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, 06:58 PM   #321
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How come NASA rockets flying east get a speed boost but commercial jets don't?
There's no speed boost relative to the ground, which is where the planes are trying to move relative to.
phunk 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, 06:59 PM   #322
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
You didn't point out any. The nalogy was a donut shaped pool with a rotating cylinder. Address the flaws in that analogy
I did, it ain't friction it's momentum.

.
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
No, it's friction and momentum.
See that even you can acknowledge the flaw, in part.


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.
Nope, again it has to overcome the easterly momentum it already has just sitting on the pad.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
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?

Again when it launches east it can take advantage of the easterly momentum it already has just sitting on the pad.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
,and momentum.of what the solid spinning earth or the fluid spinning atmosphere?

The momentum of the rocket, again it has an easterly momentum already just sitting on the pad.
__________________
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, 07:01 PM   #323
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,456
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?
Whether the rocket goes east or west it expends energy to force its way though the atmosphere. The atmosphere just gets in the way and doesn't contribute a speed boost.

The boost comes from the fact that the rocket just standing on the launch pad is already moving east because everything is rotating east. Might as well decide to carry on accelerating in that direction and pocket the free 1000mph.
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 30th May 2017, 07:05 PM   #324
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
The Fish Bowl and the River Fallacy

In this post I want to address a common fallacy made by advocates of the spinning globe theory. They constantly obfuscate, confuse, conflate or flat out ignore the objectively know difference between the experience of a fish in a bowl and a fish in a river.

In both environments the fish can move freely in all directions. In a fish bowl, there is no current. However in the second environment, in the river, the fish gets a speed boost when swimming with the current, gets carried with the river when stationary and naturally experiences drag when swimming against the river's constant flow.

Recall, globe theory advocates the existence of an atmosphere in physical motion rotating constantly at 1000mph. For this reason, the globe model is more analogos to the river more so than the fish bowl with respect to atmospheric motion. With that in mind, let's look at the following posts

Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
A fish swimming against the current feels no more resistance than a fish swimming with the current.
wrong. A fish swimming with the current will experience a speed boost. A fish swimming against ANY head on current will experience more resistance and the physical objectively verifiable effects that naturally come with that, such as drag, decreased speed, and increased energy consumption.

Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
The resistance only changes with the fish's speed relative to the water around it.
The fishes relative position is irrelevant. What is relevant is the state of the medium, is it stationary like a fish bowl or is it in motion like a river. According to the globe model the atmosphere is more analogous to 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 30th May 2017, 07:10 PM   #325
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It wouldn't, but I was talking about an outside observer. It's stationary in its own frame of reference.
Correct, but even stationary in ones own reference frame we can experience a constant force like that of gravity. A constant force of acceleration. Things not stationary, falling from the top of the ship would seem to accelerate at the constant acceleration of gravity in that frame. However, to an outside observer as the ship approached the speed of light the acceleration of the ship (and everything in it) would reduce, less change in velocity per unit time. Least ways that's been my understanding.

ETA:

If I remember correctly, and it has been some time since I read it mind you, it's one of the ways Einstein got to the equivalence principle.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 07:15 PM.
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, 07:11 PM   #326
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
The Fish Bowl and the River Fallacy

In this post I want to address a common fallacy made by advocates of the spinning globe theory. They constantly obfuscate, confuse, conflate or flat out ignore the objectively know difference between the experience of a fish in a bowl and a fish in a river.

In both environments the fish can move freely in all directions. In a fish bowl, there is no current. However in the second environment, in the river, the fish gets a speed boost when swimming with the current, gets carried with the river when stationary and naturally experiences drag when swimming against the river's constant flow.

Recall, globe theory advocates the existence of an atmosphere in physical motion rotating constantly at 1000mph. For this reason, the globe model is more analogos to the river more so than the fish bowl with respect to atmospheric motion. With that in mind, let's look at the following posts



wrong. A fish swimming with the current will experience a speed boost. A fish swimming against ANY head on current will experience more resistance and the physical objectively verifiable effects that naturally come with that, such as drag, decreased speed, and increased energy consumption.



The fishes relative position is irrelevant. What is relevant is the state of the medium, is it stationary like a fish bowl or is it in motion like a river. According to the globe model the atmosphere is more analogous to a river.
I have absolutely no doubt that you fail to understand this.

