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, 05:03 AM   #161
Halcyon Dayz
Critical Thinker
 
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nederland - Sol III
Posts: 304
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
It really isn't. But scientific consensus is 'the man', and saying 'lol, you can't prove anything' is an act of rebellion.
You're not explaining it to someone who wants to understand, you're explaining it to someone who wants to feel special for disagreeing.
They are special, alright.
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis
Join the Illuminati
Halcyon Dayz 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, 05:13 AM   #162
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

I blow into your face, you feel a little force right?

You feel a sea breeze on your face.

The force of a strong wind

A hurricane creates air currents up to 300mph

A nuclear blast 500mph

now try to imagine all the molecules of the atmosphere moving in unison at a whopping 1000mph in your face!

What's preventing you feeling this force? Have our brains evolved to ignore it as one sceptic in here suggested? Does moving with it or turning your back to it make it go away? I believe we don't feel it because it's not physically there. The atmosphere is stationary, not spinning.
When do you ever feel 1000 mph in your face? You are moving with it. what part of that don't you understand?


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
During a solar eclipse the earth does not spin faster or slower or in the opposite direction. But the Foucault pendulum does. This observed behaviour (haven't seen it myself) is known as the Allias effect. It suggests that the pendulum swing is caused by something other than the earths alleged rotation.
AGAIN, since the effect doesn't happen all the time during an eclipse and the few times it does is a very small fraction of the overall time any pendulums are in use you are STILL WRONG.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If a helicopter rises vertically and waits there 24 hours, why doesn't the earth rotate beneath it? For the Foucault pendulum and for small bullets, the earth does rotate beneath them. We have a contradiction.
Because helicopters aren't magical and don't magically lose the momentum they had on the ground just by taking off. Also, nobody hovers relative to the stars.
You are misinterpreting what happens with bullets. It isn't that the Earth turns underneath them. They still have momentum of rotation. When they are fired North or South they pass into areas with more or less rotation than the location they are fired from so they experience a difference.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat 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, 05:19 AM   #163
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
That's right. What else do we observe on Earth when we have solar eclipses ?? Extreme high tides

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-eclipse.html

Maybe, the solar eclipse has an electromagnetic effect on the pendulum. Maybe it's the aether? But it can't be the earth rotation because WE KNOW that the earth doesn't spin faster or slower during a solar eclipse.
Maybe you're reaching because you can't accept reality.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Correct but many incorrect causal explanations behind natural phenomenon are well documented. Doesn't mean they're true.
In this case it is.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Good point. But it makes me question or doubt the validity of the causal explanation behind the pendulum motion. Does the Allias effect make you more confident that Foucault pendulum is caused by earths rotation, or do you just ignore it altogether?
It makes me think, since it doesn't always happen, that we need to find out what caused it. But it doesn't make me think anything about the general operation of the pendulum. Unless you're reaching for any excuse possible and YOU are.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Give me a break. How many posts have I posted. Maybe you should go into a forum with a minority view and defend it against every one. So they have released the results, well then I was wrong. That's,what I read. You got me.
Translation: How dare you accuse me of lousy research like I did.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I don't believe you. the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You made a big juicy one there. Can you provide just ONE example of a non Foucault pendulum swinging from earths rotation. Link it so we can all see it in action. Dazzle me with your research skills!!
As soon as you support YOUR claim that it has to be a lead ball. So far you have not done that. And of course someone else already posted one that isn't lead. But thanks for showing YOUR lousy research skills.

Thanks for the humor!
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Last edited by frenat; 30th May 2017 at 05:23 AM.
frenat 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, 05:21 AM   #164
frenat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
have you seen an experiment demonstrating how the force of gravity contains nuclear explosions? i havent, have you?



Its was a question not an argument. Note the symbol ? At the end of the sentence. But you are just on attack mode. Why not just throw a few ad homs at me. It's a lot more entertaining that way.

Stay cool, go to school, don't be no fool, sceptics rule!!!
And thank you for proving you don't know what an ad hom is. Pointing out YOUR logical fallacy with the strawman arguments you continually use is NOT an ad hominem.
__________________
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
frenat 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, 05:30 AM   #165
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,016
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hey Hans. Okay now we are getting to the meat of the matter. Who, when, how and with what instrument was the 1000mph physical motion of the atmosphere measured at the equator?
We can, and have measured the circumference of Earth. You do it by measuring the angle between Earth's surface and very distant objects, like stars.

