ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th May 2017, 11:13 PM   #361
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Okay.... Let's break this down real simple, and we can see where it starts confusing thewholesoul.

We have a teddy bear. We sit him on a railway wagon, and the wagon a push. The wagon starts moving.

Teddy, hold your breath. We are going to say this all happens in the vacuum of space.

The bear is stationary in relation to the wagon, he is just sitting there. He doesn't need to be inside the wagon, he doesn't need to be tethered to the wagon, he is going to go where the wagon goes.

Let's divert the wagon onto a circular track, so he can keep going in circles.

Now, let's call the wagon "Earth" and the bear can pretend to be called the "atmosphere".

The bear is putting no effort into having to keep up with the wagon. They are one system. He "stationary" in relation to the wagon, but he is rattling around the track at a pace.

I wonder if the bear would mind demonstrating weather for us? He can hop to his feet, wave his arms around, walk about the wagon, and dance. But that motion is relative to the frame of reference of the wagon. But no matter what he does on the wagon, he still continues to also roll around the track, with the wagon.

Okay, you stop that Teddy. People are going to say "But the world isn't just in orbit, it spins too!"

Okay, let's start again. This time we have a railway wagon, and we put a carousel upon it. Teddy sits on the roundabout, and it spins, as well as the wagon rolling around the eternal circle.

For us, standing by the track, he looks like he is doing an awful lot of motion.

But for horses on the carousel, he is just sat there, reading his book, unmoving. They only see motion, relative to them, if he pretends to be weather, and starts skipping and dancing around the carousel.

Teddy, do me a favour? Take the apple out of your pocket, hold out your palm, and put the apple on it?

The apple is us. We are in the atmosphere, on the world.
The wagon is rolling around the track, the carousel is spinning, and Teddy is stood on the carousel, with us in the palm of his hand.

Now we aren't asking for Teddy to run and skip about, so he isn't being weather. He is just being the atmosphere. Within the frame of reference of the carousel, the bear is still, and in the frame of reference of the apple, us, the bear is still.

So let's repeat the experiment. This time with a planet. We make a planet, with gravity. We put our Teddy bear on that planet. He is held in place by gravity. We spin the planet on an axis, and send it looping around an orbit.

Teddy can run, skip, jump, and do as he pleases. But if he stops and stands still, he is going to be going wherever the planet goes, at the same speed as the planet. It doesn't matter if we call him fluid or not, or what he does in the frame of reference of the planet, if he is stationary or dancing, to an outside observer, he is part of the system of the planet, in orbit, moving through the vacuum.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:25 PM   #362
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
It is stationary in relation to the plane yes.
Correct.

Quote:
AND it is stationary objectively speaking because we measured to be 0mph
Incorrect. There is no such things as "objectively speaking" when we are measuring velocity. All Velocity is relational to the thing that it is being measured against. You cannot compare the velocity measured against different frames of references, and no frame of reference is objectively the true one.

Quote:
The reason we don't feel or experience the 500mph of the plane is because the air inside the plane is objectively stationary
No, we don't experience it because the plane, the air inside the plane, and the passenger are in the the same frame of reference. Their relative velocities to each other are 0.

Quote:
Because being located inside the solid body shields you from air resistance that the exterior of the plane is subject to.
No, the air outside the plane is in a different frame of reference. If you magically took away the plane's shell then the motion became experienced because the air is now part of the outside air frame of reference, and the motion that is detected is the difference in velocity between the two different reference frames. The passenger and the plane are still in the same frame of reference and their relative velocity would still be zero. You would have simply removed the air from the plane reference frame and allowed the passenger to become aware of the other frame that they previously were prevented from interacting with. It's that interaction between the frames and being able to determine the relative motion between them that allows us to detect motion.

Quote:
But the difference between being inside an aeroplane and being inside the globe atmosphere is that the air in the former is objectively speaking stationary whereas the air in the latter is objectively speaking in motion. Do you agree to that?
No, because it totally wrong. The difference is that in the former, the air inside the plane was part of the plane's frame of reference while the air outside was in it's own frame of reference, and in the later, all of the air is part of the air's frame of reference. There is no such things as "objectively speaking stationary" or "objectively speaking in motion" there is only in motion relative to another frame of reference, or stationary in regards to another frame of reference, and only motions measured relative to the same frame of reference can be compared.

Quote:
The plane analogy is a false analogy because it omits the effects a constantly flowing atmosphere would have on all objects within it.
Wrong, you simple don't understand it or refuse to understand it.

Quote:
For example wouldn't a fish swimming AGAINST the current expend more energy? Wouldn't it feel more drag?
If a fish is swimming against the current it will use more energy to travel the same distance as measured along the shore, but if it's velocity relative to the water is the same as a fish swimming with the current, then they will experience the dame drag.

So if our river is flowing at 1 km/h and we have two fish capable of swimming at 1.5 km/h relative to the surrounding waters, then to someone on the bank of the river the fish swimming upstream would be swimming at just 0.5 km/h while the fish swimming downstream would be swimming at 2.5 km/h. If both fish had to cover 5 km of river, it would take the fish swimming upstream 10 hours, but the one swimming downstream just 2 hours. Both fish would consider that they were swimming at 1.5 km/h though, and experience the drag of the water based on their moving at 1.5 km/h through it.