The mistake you're making is that you are equating the river bank in your example with the surface of earth in reality. But the river bank in your example is actually analogous to outer space, not earth. It is what is outside the moving environment of the river, like vacuum of space is outside our atmosphere. The river itself is analogous to the whole earth/atmosphere system.
phunk 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, 07:15 PM   #327
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Correct, but even stationary in ones own reference frame we can experience a constant force like that of gravity. A constant force of acceleration. Things not stationary, falling from the top of the ship would seem to accelerate at the constant acceleration of gravity in that frame. However, to an outside observer as the ship approached the speed of light the acceleration of the ship (and everything in it) would reduce, less change in velocity per unit time. Least ways that's been my understanding.
Yes, an outside observer would see the acceleration rapidly approaching but never quite hitting 0 while an observer on the ship feels constant acceleration.
phunk 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, 07:20 PM   #328
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,197
It's hat eating time!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupite...1M_reduced.gif

notice the storms in the northern hemisphere are rotating in a different direction than the great red spot.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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, 07:27 PM   #329
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
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 Mojo View Post
Yes, if it's just floating with the spin, and moving at the same velocity as the water surrounding it, it won't feel any motion. If it swims against the spin it feels motion because it is swimming
Yes, but not only for that. It will also experience the motion of the whirlpool and the objectively verifiable effects that follow. Indeed if the rotational energy of the whirlpool is stronger than the energy the fish has to swim then the fish cannot physically advance forwards against the current.The fish is not in a fish bowl.

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It also feels motion if it swims in the direction of the spin.
Yes, but ALSO it will experience the motion of the whirlpool and effects such as a speed boost, greater distance travelled, lower energy consumption. It is objectively harder to swim against a constant unidirectional movement of matter than swimming with it.



Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
And this is exactly what we observe. If we stand still we do not appear to be moving relative to the surface of the Earth or the atmosphere that is moving with it. If we move West, against the spin, we sense motion in that direction
What about the motion of the fluid atmosphere moving in your direction. Will that have no physical effect on you? I believe you are ignoring the objective effects a fluid medium in motion Will have on a solid object moving through it and against it.



Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If we move East, with the spin, we sense motion in that direction. In all three cases the motion that we sense is our motion relative to the surface if the Earth, and has nothing to do with the spin. It really shouldn't be hard to grasp.
Dido

What's has relativity got to do with the physical.interaction between a fluid medium in constant motion and a solid object?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 07:28 PM.
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, 07:34 PM   #330
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You are inside a railroad car travelling down the track at 60 mph. You jump straight up inside the car, do you land anywhere except right where you jumped? No, you land right back at the same point, does this prove the train car is not moving? No, the only aspect that is proved is that you and the train car are moving at the same speed/direction. Whether or not you are able to measure the speed or not.
Your analogy is inaccurate because the air in the train is stationary and not in motion like our atmosphere is said to be. You need a better analogy.

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, 07:37 PM   #331
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Your analogy is inaccurate because the air in the train is stationary and not in motion like our atmosphere is said to be. You need a better analogy.

All the best
The air in the train is moving at the same speed as the train. It's a good analogy for the atmosphere and the ground.
phunk 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, 07:42 PM   #332
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
If you start at the equator and pilot the helicopter due north, using a computer to aim without instruments and only knowledge of the initial conditions (position, direction) and exact knowledge the wind at each point, with the computer assuming that the earth does not rotate, the path will deviate from due north in a predictable curve. This is identical to the effects on the bullet.
When a helicopter rises and descends some time later, the question is why does the earth NOT move beneath it? The reply is that that is because the atnosphere moves WITH the earth.

When it comes to a Foucault pendulum however...

"Once you set one in motion, its direction of swing will rotate at a rate of about 0.2 degrees every minute. But in fact, it isn't really the pendulum that's rotating: the pendulum is swinging back and forth in exactly the same direction.it's the Earth which is rotating underneath the pendulum , which makes it appear that the pendulum is in fact changing direction."

Can you explain this glaring contradiction? How does the earth rotate under a pendulum, or a bullet, but not under a helicopter. How can spinning globe model advocates have jam.on both sides of their bread?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 07:44 PM.
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 PM   #333
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When a helicopter rises and descends some time later, the question is why does the earth NOT move beneath it? The reply is that that is because the atnosphere moves WITH the earth.

When it comes to a Foucault pendulum however...