We can observe that it rotates in 24 hours. From there, the surface speed is a simple calculation. Since the air obviously moves with it, we can infer that it has the same speed.

Quote:
Past empirical observations. For example, if you spin any object in a bucket of water the energy from the spinning solid decreases as you move further away from the solid hence the liquid moves gradually slower the further away from the spinning solid you go. The same applies for air.
Wrong experiment. You should place the bucket on a turntable, and let it rotate for some time. After a while, all the water in the bucket rotates with it, at the same rotational rate.

Quote:
I agree the only friction the air meets is with the earths surface, assuming the earth is spinning. I guess the lack of cohesion between air and solids would prevent it reaching the identical speed.
Your guess is wrong. No matter how feeble the friction is, kinetic energy will be transferred as long as there is a difference in speed. Since the Earth has been rotating for a long time, the whole atmosphere has long since caught up and is rotating with it (actually it was probably created together with the planet, but that's another story).

Quote:
But where is the friction you speak of at the surface? Wouldn't we expect to see more turbulence at the mountainous regions?
We do, but not due to rotation. That is long over. Wind systems do meet more friction over land and mountains.

Quote:
Okay who when how and with what instrument?
Look, I am not going to teach you basic science. Look up the information you need. It is out there.

Quote:
When I look at the global atmospheric charts I don't see any uniformity, air currents are flowing in all different directions, with the spin and against the spin.
Exactly. This is because we have weather systems, driven by heat from the sun. But have you noticed that wind systems tend to go round in circles? They tend to go anti-clockwise on the northern hemisphere and clockwise on the southern. Why do you think this is?

Quote:
The atmosphere is sandwiched to speak between a solid moving object and a infinite vacuum. No friction on the vacuum side. There can't be.
Correct. And this is the reason all the air follows the solid object.

Quote:
Agreed. And the air further away travels slower.
Yes, because there IS friction against other air.

Quote:
For the same reason a fish going against a river will meet resistance.
Not quite. A fish swimming, say one mph upstream will feel exactly the same resistance as one swimming at the same pace downstream. They will not notice any difference. But if you view them from land, the down-stream fish will move faster.

Quote:
To give an analogy. Imagine we are all on boats in a donut shaped swimming pool. In the centre there is a rotating cylinder which causes the waters around the cylinder to rotate at 10mph in the same direction. Boats travelling with the rotation will move faster and further, (like what NASA claims to do to achieve escape velocity) but boats moving against the constant unidirectional force WILL necessarily and without exception move slower. There must be friction. Can you point out the flaw in my analogy?
Well since you keep repeating it, even after it was answered, the flaw must be that you don't understand it. Let's take another analogy:

You are in a train that travels 60 mph. You get up and walk towards the front of the carriage. It takes you 15 seconds to get there. Now you turn around and walk at the same pace back to your seat. It takes you another 15 seconds to get there. Did you feel any difference in resistance? Why not.

Back to your boats. As long as you measure their speed relative to water, it does not matter which way they sail. Since the water is moving with them, they encounter the same resistance. But if you measure their speed relative to the surroundings, it makes a difference. A boat having to maintain a given speed relative to the stationary surroundings will have to work harder if it must go against the movement of the water.

Same with rockets: They need to achieve a certain velocity to get into orbit. But the orbital speed is not relative to Earth's surface, it is relative to to a protection of Earth's center. Therefore it is less work to launch "downstream".

Notice that I use the word "relative" a lot. All speed is relative. The term speed has no meaning except in the relative sense.

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 30th May 2017, 05:34 AM   #166
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,130
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards compus,

A stationary earth model is like the spinning earth model but not moving

The celestial bodies sun moon stars all rotate around

Any more questions?
Yes.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
thewholesoul, how does a stationary Earth explain the retrograde motion of Mars?

How does it explain the fact that sometimes it can take as little as four minutes for a signal moving at light speed to make it to Mars and back, but other times it can take nearly fifty minutes?

How does it explain the fact that hurricanes rotate counter-clockwise north of the equator but typhoons rotate clockwise south of it?