This isn't that hard once you understand that you have to compare it from one point of reference, you can't compare what the fish see to what the observer on the bank sees because they see different things. This is why there is no objectively true velocity.

Quote:
Are you saying you only experience the effects of small micro movements of atmosphere (wind) but you don't feel ANY EFFECT from the motion of the whole atmosphere?
Yes.

Quote:
So what, how can a frame of reference negate the effects of a physical interaction between a solid object moving through or against a constant unidirectional fluid motion?
This question makes no sense. If an object is moving faster or slower than another one, then they are in different frames of reference.

Quote:
The DIFFERENCE between the air in a plane and the atmosphere is that the former is objectively speaking stationary whereas the latter is objectively speaking moving at 1000mph constantly.

You are confusing the difference between water in a fish bowl and water in a river. There is no current in the former just like the car, train, plane analogies. Do you see the difference or do I have to repeat it again?
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, you will still be wrong. If the bowl in moving relative to a specific frame of reference, then the water moving as well. There is no such things as "objectively speaking moving". All motion is relative.

Quote:
Yes it is. They claim that Earths rotation going east gives them a speed boost. Why doesn't earths rotation give commercial jets flying east a speed boost? Are you going to address this glaring contradiction? And don't tell me frame of reference because frame of reference or relative position does not cause, cannot cause, a physical effect in velocity or fuel load. That would be ridiculous
.

Because planes don't leave the planet.

Quote:
I need clarification. You agree earth is rotating, physically, and you agree the atmosphere is rotating, physically, NASA gets a speed boost OFF earths rotation. They use more fuel flying west.
Yes

Quote:
But do they get the speed boost off the solid earth or off the fluid atmosphere? Off the engines? Off something else? What physical mechanism causes them to experience a speed boost going east and use more fuel going west?
The term "Boost" is misleading. The Rocket starts out with an Initial velocity in a westerly direction while sitting on the launchpad. If it goes West then that initial velocity remains and they only have to add to it. If they go East them they have to counter that velocity with more thrust essentially slowing it until it has 0 velocity to a stationary observer in the centre of the Earth, and then pushing it up to Orbital velocity from there.

Quote:
NASA use less fuel flying east which means the use more fuel flying west. Why do they consume more energy flying west? Can you clarify that one. And if there was no atmosphere how would that cause a rocket to use more fuel flying west. You know fuel consumption is an objective matter, it must have a PHYSICAL CAUSE, what physical cause do you propose makes NASA rockets use more fuel flying west?
Because when the rocket lifts off it is travelling at X mph to the west relative to a stationary spot in the center of the Earth. If it takes Y mph to get into orbit, then going west you need to add D mph to its velocity in a westerly direction giving you this...

Y = X + DW

so DW = Y - X

If you launch east you still have X mph west to start with so to reach -Y (minus because it's going East not West) you have to solve this instead....

-Y = X + DE

so DE = -Y - X

or DE = -1(Y + X)

We can compare these (both are measured relative to our stationary Earth Centre Frame of Reference.)

V = DW - DE

V = Y - X - -1(Y + X)

V = Y - X - Y - X

V = -2X

so we need to increase the rocket's velocity by 2x the rotation of the Earth going East compared to going West, and that takes a lot more fuel!
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:45 PM   #363
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
The only "glaring contradiction" is that you are still confusing moving with 'the fluid' as moving through 'the fluid'. "Objects moving with the fluids motion" are "STATIONARY", co-moving, being carried or transported with the same motion as the fluid. Again "the atmosphere is STATIONARY" relative to us and the surface of the Earth specifically because we are moving with it not through it.
Hey man, I disagree I am not confusing moving with and through a fluid. All objects in the fluid atmosphere MUST move through the fluid atmosphere. Stationary objects will move with the current. Objects in motion can move either with the current or AGAINST the current. As in going west.

Let's simplify things. We are talking about
1 a rotating solid
2 a rotating fluid medium
3 and solid objects within this medium

There are three options for the object

1 The object can be stationary and move with the fluid e.g. a man floating on his back with the current

2. The object can move with the fluid motion
E.g a man actively swimming with the current

3 The object can move against the fluid motion
E.g a man swimming against the current

Do you agree so far?

The objects move both WITH the medium and THROUGH the medium I'm not confused at all.

You are wrong when you say that atmosphere is stationary. According to your own model it is physically moving at a constant speed. Moving at 1000mph is NOT stationary man.

You are wrong again when you say the atmosphere is stationary relative to the earth, because according to your own model the atmosphere is PHYSICALLY MOVING WITH the rotating earth.

It makes absolutely no difference to the constant motion of the atmosphere whether we are moving with it or through it. This is absurd. You sound terribly confused and don't even know your own model. Your critique of my post 224 was weak. Sorry just being honest.