"Once you set one in motion, its direction of swing will rotate at a rate of about 0.2 degrees every minute. But in fact, it isn't really the pendulum that's rotating: the pendulum is swinging back and forth in exactly the same direction.it's the Earth which is rotating underneath the pendulum , which makes it appear that the pendulum is in fact changing direction."

Can you explain this glaring contradiction? How does the earth rotate under a pendulum, or a bullet, but not under a helicopter. How can spinning globe model advocates have jam.on both sides of their bread?
There is no contradiction, you're talking about two different types of motion. What changes with the pendulum is that it's plane of oscillation remains fixed while the earth rotates. The pendulum, like the helicopter, is still moving along with the surface of the earth as it rotates. It's just maintaining it's orientation.
phunk 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, 07:55 PM   #334
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
When you are moving with something (co-moving) you are stationary relative to it and it to you. The "second explanation" is definitively and emphatically the first. So you can only be disagreeing with yourself since you can't disagree with the one explanation without also disagreeing with the other.
Imagine you have 25 km of airport walk way, you know the type that moves under your feet. Well it travels at a constant speed of 10mph in the same easterly direction. This track is within a corridor with lots of fans on the walls and they blow at a constant speed of 10mph also in an easterly direction.

When you are stationary you move with the automatic track AND you experience the wind on your back. If you turn around you will physically experience the constant air current on your face.

When you walk on the track easterly you will feel a speed boost AND you will experience the constant wind on your back. It also requires less energy.

When you walk westerly on the track you experience the constant wind current in your face and it takes more energy to walk.

What has relativity got to do with the physical interactions between a fluid in constant motion and a solid object?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 07:56 PM.
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, 08:02 PM   #335
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine you have 25 km of airport walk way, you know the type that moves under your feet. Well it travels at a constant speed of 10mph in the same easterly direction. This track is within a corridor with lots of fans on the walls and they blow at a constant speed of 10mph also in an easterly direction.

When you are stationary you move with the automatic track AND you experience the wind on your back. If you turn around you will physically experience the constant air current on your face.

When you walk on the track easterly you will feel a speed boost AND you will experience the constant wind on your back. It also requires less energy.

When you walk westerly on the track you experience the constant wind current in your face and it takes more energy to walk.

What has relativity got to do with the physical interactions between a fluid in constant motion and a solid object?
Hilighted part is wrong. You'd feel no wind on your back, since both you and the wind are moving at the same speed.

It's the same situation as the air on the train. You don't feel it moving because you're moving with it.

Last edited by phunk; 30th May 2017 at 08:04 PM.
phunk 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, 08:06 PM   #336
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
[quote=Dave Rogers;11860913]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?

Why don't NASA send a satellite up outside earths orbit and drop a anenonometer down to physically measure and confirm the 1000mph?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
I respectfully disagree.
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, 08:10 PM   #337
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,506
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?
Why drop anything, we have visual indicators: clouds.

We can watch from a wide variety of satellites as the weather patterns follow the ground as the earth rotates. We can see exactly the expected coriolis effects.
phunk 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, 08:15 PM   #338
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
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!
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Relative to the bank of the river, yes, you would have to expend more energy. Relative to the water you are swimming or rowing in, nope.
What has relativity got to do with the physical interaction between a solid object and a fluid medium?

Are you saying swimming against a current doesn't have physical effects such as drag, decrease in speed, increased energy consumption?

How come NASA get a speed boost flying east, but jets don't?

Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
Frame of reference, bigger picture, etc. All very basic stuff, really..
Is earths atmospheric motion more analogous to water in a fish bowl or a whirpool?
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, 08:32 PM   #339
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Whatever.
It's nice to be nice man.

Quote:
"co-moving" is no more or less ambiguous than "STATIONARY" (though it was less capitalized). "STATIONARY" relative to what, the plane, the ground the stars?
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.

Is the air inside a closed bottl thrown into the sky stationary or moving. The air INSIDE the bottle not the bottle itself?

Quote:
You can consider the motion, or lack there of, relative to whatever you do prefer, even "being carried or transported". Try not to get hung up in the language.
So you are not going to concede you were wrong?

The air inside a submarine stationary or moving? 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?

Quote:
Naw you just lost yourself. Why did you get on the plane if it didn't go anywhere?
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 ??