How does it explain the fact winter occurs in the November-March timeframe in North America but in Australia it's in the May-September timeframe?
I notice you've completely ignored these questions. Why is that?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain 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, 05:44 AM   #167
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
To give an analogy. Imagine we are all on boats in a donut shaped swimming pool. In the centre there is a rotating cylinder which causes the waters around the cylinder to rotate at 10mph in the same direction. Boats travelling with the rotation will move faster and further, (like what NASA claims to do to achieve escape velocity) but boats moving against the constant unidirectional force WILL necessarily and without exception move slower. There must be friction. Can you point out the flaw in my analogy?
Yes, we can point out the flaw(s). It is not friction but momentum. Just sitting on the launch pad the rocket has an easterly momentum due to the rotation of the Earth. To produce a westerly momentum in the rocket (after launch) the easterly momentum it already must first be overcome. That takes more fuel, so it is easier and more economical simply to increase (after lunch) the easterly momentum the rocket already has. Please don't conflate force and or friction with momentum.
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 05:53 AM   #168
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine a jet flying at the speed of sound, the air in immediate contact with its surface, does it also travel at the speed of sound? If not, then I'm right and you are wrong.
Yes you are wrong. Some of the air travels at the speed of sound being compressed in shock waves creating a sonic boom. As an air craft is designed to fly through the air (slice through it more specifically). Not all the air in contact with the air craft gets 'dragged' along with it, as the air craft is specifically engineered to reduce drag.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_drag
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 06:08 AM   #169
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,174
Maybe there is a non-Foucault pendulum ? For sure you can build a pendulum which wont change it's plane of movement, as that's highly impractical in many appliactions ..
Dr.Sid 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, 06:09 AM   #170
bknight
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 182
For the record, cite/link this NASA document you have been quoting.
bknight 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 30th May 2017, 06:17 AM   #171
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,463
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
... it is easier and more economical simply to increase (after lunch) the easterly momentum the rocket already has.
I find that inertia seems to increase after lunch. Especially Thursday lunch, when we go to the pub.
Jack by the hedge 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 30th May 2017, 06:24 AM   #172
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,479
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
the main counter argument against focault pendulum is the Allias effect. apparentllythe focault pendulum during a solar eclpise, moves faster, moves slower, sometimes it even rotates in reverse. we know that when a solar eclipse occurs we knoiw the planet does not spped up or slow down or reverse, so the Allias effect tells us that something other than the earths alleged rotation is responsible for this behaviour.

NASA conducted this experiment in 1999 but they have never released their results? next solar eclipse is in august this year.

personally i find the foucalt pendulum unconvincing, why cant a wooden, glass, or plastic ball exhibit the same behaviour as the lead ball? why dont all pendulums behave like the foucault pendulum? why is earths alleged rotation selective?
I submit that you have not understood the physics behind the pendulum. The Allias effect may be real, it may not, but it no way negates the evidence of the pendulum. If true, it may suggest that something not well understood is happening during a solar eclipse, but at all other times, the behaviour exhibited by the pendulum is exactly as you would expect due to a rotating Earth. There is little evidence for the effect, experimental results are varied. But there is plenty of evidence for the pendulum working. - if you do it carefully you can build one yourself.

So come on, cards on the table, if the procession of the pendulum is not due to the Earth's rotation, then what is causing it? Magic pixies?
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm 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 30th May 2017, 06:28 AM   #173
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,571
I find it good that this silliness is not being discussed in science like a number of others are. Frankly I would love to see all similar removed from Science to here where they clearly belong!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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 30th May 2017, 06:31 AM   #174
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We really have to put this false analogy to rest. People, sceptics, listen, the reason we do not feel the motion of air in an airplane, is because the air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY as in NOT MOVING.
The "air INSIDE the airoplane is STATIONARY" relative to the plane, which simply means it is co-moving with the plane. Both that air and the plane are not stationary relative to the ground or the air outside the plane.
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 06:33 AM   #175
alex04
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 461
So as a consequence of the Earth being stationary, Alpha Centauri is orbiting at roughly 10000 times the speed of light.

OP sounds reasonable.
alex04 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, 06:33 AM   #176
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I find that inertia seems to increase after lunch. Especially Thursday lunch, when we go to the pub.
Dang nab it!