All the best
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 11:51 PM   #364
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,659
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is The Earth Spinning or Stationary?
It's spinning. That's why weights slightly reduce at the equator, compared to the poles, due to centrifugal force.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg equator weight.jpg (82.1 KB, 2 views)
Matthew Ellard is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:07 AM   #365
erwinl
Graduate Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,586
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Okay.... Let's break this down real simple, and we can see where it starts confusing thewholesoul.

We have a teddy bear. We sit him on a railway wagon, and the wagon a push. The wagon starts moving.

Teddy, hold your breath. We are going to say this all happens in the vacuum of space.

The bear is stationary in relation to the wagon, he is just sitting there. He doesn't need to be inside the wagon, he doesn't need to be tethered to the wagon, he is going to go where the wagon goes.

Let's divert the wagon onto a circular track, so he can keep going in circles.

Now, let's call the wagon "Earth" and the bear can pretend to be called the "atmosphere".

The bear is putting no effort into having to keep up with the wagon. They are one system. He "stationary" in relation to the wagon, but he is rattling around the track at a pace.

I wonder if the bear would mind demonstrating weather for us? He can hop to his feet, wave his arms around, walk about the wagon, and dance. But that motion is relative to the frame of reference of the wagon. But no matter what he does on the wagon, he still continues to also roll around the track, with the wagon.

Okay, you stop that Teddy. People are going to say "But the world isn't just in orbit, it spins too!"

Okay, let's start again. This time we have a railway wagon, and we put a carousel upon it. Teddy sits on the roundabout, and it spins, as well as the wagon rolling around the eternal circle.

For us, standing by the track, he looks like he is doing an awful lot of motion.

But for horses on the carousel, he is just sat there, reading his book, unmoving. They only see motion, relative to them, if he pretends to be weather, and starts skipping and dancing around the carousel.

Teddy, do me a favour? Take the apple out of your pocket, hold out your palm, and put the apple on it?

The apple is us. We are in the atmosphere, on the world.
The wagon is rolling around the track, the carousel is spinning, and Teddy is stood on the carousel, with us in the palm of his hand.

Now we aren't asking for Teddy to run and skip about, so he isn't being weather. He is just being the atmosphere. Within the frame of reference of the carousel, the bear is still, and in the frame of reference of the apple, us, the bear is still.

So let's repeat the experiment. This time with a planet. We make a planet, with gravity. We put our Teddy bear on that planet. He is held in place by gravity. We spin the planet on an axis, and send it looping around an orbit.

Teddy can run, skip, jump, and do as he pleases. But if he stops and stands still, he is going to be going wherever the planet goes, at the same speed as the planet. It doesn't matter if we call him fluid or not, or what he does in the frame of reference of the planet, if he is stationary or dancing, to an outside observer, he is part of the system of the planet, in orbit, moving through the vacuum.
This... This is simply beautiful.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:18 AM   #366
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hey man, I disagree I am not confusing moving with and through a fluid. All objects in the fluid atmosphere MUST move through the fluid atmosphere. Stationary objects will move with the current. Objects in motion can move either with the current or AGAINST the current. As in going west.

Let's simplify things. We are talking about
1 a rotating solid
2 a rotating fluid medium
3 and solid objects within this medium

There are three options for the object

1 The object can be stationary and move with the fluid e.g. a man floating on his back with the current

2. The object can move with the fluid motion..

You are wrong when you say that atmosphere is stationary. According to your own model it is physically moving at a constant speed. Moving at 1000mph is NOT stationary man.
Again I repeat you are confused about relative motion, go look in the dictionary for the definition of relative. The atmosphere is moving at ~1000 mph which relatively speaking is 0 mph relative to the Earth.
Quote:

You are wrong again when you say the atmosphere is stationary relative to the earth, because according to your own model the atmosphere is PHYSICALLY MOVING WITH the rotating earth.
That is precisely what the atmosphere does move along with the Earth but at a relative velocity of 0 mph, event though both are moving at ~1000 mph.
Quote:

It makes absolutely no difference to the constant motion of the atmosphere whether we are moving with it or through it. This is absurd. You sound terribly confused and don't even know your own model. Your critique of my post 224 was weak. Sorry just being honest.
No it is you who is confused. Many on this thread have tried to correct your willfully ignorant analysis of the physics of motion, but you still don't get it. Therefore you still appear to be trollish in your approach to this subject. Learn some basic physics.
Quote:

All the best
Trying to be polite is ploy to attempt to garner support from those who know a lot more about the subject than your appear to know, but then there is the distinct possibility of you being a troll. I vote for the later.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:19 AM   #367
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,105
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
It's nice to be nice man.
"The Man", if you don't mind or just "Dan". I'll respond to either and you or anyone on this thread can call me by either. I can't respond otherwise as just the exclamation of "man" or "the man" can get confusing.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Everyone wants to go relative, listen an object is stationary if it has been determined to be so by instruments and sensory input an object is called stationary when it's not friggin moving man.
Well, that's the rub of it, ain't it. "stationary" relative to what? This is the concept you seem to lack, that Galileo Galilei found out almost 300 years ago. You can only determine motion relative to something else. Now absolute space and time were still the dominating considerations back then. However, the relativity of motion was still recognized and experimentally verified by Galileo back then. Dropping objects from a moving chariot if I remember the explanation of the experiments correctly.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Is the air inside a closed bottl thrown into the sky stationary or moving. The air INSIDE the bottle not the bottle itself?
The air is stationary relative to the bottle but moving relative to the frame from which it was thrown as is the bottle.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