Peace
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, 08:40 PM   #340
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
How come you can feel a 10mph motion of part of the atmosphere but not a 750mph motion of the entire atmosphere? It's like a fish in the river being able to feel a slight local change in turbulence but being unable to feel the massive flow of the river. It makes no sense to me.
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Put a fish in a tank.

False analogy. There is no constant unidirectional motion in a fish tank, you believe the earths atmosphere is PHYSICALLY ROTATING at 1000mph.

Put the fish in a whirlpool or a donut shaped river for a better more accurate analogy.

Quote:
Load the tank on a truck. Drive the truck 100 mph. How is the fish doing?
Fine, feels no motion because the fluid medium it is within is STATIONERY.

Quote:
ETA - Oh, geez. 6 pages went by since the post I replied to. Sorry.
No worries mate
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, 08:49 PM   #341
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,690
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How come NASA rockets flying east get a speed boost but commercial jets don't?

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.
There is a whole lot of ignorance in this thread.

Okay... first off, the Atmosphere has nothing to do with the changes in velocity required to reach orbit. It's the velocity that the surface is moving, not the atmosphere.

Consider this. You are in a moon buggy being driven across the moon at 20 miles per hour. You have a baseball in your hand and you are told by an observer on the ground watching you that they want you to throw the ball so that its velocity will be 30 miles an hour relative to them. How fast do you have to throw the ball if...

a) you throw it forward, in the same direction the moon buggy is travelling?
b) you throw it backwards, in the opposite direction to that the buggy is travelling in?

Congratulations if your answers were a) 10 mph and b) 50 mph.

If not, can you figure out why those are the answers.

Now compare to a stationary moon buggy. How fast would you have to throw the ball in each direction to have it traveling at 30 mph relative to the observer?

Now you are probably noticing that a object's velocity varies depending on what you measure it against.

If I stand on the bank of a river I can measure the flow of the water relative to myself, but if I am on a boat on that river then I can't as we are moving at the same velocity. The same for the wind, if I am standing on the ground, I can measure the speed of the wind, but if I am in a balloon being carried by that wind, then because we are going at the same velocity I can't measure it. Essentially to me if I am on a boat or a balloon, then the medium that is pushing me along is apparently stationary. It will only appears to be moving to those that are moving at a different velocity to the wind or river.

When you start to understand these things, you will start to overcome much of your confusion in this thread.

Also, there is no such things as centrifugal force and the Earth doesn't cause the atmosphere to rotate, as the Earth formed, the entire mass, both rock and gas was rotating and since there is no friction in space to slow it down, it simply continues to do so.

We also know that all other observable objects in space are rotating, it would be illogical to assume that the Earth was not likewise doing so.

Finally, for this post, the rotation was observed by the Apollo Astronauts and can be seen in their footage when they filmed the Earth for an extended periods of about 20 minutes during the trip to the moon by Apollo 11.
__________________

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, 08:50 PM   #342
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,690
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Fine, feels no motion because the fluid medium it is within is STATIONERY.
Only to a person on the truck. How fast is it moving to the view of someone on the side of the road?
__________________

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, 09:08 PM   #343
Winterfrost
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 121
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?
Unfortunately NASA's launches are based on the principle that the earth is rotating. They won't be able to reach orbit since you proved the earth is stationary.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
- Daniel J. Boorstin
Winterfrost 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 PM   #344
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When a helicopter rises and descends some time later, the question is why does the earth NOT move beneath it? The reply is that that is because the atnosphere moves WITH the earth.
No, again the reply is the same as it was before. The helicopter has an easterly momentum before it takes off and applying no other forces to counter or increase that easterly momentum it can just descend to the same location on the surface from where it took off.
__________________
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, 09:16 PM   #345
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,181
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
False analogy. There is no constant unidirectional motion in a fish tank, you believe the earths atmosphere is PHYSICALLY ROTATING at 1000mph.

Put the fish in a whirlpool or a donut shaped river for a better more accurate analogy.



Fine, feels no motion because the fluid medium it is within is STATIONERY.



No worries mate
No. False analogy with false understanding. Stop trying to dodge the whole frames of reference thing.