Looks like this mornings inertia has got me already.
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 06:35 AM   #177
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,571
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
I submit that you have not understood the physics behind the pendulum. The Allias effect may be real, it may not, but it no way negates the evidence of the pendulum. If true, it may suggest that something not well understood is happening during a solar eclipse, but at all other times, the behaviour exhibited by the pendulum is exactly as you would expect due to a rotating Earth. There is little evidence for the effect, experimental results are varied. But there is plenty of evidence for the pendulum working. - if you do it carefully you can build one yourself.

So come on, cards on the table, if the procession of the pendulum is not due to the Earth's rotation, then what is causing it? Magic pixies?
The embiggening and enredining of your first line above is for emphasis on the key point!!! As to the concern for the material, duh, mass!!!!! So air movement is unlikely to affect it - absent a really bad storm.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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 30th May 2017, 07:39 AM   #178
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
That's easy, Fish feelings are based on a scale.
That sounds like cod psychology.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc 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, 07:40 AM   #179
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
thewholesoul, how does a stationary Earth explain the retrograde motion of Mars?
Hello blue mountain. They are separate issues I believe. What causes the retrograde motion we observe is not related to the stationary state of the planet.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact that sometimes it can take as little as four minutes for a signal moving at light speed to make it to Mars and back, but other times it can take nearly fifty minutes?
I don't know. Ask Google.or start page.

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact that hurricanes rotate counter-clockwise north of the equator but typhoons rotate clockwise south of it?

The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. Get a sphere, any sphere, rotate it eastwards now if you can get the air on the top hemisphere to spin counter clockwise and the air around the bottom hemisphere to spin clockwise I swear to God I will upload a youtube video of me ating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate. There MUST be another causal explanation as to why hurricanes and cyclones behave this way. Explanations of physical reality that we cannot demonstrate physically lack empirical validation.


Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact winter occurs in the November-March timeframe in North America but in Australia it's in the May-September timeframe?
Day night seasons etc existed when the population of the world believed the earth was flat and stationary.

Have a great day!

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 07:41 AM.
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, 07:52 AM   #180
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: 24,094
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Hello blue mountain. They are separate issues I believe. What causes the retrograde motion we observe is not related to the stationary state of the planet.
Translation: You can't explain it within the framework of a stationary Earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I don't know. Ask Google.or start page.
These will lead to sources that explain it in terms of the well understood model in which the Earth is rotating. So, translation: You can't explain it within the framework of a stationary Earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. Get a sphere, any sphere, rotate it eastwards now if you can get the air on the top hemisphere to spin counter clockwise and the air around the bottom hemisphere to spin clockwise I swear to God I will upload a youtube video of me ating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate. There MUST be another causal explanation as to why hurricanes and cyclones behave this way. Explanations of physical reality that we cannot demonstrate physically lack empirical validation.
Firstly, the Coriolis effect can only be caused by rotation; it is inherently a consequence of rotation. Secondly, your demand is utterly incoherent; what do you think you're asking to be demonstrated? Spinning a sphere in an ambient atmosphere is a completely different situation, and more or less irrelevant to atmospheric behavior on a rotating planet. Thirdly, the Coriolis effect itself is trivial to demonstrate; its effect on an atmosphere is not physically impossible, but simply impractical, to demonstrate, as it would require manipulation of planetary sized objects. And finally, you're simply asserting that there's some other explanation but are unable to suggest what it might be. Translation: You can't explain it within the framework of a stationary Earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Day night seasons etc existed when the population of the world believed the earth was flat and stationary.
So what? If the population of the world ever believed that, they were wrong. The beliefs of the majority of the population of the world do not dictate reality; it's for the population of the world to adjust their beliefs to fit observation, something you would benefit from learning how to do.

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 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 30th May 2017, 08:03 AM   #181
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,819
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
.... but simply impractical, to demonstrate, as it would require manipulation of planetary sized objects.

I think this is the ultimate source of his problem: He just can't grasp the scale on which the Earth, its atmosphere, and the universe around it, operates. He keeps trying to make analogies to buckets, tabletop globes, fish aquariums, rivers, and such, which don't clearly demonstrate the effects he's (ostensibly) trying to understand, because the effects are just too small at that scale.

Ultimately, all of the answers to all of his problems could be summed up in one word: "Gravity". The gravity of the Earth is so large, it ultimately causes all these other follow-on effects. Friction, fluid mechanics, Newtonian Relativity - these all exist, and have an effect, but it's the massive gravity of the Earth that magnifies their effects enough for us to see.