So you are not going to concede you were wrong?
In regard to what? Being wrong means I can learn something, I'm all for that. Please, be specific.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The air inside a submarine stationary or moving?
"The air inside a submarine" is "stationary" (for the most part) relative to the submarine whether it is moving or not.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Let's,say we objectively measured it and we recorded 0mph air current. Would you still claim its moving because the submarine is also moving?
Yes, if the sub is moving relative to some reference frame then the air inside it is also moving. This is simple Galilean relativity.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
What are you talking about? What plane? If a plane goes from a to b it goes from a to.b. it has moved!!!! If it stays at point a it is stationary. Don't you agree ??
Exactly, wanting to go "from a to b" you get on a plane that goes from "from a to b". Carries both you, the air surrounding you, and hopefully your luggage. You, the air surrounding you (perhaps stanky if you farted) and again hopefully your luggage, have all co-moved with the plane. "Don't you agree ??"
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:21 AM   #368
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,251
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hey man, I disagree I am not confusing moving with and through a fluid. All objects in the fluid atmosphere MUST move through the fluid atmosphere. Stationary objects will move with the current. Objects in motion can move either with the current or AGAINST the current. As in going west.

Let's simplify things. We are talking about
1 a rotating solid
2 a rotating fluid medium
3 and solid objects within this medium

There are three options for the object

1 The object can be stationary and move with the fluid e.g. a man floating on his back with the current

2. The object can move with the fluid motion
E.g a man actively swimming with the current

3 The object can move against the fluid motion
E.g a man swimming against the current

Do you agree so far?

The objects move both WITH the medium and THROUGH the medium I'm not confused at all.

You are wrong when you say that atmosphere is stationary. According to your own model it is physically moving at a constant speed. Moving at 1000mph is NOT stationary man.

You are wrong again when you say the atmosphere is stationary relative to the earth, because according to your own model the atmosphere is PHYSICALLY MOVING WITH the rotating earth.

It makes absolutely no difference to the constant motion of the atmosphere whether we are moving with it or through it. This is absurd. You sound terribly confused and don't even know your own model. Your critique of my post 224 was weak. Sorry just being honest.

All the best
Let's try this one more time: the atmosphere is moving at the same rotational velocity as the land - they're parts of the same system, they are coupled.

Your assertions above fail the test of basic observation.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:30 AM   #369
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Okay... I am not going to address the rest of your post, because it is an awful lot of gibberish, and it is all built on this one point.
No worries, sometimes it's good to keep things focused. We both know we can't both be right.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Okay... I am not going to address the rest of your post, because it's gibberish. The air is not stationary. Objectively, subjectively, or any other way.
With respect I disagree. The air in a plane is stationary as an objective fact if it has been measured with an instrument and the recorded reading was 0mph. I don't see how any one can disagree with that, and yet you do?

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
It is stationary if you measure it in relation to the plane
It is not stationary, if you watch it taking off from the terminal.
The air is stationary inside a moving plane or a stationary plane. To give a different example your internal.organs are stationary as in not moving around inside you, fixed etc when you are moving your body or when you are not moving your body. Agree?

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
The plane takes off, and the air inside it, the passengers, the luggage, the packets of peanuts, they all go with the plane.
That's right they are being carried, transported, moved but that does not mean that they too are in a state of motion, does it? The air is calm, the people are sitting down, the luggage is still, the packet of peanuts are resting on the counter.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
They aren't left on the runway. That means... say it with me: "they are moving."
No. You are making a logical non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow. Of course they aren't left on the runway because they are being carried in the enclosed body of the plane. If the air inside was measured to be 1mph from the air conditioning machines, if the people inside were walking about, if peanuts were been thrown about then they as in individual objects are in a state of motion. Objectively so.

There is a difference between being in a state of motion and stationary. The DIFFERENCE is physical, objective, and measurable. You want to classify stationary objects as being in state of motion because they are being carried or transported but this does not follow.


Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Measure on the plane and it is a RELATIVE 0mph.
Measure from the surface of the planet, and it is not.
You statement is poorly worded and confusing.

First of all, if an instrument records no movement in the air within the plane then the air IS stationary, BECAUSE it has been objectively determined to be 0mph.

If you have a glass of water in a plane, is it flowing or is it still?

Measure what from the surface of the planet? And how does that change or alter the physical calmness of the air or the stillness of the water in the glass? I just don't get it.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:34 AM   #370
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
You seem to only like to talk about rockets and rivers. What about answering some of the other questions you've been asked and ignored. Why do the stars in the sky move like they do? If earth was stationary, they would pretty much stay in the same spot in the sky. Why is that?
Warm regard MacGyver. I can't answer everything and everyone. Sorry.

I said I don't know why the stars move like they do. If earth was stationary they would still move.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:46 AM   #371
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,262
I don't believe you're actually not understanding this, buy what the heck...