Whilst you persist in rejecting reality, I see no alternative model being offered that provides a better fit with real world observations.
__________________
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 30th May 2017, 09:19 PM   #346
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,690
Originally Posted by Winterfrost View Post
Unfortunately NASA's launches are based on the principle that the earth is rotating. They won't be able to reach orbit since you proved the earth is stationary.
It's abundantly clear that thewholesoul, like most Stationary Earthers, if not all of them, have no understanding of relative motion, just look at his posts. He changes his stationary reference points from one object to another without any understanding of how this will change relative motion.

This is why he thinks that the air inside a moving truck or submarine is stationary, because he uses one reference point for the truck or submarine, but a different one for the air inside, this is a commonly ignorant move by Stationary Earthers. The idea that you have to measure the velocity of both the truck and the air to the same reference point eludes him because it breaks down the illusion he wants to believe in.

The idea that both the Truck and Air inside are travelling at the same velocity relative to the road, and also the same velocity as each other relative to a passenger on the truck, but that the velocity the road sees and the velocity the passenger sees is different will be refused to be seen because it destroys his entire claim.
__________________

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, 09:21 PM   #347
sts60
Master Poster
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
No no no no no. You've been told a dozen times, the speed boost has nothing to do with the atmosphere. It would exist even if there was no atmosphere.
I think the OP is pulling your legs. Continuing the thread depends on not understanding the explanations, or at least not acknowledging them.

We had one who actually was serious a while back, with the same similar set of silly claims. He was rude to the point of banning.

One of the fun things about astrodynamics is that the same principle of using the Earth's rotation (which, among other things, is observed by deep-space probes) for a speed boost to orbit, applies to using the Earth's revolution about the Sun as a speed boost to interplanetary trajectories. And the latter is actually a problem if you want to orbit the inner planets, because then you have to get rid of that extra posigrade speed.

Fun stuff, and real, unlike the clumsy fantasies espoused occasionally by the willfully uneducable (and those merely pretending to be).
sts60 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, 09:35 PM   #348
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,465
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Finally, for this post, the rotation was observed by the Apollo Astronauts and can be seen in their footage when they filmed the Earth for an extended periods of about 20 minutes during the trip to the moon by Apollo 11.
I've resisted posting this (and similar assemblages I did for Apollo 13 and 17), because I pretty much know that it will be dismissed, but here goes nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Qpxvew7AXKg

Successive photographs taken by Apollo 11 en route to the moon. Each photo can be verified by satellite weather photos taken at the time.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm 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, 09:39 PM   #349
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Imagine you have 25 km of airport walk way, you know the type that moves under your feet. Well it travels at a constant speed of 10mph in the same easterly direction. This track is within a corridor with lots of fans on the walls and they blow at a constant speed of 10mph also in an easterly direction.
OK, experimental parameters noted. You are stationary relative to the walkway and the fan air blowing. Proceed.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When you are stationary you move with the automatic track AND you experience the wind on your back. If you turn around you will physically experience the constant air current on your face.
Nope, the walkway is moving 10mph east relative to the airport terminal that it is mounted. The fans also blow air at 10mph east relative to the same airport terminal that they are also mounted. You're already not doing very good adhering to your own experimental parameters.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When you walk on the track easterly you will feel a speed boost AND you will experience the constant wind on your back. It also requires less energy.
No, if you walk faster than the track (east) you are walking faster than your track and your fan wind speeds relative to the airport terminal.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
When you walk westerly on the track you experience the constant wind current in your face and it takes more energy to walk.
In order to walk westerly on the track relative to the airport terminal you have to walk faster than the track is going the other way. Let's say you walk 11 mph west relative to the airport terminal. So you're going 1 MPH west relative to the track and fan wind. . The "constant wind current in your face" is now, likewise, 1 mph. Hope you don't miss your plane.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
What has relativity got to do with the physical interactions between a fluid in constant motion and a solid object?
See Galilean relativity...


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

Almost 300 years before Einstein's special and general relativity. Based entirely on absolute time and absolute space with no upper speed or velocity limit. Dude, you're still like 300 years behind!

ETA:

Perhaps a better explanatory link for Galilean relativity.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...ww/node47.html
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 30th May 2017 at 10:08 PM. Reason: typo added 1 mph west and technical correction and dang posting while drinking added east for wind
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, 09:48 PM   #350
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
[quote=Tomtomkent;11861163]
The Air is contained in the plane, and travels at the same speed. It is stationary in relation to the plane. That is a relative frame of reference.

