Yes, level to the pull of gravity! It's just the same as saying that it's perpendicular to both the pull of gravity and the curved surface of the Earth because it's the pull of gravity that curves the surface of the Earth in the first place. Level and flat are not synonymous. You can use them interchangeably in a practical sense because the Earth is so huge that on small scales, the curvature is negligible but that doesn't make the terms truly synonymous. The fact is, as I've already stated, that you're correct, a plane could, in fact, fly in a truly straight and flat stragectory in theory, but if a pilot were to do so, what he'd have to tell his plane to do is to climb in altitude at a rate of eight inches per mile squared. He'd eventually be flying almost directly against the pull of gravity (what we call "up") and his plane would stall and he'd likely end up crashing and dying.Level to the pull of gravity??? There is no level if you are following the curvature of the earth when you are flying. I will admit that a plane can fly perpendicular to the curvature of the earth, but I must insist that it can also fly "straight" and not perpendicular to the curvature of the earth and "prove" that this curve truly exists.
It isn't magic. Pilots make course corrections constantly and the curvature of the Earth is mostly, if not entirely, unoticable in comparison to even the largest of airplanes. The Earth is really, really, really big! But whether the pilot notices it or not, if he is flying at a constant ASL (Altitude above Sea Level), he is, in fact, descending at a rate of eight inches per mile squared.Gravity cannot magically alter a planes "elevator", the elevators keep the plane flying straight or make the plane descend, nose down, or ascend, nose up.
We've had this conversation already. The atmosphere is part of the Earth, just as the ground and oceans are. Why do you have a problem with something being able to move around in the atmosphere as it moves along with the Earth but you have no problem at all with fish doing the exact same thing in the oceans or with worms moving around in the dirt?Given your premise about the atmosphere your argument is correct.
But if your premise is wrong then so is the argument.
What is your premise? Your premise is, the atmosphere is moving.
How do you know the atmosphere is moving?
--Dave
And no, that is NOT my premise! Whether the Earth is moving and the atmosphere along with it or not, my premise is that motion is relative to other objects. My argument would hold whether the Earth was moving or not. It is your claim that there is some sort of contradiction that I am refuting. The point is that whether I am in a moving atmosphere or a stationary one, my ability to move around inside that atmosphere is entirely uneffected. To suggest that I can't possibly move around inside an atmosphere that is itself moving relative to a different frame of reference is to suggest that I can't swim around in a pool on board a ship that is moving relative to the ocean or move air in and out of my lungs inside a car that is moving that air at 50 mph relative to the street.
Clete