Two cars are driving next to each other at exactly 100 m/h. They roll down their windows and someone from car A reaches into car B to hand someone a bottle of water.
Why isn't his arm ripped off when he sticks it in the other car? Car B is moving at 100m/h!

If you can figure out the answer to that question, you can figure out why we don't experience deadly 1000m/h winds from the rotation of the atmosphere.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:51 AM   #372
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Compensating is also measuring. Almost all measurement methods consist of compensating.
I respectfully disagree. An anenometer is an instrument used to measure the velocity of air currents,does not compensate it measures the air and gives a reading. The alleged 1000mph velocity has never been directly measured to my knowledge. I think if it was somebody would have provided that information by now.

If you are claiming a mounted telescope recorded the 1000mph velocity then show it to me.

The velocity of earths spin was calculated by dividing distance over time. The circumference of the planet by the 24 hour solar day. But the calculation assumes that the we are rotating, as opposed to.The sun.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
If an aether carries light, light will exhibit different speed when projected forwards or backwards from a moving object. This is not observed.

The aether does not exist.
Maybe you are wrong?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:55 AM   #373
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Depends on only if relative to something stationary. When you move on Earth, you are not relative to a stationary object.

Hans
How has the relative positions of an moving object within a fluid medium got anything got to do with the physio-chemical interactions between the object and the fluid medium ?

Are you saying we don't use more energy when swimming AGAINST the current of a river?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:08 AM   #374
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,199
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
abaddon (I think it was) already laid this out for you in some very specific detail and MRC_Hans touches on it above. Again the point being they do get that same "speed boost" in all those cases it just doesn't make any difference when your goal is to move across the surface of the earth from one location to another, or even return to the same location that is itself moving with that very same "speed" you had with the "boost".
Can you link the respective post numbers. This issue is important to resolve.

They do get the same speed boost? If that's true then there is a problem. We do not observe the speed boost in eastwards flying commercial flights.

They get a boost but it makes no difference? Isn't the speed boost the difference?

To have the very same speed they had with the speed boost doesn't make sense to me, unless we are taking about an.imaginary speed boost as opposed to.a physical speed boost.

Also I still have yet to pin down the physical cause of this boost. It's the earth rotation, yea, but is it the solid spinning or the fluid medium.spinning that causes the boost? What causes the physical increase in fuel consumption for rockets,launched westwards? It is atmospheric drag from the physically rotating fluid atmosphere?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:26 AM   #375
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
With respect I disagree. The air in a plane is stationary as an objective fact if it has been measured with an instrument and the recorded reading was 0mph. I don't see how any one can disagree with that, and yet you do?
No, no, no, no, no. There is not objective velocity, period, it doesn't exist. All you have is that the air is stationary relative to your recording instrument.

Consider this. You are driving down the road. You get out a device and measure the velocity of the air in your car, it says 0 mph. I'm standing on the side of the road as you go by and I use my device to measure the velocity of the air in your car as it goes past and it says that the air moved passed me at 60 mph. Which instrument is objectively true? It can't be both, but both are correct. They are correct because the the velocity measured was the velocity relative to the instrument and since these are in different frames of reference, they give different readings.

Quote:
The air is stationary inside a moving plane or a stationary plane. To give a different example your internal.organs are stationary as in not moving around inside you, fixed etc when you are moving your body or when you are not moving your body. Agree?
They are stationary relative to the plane, or to the body. If the plane, or body, is moving relative to something else, then they are moving to that things as well, otherwise when you moved your organs would fall out!

Quote:
That's right they are being carried, transported, moved but that does not mean that they too are in a state of motion, does it? The air is calm, the people are sitting down, the luggage is still, the packet of peanuts are resting on the counter.
But being carried gives them a velocity. Consider your packet of peanuts. If the plane hits turbulence and drops 2 metres, what happens to that packet? If we magically stopped the plane in midair so it went from 200 m/s relative to the ground to 0 m/s relative to the ground, what would happen to the contents of it? Consider what happens to loose objects in your car that were just sitting there just before you had to brake suddenly.

Quote:
No. You are making a logical non sequitur. It simply doesn't follow. Of course they aren't left on the runway because they are being carried in the enclosed body of the plane. If the air inside was measured to be 1mph from the air conditioning machines, if the people inside were walking about, if peanuts were been thrown about then they as in individual objects are in a state of motion. Objectively so
.

Consider this. What happens to you when a plane takes off? Do you feel like you are being forced back into your seat? What is really happening is that the plane is accelerating forwards, and the seat is then accelerating you forward, and since you resist it due to inertia, you feel like you are being pushed back into the seat. Since you have been accelerated you must have a velocity according to

vf = vo + at

and according to Newton's First Law of Motion you will remain in motion until a subsequent force acts on you in the opposite direction, you know, when you try and keep going forwards as the plane lands and the seatbelt pulls on you to keep you in your seat.

Quote:
There is a difference between being in a state of motion and stationary. The DIFFERENCE is physical, objective, and measurable. You want to classify stationary objects as being in state of motion because they are being carried or transported but this does not follow.
You need to learn the basic laws of physics.

Take a ball, drop it, does it go straight down?