It is stationary in relation to the plane yes.
AND it is stationary objectively speaking because we measured to be 0mph

Quote:
Right... You, the air, everything is flying at the same speed, so you don't feel it.
The reason we don't feel or experience the 500mph of the plane is because the air inside the plane is objectively stationary

Because being located inside the solid body shields you from air resistance that the exterior of the plane is subject to.

Quote:
On this planet, we are all INSIDE the atmosphere, which moves at the same speed as the planet. So we don't feel it.
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?

The plane analogy is a false analogy because it omits the effects a constantly flowing atmosphere would have on all objects within it.

For example wouldn't a fish swimming AGAINST the current expend more energy? Wouldn't it feel more drag?

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?

Quote:
The planet, the oceans, the atmosphere, all one system, all in the same relative frame of reference.
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?

Quote:
Does this happen when you walk around on a plane? Or in a train? The air in a plane is in motion, carried with everything else on the plane.It is static RELATIVE to the plane.
Same for the Earths atmosphere. You are within the system, travelling relative to the moving object.
It's not the same and I will repeat this point this you get it.

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?

Quote:
That is not what NASA claims.
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.

Quote:
what NASA claims would be true of our world WITHOUT the atmosphere.
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.

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?

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?

Quote:
Baseball pitch machines use the same mechanic, a spinning wheel, a ball passes the wheel, touches the wheel, and leaves at a tangent, relative to the speed of the wheel. No atmosphere required.
And if the ball was moving against a constant head wind, would that slow the ball down ? Would it experience resistance?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 09:52 PM.
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, 10:00 PM   #351
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,089
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post

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?





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?



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
In terms of orbital velocity, planes, balloons, helicopters and birds that are flying east do get a speed boost. None of those things use orbital velocity to measure their speed though. They all use airspeed and ground speed, neither of which are affected by the rotation of the Earth
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 30th May 2017, 10:09 PM   #352
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The heliocentric model adequately explains the observed motion of planets. If you want to support another model, you need to provide another explanation.
Yea, gravity does it. Ever seen an experiment demonstrating how the force of gravity holds bodies in orbits? I haven't, have you? Explanations may or may not be true. I have seen experiments where bodies are held in positions with electromagnetism.

Quote:
False. If the Earth rotates, we will experience exactly the Coriolis effect we do observe. If you want to claim the Earth does not rotate, you must provide an alternative explanation
.

I did, it's stationary. That is the alternative. I have never seen the air around two hemispheres spin east and west because the ball is spinning east. It's physically impossible. Because thus experiment has never been done means the causal explanation you cite behind the correolis effect is still empirically unproven

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
False. I can design an experiment that will demonstrate it. Do you want me to specify it, or will you just eat you hat now?
Give us some details. It can only be the rotation of the ball as the cause, nothing else.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
False. "Empirical validation" can be based on observation. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
What are you validating? The phenomena or the causal explanation behind the phenomena. There is a difference you know.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
We can demonstrate the connection between Earth's rotation and the coriolis effect empirically.
Really? Prove it through physical demonstration. Spin a ball east to create two counter motions

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
And as I say, it is ALSO possible to design an experiment that confirms it.
Do it. My hat is waiting.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Yes. So what? Are you implying that the beliefs of the population affects reality?
No.
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, 10:13 PM   #353
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by EvilBiker View Post
You should be able to find your answer somewhere between posts 1 and 223, not necessarily inclusive.

You're welcome.

Pees.
Could you be more specific mate?
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, 10:19 PM   #354
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Earth's gravity cannot contain a nuclear explosion. What do you think the gravity of the sun is?

Hans
You are assuming the sun is nuclear. I don't. And it's off topic
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, 10:24 PM   #355
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Only to a person on the truck. How fast is it moving to the view of someone on the side of the road?

You'd have to ask the chicken, that's why it crossed the road!!!
__________________
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, 10:34 PM   #356
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
I did, it's stationary. That is the alternative. I have never seen the air around two hemispheres spin east and west because the ball is spinning east. It's physically impossible. Because thus experiment has never been done means the causal explanation you cite behind the correolis effect is still empirically unproven
Can you highlight exactly where you supply an alternative explanation for the Coriolis effect? I can not find one in any of your posts. Saying "It's stationary" is not an alternative explanation for measured effects.
__________________
@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, 10:37 PM   #357
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,910
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Yea, gravity does it. Ever seen an experiment demonstrating how the force of gravity holds bodies in orbits? I haven't, have you? Explanations may or may not be true. I have seen experiments where bodies are held in positions with electromagnetism.
International Space Station.


http://www.n2yo.com/space-station/



.
__________________
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, 10:42 PM   #358
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,936
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
AND it is stationary objectively speaking because we measured to be 0mph
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.