Gravity on human-scale objects like buckets just can't replicate the effect. It's just too weak at that scale.

Until he grasps that, he'll understand nothing.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 30th May 2017, 08:16 AM   #182
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,810
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I think this is the ultimate source of his problem: He just can't grasp the scale on which the Earth, its atmosphere, and the universe around it, operates.

He also seems to think that the aether exists, or possibly that the natural state for things to be in is motionless relative to some fixed reference. He certainly thinks that there is something that would stop the atmosphere of a rotating planet from rotating with 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 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 30th May 2017, 08:16 AM   #183
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,714
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
thewholesoul, how does a stationary Earth explain the retrograde motion of Mars?
Hello blue mountain. They are separate issues I believe. What causes the retrograde motion we observe is not related to the stationary state of the planet.
Go ahead and explain the retrograde motion of Mars on it's own, then.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact that sometimes it can take as little as four minutes for a signal moving at light speed to make it to Mars and back, but other times it can take nearly fifty minutes?
I don't know. Ask Google.or start page.
Why have you not done so?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact that hurricanes rotate counter-clockwise north of the equator but typhoons rotate clockwise south of it?

The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. Get a sphere, any sphere, rotate it eastwards now if you can get the air on the top hemisphere to spin counter clockwise and the air around the bottom hemisphere to spin clockwise I swear to God I will upload a youtube video of me ating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate. There MUST be another causal explanation as to why hurricanes and cyclones behave this way. Explanations of physical reality that we cannot demonstrate physically lack empirical validation.
The effect is well understood. Simple 3D spatial reasoning will get you there. Why MUST there be another explanation and what is it? What more validation do you need that typhoons and hurricanes behave as they do when we can see it happen?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
How does it explain the fact winter occurs in the November-March timeframe in North America but in Australia it's in the May-September timeframe?
Day night seasons etc existed when the population of the world believed the earth was flat and stationary.
Day night seasons etc always existed even before there were people. So what?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 08:17 AM   #184
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,463
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The coreolis effect is not caused by earths rotation. Get a sphere, any sphere, rotate it eastwards now if you can get the air on the top hemisphere to spin counter clockwise and the air around the bottom hemisphere to spin clockwise I swear to God I will upload a youtube video of me ating my hat. The idea that the rotation a sphere can cause this effect is non sense. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate. There MUST be another causal explanation as to why hurricanes and cyclones behave this way. Explanations of physical reality that we cannot demonstrate physically lack empirical validation.
Here is one simple and really clear demonstration of what you imagined was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I hope your hat is delicious.
Jack by the hedge 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 30th May 2017, 08:35 AM   #185
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,913
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards foster, how's it going? I was wondering when this,argument was going to be raised.

The reason we don't feel the velocity of the aeroplane is because we are located INSIDE the moving solid body. Like when you run your organs are the passengers and they don't feel the friction against the air that you are pushing through

We are located on the OUTSIDE on the EXTERIOR of the solid moving body.

Now if you were sitting on the OUTSIDE of a plane travelling at that speed, could you still eat those peanuts? I don't think so.
What is outside the atmosphere to cause it to experience any drag effects?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote 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, 08:43 AM   #186
EvilBiker
Muse
 
EvilBiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 920
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I think this is the ultimate source of his problem: He just can't grasp the scale on which the Earth, its atmosphere, and the universe around it, operates. He keeps trying to make analogies to buckets, tabletop globes, fish aquariums, rivers, and such, which don't clearly demonstrate the effects he's (ostensibly) trying to understand, because the effects are just too small at that scale.
...and this is exactly the problem with 99.99999% of flat earthers. This planet is YUGE, and humanity is just an irritating skin disease on its surface, to horribly quote Douglas Adams.
__________________
Flat Earth Theory:
The unfortunate result of ordering pizza to satisfy munchies after smoking way too much weed to bring you down from that hectic acid trip.
EvilBiker 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, 09:07 AM   #187
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
I don't get how matter in constant motion is not a force.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
F=ma
Are you saying that a river flowing with a constant velocity has no force? Yes or no


Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. That would ultimately be friction.
So you're saying that friction is what is causes the atmosphere to rotate with the spinning earth. And what about the centrifugal force of the earths rotation, where does that energy go?

