assumptions or starting points to make calculations easier, so assuming a flat earth is basically just saying for the purposes of the calculation a flat earth is assumed

you got it

and they're all very old papers, lates 60's and 70's from what I can tell, which explains why they need the maths as computers weren't even a hundreth as good as your cell ph

1 titian01 2018-10-13

The Earth is not flat

1 UncleSnake3301 2018-10-13

I’m not sure honestly. It is interesting that they use these terms in their analysis. Maybe it is easier to perform these calculations, for examples sake, using a flat, non rotating earth?

1 aryebread 2018-10-13

so everything just happens to work out the same on a spinning oblate spheroid even when most insist it couldn't?

1 UncleSnake3301 2018-10-13

🤷🏼‍♂️I don’t know. I do know, however, that we live on a rotating, spherical Earth.

1 aryebread 2018-10-13

ahhh okay, so you've been to space yourself?

you can't know for certain, sorry

1 UncleSnake3301 2018-10-13

Ok so explain why the moon is a sphere that rotates, every other planet you can go outside with a telescope and see are spheres that rotate, but just Earth is a flat, un-rotating plane?

1 aryebread 2018-10-13

im not saying the earth is flat or round, i have no clue, too many contradictory observations. i guarantee we have absolutely no clue, only some elites know the truth, which explains all the lying and misinfo.

the truth is, you don't know, and never will, you're wasting your time being arrogant enough to think you do

1 UncleSnake3301 2018-10-13

I’m not being arrogant, just logical.

1 stonedlemming 2018-10-13

I am saying it’s round.

I am saying I know.

I am also saying you need an education:

1 Adamarama 2018-10-13

No it just doesn’t make much difference at a more local scale because the earth is so huge so it’s easier to assume flat for the purposes of calculation of these kinds of things. If you were doing calculations at a larger scale eg to do with earth and moon then yeah you may need more complicated calculations that take into account the curvature/spherical shape.

1 stonedlemming 2018-10-13

If you’re asking questions like this, you don’t know enough - what I mean is, your brain can’t compute the same simple things at the same level everyone else’s can.

Get knowledge BEFORE having an opinion. Form theory ON FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.

1 mirth_red 2018-10-13

Did you read them yourself? The first one on your list speak about the earth as an Ellipsoid, so no flat earth here.

1 ramalamadingdongs 2018-10-13

Did you read them yourself? The first one on your list speak about the earth as an Ellipsoid, so no flat earth here.

Did you read THEM or ONE? If science took the first result we wouldn't be debating if the world is round

1 mirth_red 2018-10-13

I started with the first one. It had nothing to do with flat earth, and the stuff they are doing wouldn't make sense in a flat earth scenario. I lost interest after this one.

1 TheUnmashedPotato 2018-10-13

I'm not sure you're getting the meaning when the universe is called flat. A quick way to tell if a 2 dimensional surface is flat is to draw a triangle on it.

If the surface you're looking at is the surface of a sphere, you can make a triangle whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. If the surface is like a saddle (sometimes called a hyperbolic plane) then the angles of the triangle will add up to less than 180 degrees. If the surface is flat, then you will always get exactly 180 degrees.

A 3 dimensional space can also be bent in a similar way. It could curve through some 4th dimensional space (just as the curve of the sphere or the saddle curves through the 3rd dimension). If space is flat, then there is no 4th dimensional curvature. Space is still expanding in all directions, but space-time isn't curved.

1 workwork_workwork 2018-10-13

You list 32 papers. We read the 1st one linked. We find out you are taking the paper out of context (basically lying). Why should we trust what else you have to say?

If CNN posted a bunch of articles and you saw the first one was basically lying, would you go ahead and read through the other ones or just wash your hands of the whole thing?

1 martineden_ca 2018-10-13

Why is every object in universe globe except earth? For 50 us dollars you can buy a cheap telescope and see other planets. All globe. I have sat and watched the moons of Jupiter orbit and the great red spot transit. Someone started flat earth theory in modern times as a joke and fools have believed it. Its 2018 we are smarter than this, begin using your brains and think!

1 psypher5 2018-10-13

Perspective.

Don't fall for divide and conquer.

1 Astromaniac101 2018-10-13

It looks like 90 % of the citations are about establishing a stationary reference frame to simplify the calculations. Nothing more. Just because the phrase "flat earth" appears in the documents, it doesn't prove anything outside of the context implied by the documents.

1 klmd 2018-10-13

This looks to me like another 'how stupid can they be' test.

1 stonedlemming 2018-10-13

Man.

When are you people going to understand that not knowing anything factual, and reading something and making assumptions, just makes you look like a fool.

Stop trolling the thread, stop trolling yourself, stop living and breathing this silly lie.

There is so many things wrong with the idea of flat earth and only idiots and scam artists involve themselves with it- it started as a troll movement and got out of hand, it’s a dead meme, let it go !