Now Run with the ball and let it go, does it fall directly down, or does it move forward with you? (maybe not as much as you do due to air resistance)

Finally run with the ball and let it go exactly as you stop. Does it fly forwards or does it drop directly down?


Quote:
You statement is poorly worded and confusing.
No, you just refuse to understand what is being said.

Quote:
First of all, if an instrument records no movement in the air within the plane then the air IS stationary, BECAUSE it has been objectively determined to be 0mph.
It is only stationary in regards to the instrument that measured it. If the instrument is moving with the plane, then you are measuring moving air with a moving instrument.

Quote:
If you have a glass of water in a plane, is it flowing or is it still?
It can be still relative to the glass and still be moving. Fill up a glass at the sink. Now walk across the room. Did the water move? If it's still in the glass it must have done. Now go outside with it (unless you want a wet carpet) Walk really fast with the glass filled up to the top, then stop suddenly. What happens to the water?

Quote:
Measure what from the surface of the planet? And how does that change or alter the physical calmness of the air or the stillness of the water in the glass? I just don't get it.
The stillness of the air, or the water is only because they are moving at the same velocity as the thing containing them. If the container's velocity changes it will apply a force to the air or the water resulting in it being disturbed. Get a bowl and pick it up gently wait for it to be as still as you can get it, then take a quick step forwards, then walk to your left, and their right. Is the water still, still?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:26 AM   #376
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Also I still have yet to pin down the physical cause of this boost.

Despite having been told what it is multiple times.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:31 AM   #377
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Hilighted part is wrong. You'd feel no wind on your back, since both you and the wind are moving at the same speed.

I notice that thewholesoul hasn't responded to this yet. Presumably he's still trying to pin down the physical cause of his moving at 10mph relative to the corridor walls in his scenario.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 31st May 2017 at 01:32 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:32 AM   #378
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
It is both a fluid and a gas, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fluid
Mmm, OK. Dictionary wins. Notmally I regard "fluid" = "liquid", but ...

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:35 AM   #379
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Are you saying we don't use more energy when swimming AGAINST the current of a river?
You don't, you use the same amount of energy to swim. The difference is that it takes you longer to travel the same distance so if you want to swim a certain distance then you'll use more energy overall because you took longer to get there, but if you merely swim for a specific amount of time, you'll use the same amount of energy whichever way you go, you just won't have covered as much distance going against the current as you would have with it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:41 AM   #380
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,673
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Are you saying we don't use more energy when swimming AGAINST the current of a river?
Only if you want to travel the same distance relative to the riverbank.

in the same way, I can have the sun rise in the east every 24 hours by doing nothing, but if I want to have it rise in the west every 24 hours I've got to put a fair amount of effort into it.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:48 AM   #381
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Excellent analogy Dave. I thought it was very clear.

Okay so as you pointed out NASA get the boost when and only when the roundabout is,physically spinning in the same way that you got a boost jumping off the rotating object.

So thanks to NASA we know that the round must be physically moving otherwise it couldn't possibly get that speed boost. That part is clear.
And, if you accept it, proves that the Earth is rotating.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But you weren't alone on the roundabout. There were other people. Do they feel a physical difference between a physically moving roundabout and physically stationary one?

If one of them stood up, and walked in a circle would it be easier to walk with the rotation or against it.
Get on a roundabout and try it. Suppose the roundabout has six segments; is it harder to walk from the segment you're on to the one ahead of you or the one behind you?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If we poured some water on 2/3 of the surface area, how would it behave? Could it ever be still?
If it had something preventing it from running off the edge of the roundabout - which, for the Earth, gravity does - then yes, it would form a pool at the point where its energy was lowest.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Let's say we enclose the roundabout in a dome and we fill the insides with red gas. How would it behave. Would the rotating floor interact with the gas? It would cause it to swirl I.Imagine in a constant unidirectional manner.
Your imagination needs recalibrating, then. Any initial difference between the rotational speed of the roundabout and that of the gas would decay due to viscous effects, and once everything settled the gas would be spinning along with the roundabout. Someone on the roundabout would not then be able to tell just by looking at the gas whether the roundabout was spinning or not; however, if they disturbed the gas to create currents in it, they would observe those currents swirling due to Coriolis effects, exactly as the winds do on Earth, from which they could deduce (unless they were determined to remain ignorant of this fact) that the roundabout was spinning.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:51 AM   #382
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But you weren't alone on the roundabout. There were other people. Do they feel a physical difference between a physically moving roundabout and physically stationary one?
I looked up the words (to not make more mistakes) and it seems a roundabout is a circular intersection of roads. So I use the term "carousel" to avoid ambiguity.

Oh a carousel, they will feel both centrifugal force, Coriolis effect, and some wind. The latter because the surrounding air does not rotate with the carousel.

Quote:
If one of them stood up, and walked in a circle would it be easier to walk with the rotation or against it.
Because it is an open system and the air does not take part in the rotation walking with the rotation would make you encounter more resistance.

Quote:
If we poured some water on 2/3 of the surface area, how would it behave? Could it ever be still?
Assuming the carousel platform is level and has sides to prevent the water from running off, it would distribute itself along the outer edge (due to centrifugal force) and rotate with the carousel. Again, air resistance might cause some ripples.