Quote:
Imagine a fish in a whirlpool spinning eastwards at a constant velocity, I get how if the fish is floating with the spin it doesn't notice any motion. But it must feel something going against the spin. Thats what I don't get
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
have you seen laboratory experiments verifying this?
Yes, and I have also phtsically experienced it swimming upstream in a river.

Are you seriously saying that a fish swimming AGAINST the current will not encounter any friction? Will not use more energy to travel the same distance?

Quote:
I understand why we don't feel a constant motion. Only acceleration. But we wouldn't feel motion either in a stationary atmosphere.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And now you are disagreeing with yourself. You are claiming that you don't understand why we don't feel it and that you do understand why we don't feel it.
That's correct because there is more than one explanation. You believe we don't feel any motion of an eastward moving atmosphere because we travel with it. I believe we don't feel any motion because the atmosphere is stationary. I am arguing for the second explanation. I'm not disagreeing with myself.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Westward launch does require more fuel for a given payload.
Agreed it makes sense. But when NASA launch rockets east they DO get a speed boost. But when transnational and transatlantic flights travel east they DONT get a speed boost. Can you explain this glaring contradiction?

Quote:
the words "speed boost" mean move faster. We have two objects in motion. The rocket and the atmosphere. If it's not the motion of the atmosphere (that you claim physically exists) giving them the extra speed, then what is?
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Once again, the rotation of the earth.
So earths rotation gives nasa rockets flying east a speed boost but earths rotation doesn't give aeroplanes, helicopters, balloons, and birds flying east a speed boost. Care to explain this glaring contradiction?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Try rereading what was actually said.
No, I won't re-read what they actually said. instead I will re type here for you to re read because in an earlier post you said "it's not a speed boost"

Answer: So that the rocket can get a speed boost from the earths rotation" - NASA.gov

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
If you, the river were comoving at 1000 mph, your results would be the same.
No the results wouldn't be the same. Action reaction. The rivers motion is the action. Moving against it Will cause a reaction I will use more energy I will cause travel slower and a shorter distance. Energy use, speed and distance are measurable things

Quote:
If you move against a constant uniform motion wouldn't you feel a force?
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Not necessarily. See Einstein. See the car example.
What's Einstein got to do with it? The car when moving against a head on wind will necessarily experience air resistance. You have completely lost your mind if you believe that you won't feel any force when moving against a constant uniform motion.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
, in your model that would be immediately fatal.
Wrong in my model there is no 1000mph constant uniform motion. That's your model. And yes if it was in fact true that the atmosphere was moving at that speed there it would be physically impossible for flora or fauna to exist.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
F=ma again, I'm afraid.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Imagine yourself driving in a highway at 60 mph. A car ahead of you is also traveling at 60 mph. In your model you will catch up to that other car at a rate of 60 mph. That may seem trivially false but that is what you are effectively claiming.
Not at all.

Judging by the quality of your responses in this post i predict you will tap out soon, go awol, abandon us in about two more posts....

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 09:10 AM.
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, 09:13 AM   #188
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
How fast would the sun have to be whipping around us in order to create the appearance of day and night?

It would be a trip of 2Pi(8 light minutes) or 16Pi light minutes every 24 hours. That makes it (2Pi/3) light minutes. That works out to about 2.094395102 light minutes per hour. That's 23,400,000 miles an hour.

Now which is more believable? That the sun is revolving around the earth at 23,400,000 miles an hour or that the earth is spinning at 1,000 miles an hour?
Warm regards loss leader.

The sun is revolving around us at 1000mph is more believable.
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, 09:14 AM   #189
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,714
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards loss leader.

The sun is revolving around us at 1000mph is more believable.
At what latitude?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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, 09:15 AM   #190
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,118
If earth is stationary, then why aren't all the stars in the sky in the same position all the time? Why do they move? Are you saying the earth is the center of the universe, and all the stars and galaxies rotate around the earth?
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 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 30th May 2017, 09:16 AM   #191
p0lka
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Wrong in my model there is no 1000mph constant uniform motion. That's your model. And yes if it was in fact true that the atmosphere was moving at that speed there it would be physically impossible for flora or fauna to exist.
Why do you keep saying things like this, when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the atmosphere isn't moving at that speed relative to the ground?
p0lka 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, 09:17 AM   #192
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I have. Every nuclear weapon test. You get a mushroom cloud that projects upward into the sky and then stops at some altitude. It is contained by the force of gravity and prevented from continuing into space.
If there was a mushroom cloud then the explosion wasn't contained at all
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, 09:24 AM   #193
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,228
Only if you've been eating the special kind.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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, 09:32 AM   #194
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,941
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If there was a mushroom cloud then the explosion wasn't contained at all
So do you think the mushroom clouds escaped our atmosphere?
__________________
@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, 09:51 AM   #195
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
you can measure the speed with one of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount

thanks
Warm regards Bob, how's life treating ya?

The link states "An equatorial mount is a mount for instruments that compensate the rotation of earth"

In other words its not used to measure the earths rotation, but to compensate for it, assuming it is there.

Here is a repeatable experiment using telescopes that was designed to prove the earths rotation but in fact proved the opposite that the earth is not rotating. It is known as Airys failure.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU

Get back to me when you debunk it.

Peace health and prosperity to all sceptics
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, 09:52 AM   #196
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I LOL'd because I thought this was tongue-in-cheek.

Is it?
No he was serious!
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, 09:56 AM   #197
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
A fish swimming against the current feels no more resistance than a fish swimming with the current. The resistance only changes with the fish's speed relative to the water around it.
Anybody who has swam or rowed a boat up stream in a river KNOWS what you said is untrue. More energy is required to swim or move against a constant unidirectional motion.I can't believe I have to repeat this point in the international skeptics forum!

Next
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, 10:10 AM   #198
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: 24,094
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The link states "An equatorial mount is a mount for instruments that compensate the rotation of earth"

In other words its not used to measure the earths rotation, but to compensate for it, assuming it is there
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.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Here is a repeatable experiment using telescopes that was designed to prove the earths rotation but in fact proved the opposite that the earth is not rotating. It is known as Airys failure.
It proved no such thing; it proved, rather, that there is no such thing as absolute motion, but that motion can only be expressed in relative terms, a concept you have repeatedly shown your inability to grasp.

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 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 30th May 2017, 10:14 AM   #199
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: 24,094
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Anybody who has swam or rowed a boat up stream in a river KNOWS what you said is untrue. More energy is required to swim or move against a constant unidirectional motion.
Relative to the bank, yes. Relative to the water, no. So, by analogy, since the Earth is rotating relative to the background stars, it takes less energy to go from that speed to the higher speed needed to enter orbit in the same direction than it does in the opposite direction. However, it makes no difference to the energy required to reach a given speed relative to the Earth whether the direction is with or against the rotation. Your chosen example proves the opposite of the point you want it to.

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 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 30th May 2017, 10:15 AM   #200
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,714
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Quote:
I don't get how matter in constant motion is not a force.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
F=ma
Are you saying that a river flowing with a constant velocity has no force? Yes or no
Sure, if it has zero mass in it.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. That would ultimately be friction.
So you're saying that friction is what is causes the atmosphere to rotate with the spinning earth. And what about the centrifugal force of the earths rotation, where does that energy go?
Calculate the centrifugal force and the gravitational force. Which is bigger?

And force is not energy. I have no idea where you got that nonsense.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine a fish in a whirlpool spinning eastwards at a constant velocity, I get how if the fish is floating with the spin it doesn't notice any motion. But it must feel something going against the spin. Thats what I don't get
Start by explaining exactly how a whirlpool can "spin eastward" without being as large as the earth.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
have you seen laboratory experiments verifying this?
Yes, and I have also phtsically experienced it swimming upstream in a river.

Are you seriously saying that a fish swimming AGAINST the current will not encounter any friction? Will not use more energy to travel the same distance?
Nope. Start by listing the forces involved and the energy expended.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Quote:
I understand why we don't feel a constant motion. Only acceleration. But we wouldn't feel motion either in a stationary atmosphere.
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And now you are disagreeing with yourself. You are claiming that you don't understand why we don't feel it and that you do understand why we don't feel it.
That's correct because there is more than one explanation. You believe we don't feel any motion of an eastward moving atmosphere because we travel with it. I believe we don't feel any motion because the atmosphere is stationary. I am arguing for the second explanation. I'm not disagreeing with myself.
Yes, you are. Science does not proceed on the basis of feelings. How it might "feel" to you is not even included in the evidence for rotation. You might as well conclude that you are not moving at all when you drive your car along the road at 60 mph because you do not feel a 60 mph wind in your face.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Westward launch does require more fuel for a given payload.
Agreed it makes sense. But when NASA launch rockets east they DO get a speed boost. But when transnational and transatlantic flights travel east they DONT get a speed boost. Can you explain this glaring contradiction?
It is not a contradiction. It's that concept that continues to evade you.