Quote:
Let's say we enclose the roundabout in a dome and we fill the insides with red gas. How would it behave. Would the rotating floor interact with the gas? It would cause it to swirl I.Imagine in a constant unidirectional manner.
Yes. There would now be no air resistance, so movement in either direction would feel just the same. Even a fly could fly in both directions and not notice the difference.


Quote:
Is that what we observe in our sky as clouds drift in every direction?
Yes, that is exactly what we observe. If the clouds were NOT following the rotation of the planet, we would see them all drifting in one direction (west), all the time.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:51 AM   #383
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When I mean the explosion was contained I mean it doesn't happen.

To contain a disease outbreak, doesn't mean the outbreak explodes and breaks out so to speak.
You've contradicted yourself. If you contain a disease outbreak, it means that only a limited number of people get the disease. If nobody gets the disease, then there wasn't a disease outbreak to contain. Similarly, if an explosion doesn't happen, there isn't an explosion to contain.

What you're repeatedly doing here is demonstrating either an unwillingness or an inability to reason clearly. I think the rest of us are all agreed that that's the reason why you believe, or profess to believe, what you're saying.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:53 AM   #384
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Another thing I was wondering about...If the earth is not rotating, how do Geo-stationary satellites work? Many of our communication satellites are in geo-stationary orbit, so their orbital speed matches the rotation of the earth. That way they stay over the same piece of land all the time so we can bounce signals off them.

If the earth is stationary, then it would be impossible to have a satellite in orbit at zero speed. It would just fall to the earth.
I think that in flat Earth or stationary Earth lore, everything space-based is a conspiracy of lies. It must be to maintain their positions.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:54 AM   #385
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
... It is stationary in relation to the plane yes.
AND it is stationary objectively speaking because we measured to be 0mph

The reason we don't feel or experience the 500mph of the plane is because the air inside the plane is objectively stationary
No. Not 'objectively' stationary. That's a vague use of language that leads to errors. Relatively stationary. The air is stationary from the point of view of the plane. You can measure the air speed inside the plane as zero because your measuring instrument is also stationary from the point of view of the plane.

From the point of view of someone watching from the ground, the whole lot is moving at 500 mph.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:54 AM   #386
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
I don't believe you're actually not understanding this, buy what the heck...

Two cars are driving next to each other at exactly 100 m/h. They roll down their windows and someone from car A reaches into car B to hand someone a bottle of water.
Why isn't his arm ripped off when he sticks it in the other car? Car B is moving at 100m/h!

If you can figure out the answer to that question, you can figure out why we don't experience deadly 1000m/h winds from the rotation of the atmosphere.

Remember, we are dealing with someone who doesn't understand why it would be dangerous to open the door and step out of one of those cars going at 100 mph:

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:55 AM   #387
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How come NASA rockets flying east get a speed boost but commercial jets don't?
Asked and answered. NASA rockets get a speed boost compared to a non-rotating frame of reference. Commercial jets remain within the rotating frame of reference of the Earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How can ones relative position physically cause a speed boost. Is it not the rotation of earths atmosphere that gives it? A river or a boat in a river also gets a speed boost when moving with the current.
If it were the rotation of Earth's atmosphere relative to the Earth, we'd be able to perceive the 1000mph winds. You're really not making any sense here.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:59 AM   #388
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,097
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It can therefore measure the rotation of the Earth. The rotation of the Earth is measured as the amount of rotation that an equatorial mount has to compensate for.
did the mounted telescope measure the 1000mph motion that you believe is there? What readings were recorded?
Ask an astronomer. When he stops laughing, he may tell you.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Why don't NASA send a satellite up outside earths orbit and drop a anenonometer down to physically measure and confirm the 1000mph?
Because it would require a rope about 24 thousand miles long, which would break under its own weight; and because nobody intelligent enough to work for NASA doubts that the Earth rotates.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I respectfully disagree.
Your repeated demonstrations disagree with your respectful disagreement.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 01:59 AM   #389
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I'm sorry but the challenge stated to use "any sphere" you provide an example of a roundabout. That's a fail.

Hey skeptics, get any sphere spin it eastwards, and I will eat my hat on YouTube if you can get the motion if the spinning rotating sphere (and nothing else) to cause clockwise and counterclockwise air motion on opposing hemispheres.

Try thewholesoul' s coreolis challenge!!!

Good luck!
Yes. - Of course you must make the air around the sphere follow it, so you must enclose it in another, slightly larger sphere. Now make them both rotate and you can create Coriolis effects in the air-gap.

How did your hat taste?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:02 AM   #390
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We are INSIDE a constantly unidirectional material motion. This action of a physical material fluid in motion (the atmosphere) is what will cause the drag. In fact it would render live on the planet physically impossible if you think about it. I'm so happy it doesn't actually exist.
Now it has been explained to you at least ten times why your statement is wrong. It is evident that you deliberately ignore the answers you are getting.

I am forced to assume you are trolling.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:03 AM   #391
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,262
If you stick your sensor on the outside of the plane on a wind-still day, it will measure the air going the exact speed of the plane. However, someone standing on the ground won't even feel a breeze.
According to you, the air is 'objectively' moving, because that's what you've measured.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:12 AM   #392
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,095
As far as the rocket problem is concerned, it's worth remembering that the orbital speed is not measured relative to the Earth's surface. No matter which direction you're travelling in you have to be going 7800 m/s to stay in orbit at 200 km. If you go East the equatorial launch pad is already travelling East at 465 m/s so you only have to add 7335 m/s to get to orbital speed (ignoring delta-v to get to altitude). If you want to go West you start with -465 m/s velocity and so have to add 8265 m/s to reach 7800m/s
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:15 AM   #393
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
... Also I still have yet to pin down the physical cause of this boost. It's the earth rotation, yea, but is it the solid spinning or the fluid medium.spinning that causes the boost? What causes the physical increase in fuel consumption for rockets,launched westwards? It is atmospheric drag from the physically rotating fluid atmosphere?
It's not the atmosphere. The effect would be the same if a rocket took off from a rotating planet with no atmosphere. Even if you never understand, or never admit to understanding why it happens, can you remember this bit? It's not the atmosphere.


Imagine our revolving planet. Even if you declare you don't believe in it, try to imagine what it would be like. An person standing on the equator is being carried around in a circle, rotating at about 1000mph, like the globe was a gigantic carousel turning once per day.

If they look toward the eastern horizon at a distant star, they are at that moment being carried towards that at 1000 mph by the rotation of the planet. If they look westward to a star on that side, they are being carried away from it at 1000 mph. Got that bit?

If they get in a rocket and take off toward the eastern star, then they travel towards it at whatever velocity their rocket can achieve plus the eastward 1000 mph they started off with. If they fly off toward the western star instead then they travel towards it at rocket speed minus the eastward 1000 mph they began with.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:18 AM   #394
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,914
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If there was a mushroom cloud then the explosion wasn't contained at all
Of course it was. What prevented the cloud from continuing on into space?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:21 AM   #395
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I don't know but some flatearthers are tracking the sun in real time across the planet. You should find your answer there.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xSkrHCjZ85U
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I0aK1kWMZes
Well. On a certain date and time (dec. 21 noon) you can have the following condition (this is an empirical fact):

On 66,55 deg North, the sun is halfway up from the horizon and due south.

On 23,45 deg South, same longitude, the sun is in Zenith (right overhead).

If viewed from a flat Earth, where would the sun be? How far away would it be? Try it on a paper. The angle between the two elevations of the sun is exactly 90 degrees. Try to draw the triangle.

.... sheesh ...

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:23 AM   #396
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,914
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Stationary air does not produce winds of hundreds of miles per hour, at least not in my experience
Ever been in a car on a calm day, and opened the windows? How does that "stationary air" feel to you?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:27 AM   #397
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hey man, I disagree I am not confusing moving with and through a fluid. All objects in the fluid atmosphere MUST move through the fluid atmosphere. Stationary objects will move with the current. Objects in motion can move either with the current or AGAINST the current.
You are definitely confused, and you are causing the confusion by being careless about your point of reference for measuring movement.

When you talk about a fish swimming 'against the current' you don't just mean swimming in that particular direction through the water. You mean swimming in that direction faster than the river is flowing.

You are confusing how fast the fish is swimming relative to the water, with how fast it's swimming relative to the riverbank.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:30 AM   #398
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If NASA lauch west there is increased energy consumption because they are flying against the PHYSICAL not imaginary rotational motion of the atmosphere. If the lauch east. The rocket experiences a speed boost. How? What is the causal mechanism which produce a this effect? Does it happen by magic? ,and momentum.of what the solid spinning earth or the fluid spinning atmosphere?
No, it has nothing to do with atmospheric resistance. It will be the same.

To orbit the planet, the space vehicle must achieve a certain speed, a speed that is not relative to the surface speed. If launched east, it already moves at 1000 mph right from the start. If launched west, it moves backwards at 1000 mph, so it must use rocket power to gain 2000 mph extra velocity.

But this was already explained to you several times, in several ways.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:33 AM   #399
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,914
Honestly when thewholesoul claimed that the air inside an airplane isn't moving, I think I've lost interest. It's so obviously wrong that I can't see where to go from here. Somehow the fact that the airplane is closed to the outside means that the stuff inside it isn't moving even when it is.

But I'm still going to try because I'm stubborn.

I'm in a car that's moving at 100 mph. I'm holding a fist sized stone. The windows are all closed. According to thewholesoul neither I nor the stone are moving, we are stationary.

I open a window and, holding the stone in my hand, put my hand out the window. I release the stone. It just happens that you are standing in the street aligned with the stone as I release it, but many feet in front. I move my hand back into the car fast enough to avoid hitting you with it. Should you be worried about the stone?

If you should, is it because the stone is moving at 100mph when I release it? Was it not moving until I opened the window? How does opening a window impart a stone with motion?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 02:35 AM   #400
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,262
The progress of this thread appears to be stationary, yet at the same time everyone's heads are spinning.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.