Before take of, while stationary on the ground, the aircraft is moving at 1000 mph eastward along with the earth and the atmosphere.

After takeoff to the east, a 500 mph aircraft is travelling east at 1500mph but the earth and atmosphere are also moving east at 1000 mph. The net speed of the aircraft is 500 mph.

After takeoff to the west, the 500 mph aircraft is now travelling east at 500 mph (1000-500) while the earth and atmosphere are still travelling east at 1000 mph. The net speed is still 500 mph.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
the words "speed boost" mean move faster. We have two objects in motion. The rocket and the atmosphere. If it's not the motion of the atmosphere (that you claim physically exists) giving them the extra speed, then what is?
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Once again, the rotation of the earth.
It has nothing to do with the atmosphere. This has been explained to you over and over again.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
So earths rotation gives nasa rockets flying east a speed boost but earths rotation doesn't give aeroplanes, helicopters, balloons, and birds flying east a speed boost. Care to explain this glaring contradiction?
Already done. There is no contradiction. Did it before with your helicopter example which you clearly did not read, but here it is again if you must fail to read yet again...

Before take of, while stationary on the ground, the aircraft is moving at 1000 mph eastward along with the earth and the atmosphere.

After takeoff to the east, a 500 mph aircraft is travelling east at 1500mph but the earth and atmosphere are also moving east at 1000 mph. The net speed of the aircraft is 500 mph.

After takeoff to the west, the 500 mph aircraft is now travelling east at 500 mph (1000-500) while the earth and atmosphere are still travelling east at 1000 mph. The net speed is still 500 mph.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Try rereading what was actually said.
No, I won't re-read what they actually said. instead I will re type here for you to re read because in an earlier post you said "it's not a speed boost"

Answer: So that the rocket can get a speed boost from the earths rotation" - NASA.gov
Sigh.

For the sake of round numbers, let us take a round figure of 15,000 mph as required to achieve orbit.

If you launch eastward, you only need to provide fuel for a deltaV of 14,000 mph because you are already travelling at 1,000 mph eastward.

If you launch westward, you need fuel to overcome the 1,000 mph eastward speed plus the 15,000 mph speed for a total deltaV of 16,000 mph needed to attain orbit. Hence more fuel required.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
If you, the river were comoving at 1000 mph, your results would be the same.
No the results wouldn't be the same. Action reaction. The rivers motion is the action. Moving against it Will cause a reaction I will use more energy I will cause travel slower and a shorter distance. Energy use, speed and distance are measurable things
Wrong. You already defined the river's motion as a constant. The action is you swimming against it.
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Quote:
If you move against a constant uniform motion wouldn't you feel a force?
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Not necessarily. See Einstein. See the car example.
What's Einstein got to do with it? The car when moving against a head on wind will necessarily experience air resistance. You have completely lost your mind if you believe that you won't feel any force when moving against a constant uniform motion.
Are you strapped to the hood of your car while driving?

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
, in your model that would be immediately fatal.
Wrong in my model there is no 1000mph constant uniform motion. That's your model. And yes if it was in fact true that the atmosphere was moving at that speed there it would be physically impossible for flora or fauna to exist.
Not if they are also moving at the same speed.


Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
F=ma again, I'm afraid. Imagine yourself driving in a highway at 60 mph. A car ahead of you is also traveling at 60 mph. In your model you will catch up to that other car at a rate of 60 mph. That may seem trivially false but that is what you are effectively claiming.
Not at all.
Oh yes it is. If a tree is moving at 1,000 mph and the ground under it is moving at 1,000 mph and the air around it is moving at 1,000 mph, all in the same eastward direction, you claim the tree will be flattened by a 1,000 mph wind ex nihilo.
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Judging by the quality of your responses in this post i predict you will tap out soon, go awol, abandon us in about two more posts....
I doubt it. It gets funnier when you run out of arguments and resort to insult.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 08:43 AM.
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.