The air is not stationary. Objectively, subjectively, or any other way.

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 plane takes off, and the air inside it, the passengers, the luggage, the packets of peanuts, they all go with the plane. They aren't left on the runway. That means... say it with me: "they are moving."

Measure on the plane and it is a RELATIVE 0mph.
Measure from the surface of the planet, and it is not.
__________________
@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, 11:08 PM   #359
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
It has. But not on a fish swimming relatively to the current speed.
So you agree that a river flowing with a constant velocity has a force. great we are moving forward.but I didn't understand you explanation as to why that force does not have an effect on a fish swimming AGAINST it. Could you provide an example or analogy?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Basic physics: A force is not energy.
Are you saying friction causes atmosphere to rotate or something else?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Not if swimming the same distance relative to the water.
I don't follow. I said are you seriously saying that a fish swimming AGAINST the current will not encounter any friction? You say that it won't but I don't understand your explanation. How does the relative position of a fish cancel out the physical effects involved in the physical interaction between an object moving through a fluid medium in constant motion? How?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
If swimming the same distance relative to the shore, it will.
Again, how does the fishes relative position to the shore affect whether it experiences a physical effect such as energy consumption from a constantly moving fluid?

Maybe a simpler question. Wil a fish spend more energy swimming 100m upstream against the current or 100m downstream? I don't understand why You need to inject relativity into issues of cause,and effect.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
It is not a contradiction. the aircraft lands back on Earth. The satelite does not.
But that response does not explain in any way what the causal mechanism for the speed boost is.

Rockets spend more fuel flying west why is that? What physically causes this to happen to NASA rockets and not commercial jets? There is a contradiction.

Does NASA rocket get speed boost just as the leave earths atmosphere or before it? I want to get to the bottom.of this. Do the rockets use more fuel flying west before they leave earths rotating atmosphere or after they leave it?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
I think you are being intentionally obtuse, here. Alternatively, you do not read the answers you are given, here.

ecause in an earlier post you "it's not a speed boost"
You misquoted me, somebody else claimed that, not me.
Your answers are vague and evasive in this post.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Explain why. Earth's surface moves at 1000 mph. The atmosphere moves at 1000 mph. What is the problem?
A nuclear blast creates air current of 500mph. If a plane travels at same speed in same direction it might not feel an effect. But if the plane moved against it. It would d be destroyed. You believe The ENTIRE atmosphere is traveling twice that but you don't believe this would have a physical effect? Why is there no physical effect of the physical motion of the atmosphere?

All solid surfaces without exception travelling at the speed of sound when in contact with air will cause a sonic boom. Where's the boom hans? Where's the boom? I don't hear one, do you? Why do you think that is ? Frame of reference perhaps? Or maybe gravity contains the so u nd? Or maybe we evolved our brains to ignore the sound? I can't wait to hear your explanation

All the best

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2017 at 11:10 PM.
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, 11:12 PM   #360
aussiedwarf
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Warm regards Aussie, how's it going?



An important point I would like to make is that physical objective reality is independent of our beliefs, what we say, and calculations. You calculated the difference in speed ASSUMING the atmosphere is in motion. It is THIS assumption that needs to be proven, not by calculations, but by physical measurement.



We want to measure the motion of the atmosphere, and motion of the axial rotation.



We are located on the exterior side of a spinning solid. The atmosphere is spinning the same velocity and direction. How come we feel no friction going against the constant direction? Typically we are told because we are inside a plane train or car, we don't feel the motion. But we are NOT INSIDE a solid moving object. If a fish swims against the current.



Agreed. But don't we also feel resistance when moving against matter in constant motion ?



There is an important difference between analogies we need to flesh out. Typically defenders of the atmospheric motion ask us to imagine being inside a solid moving object. Inside we feel no friction. When my body runs my interior organs feel no friction but my exterior does. We are located on the exterior of the solid moving object.

Inside a plane, although the object is moving. The interior is stationary. A fish inside a river is different because the whole river is in motion. This is how I imagine our relationship is to the atmosphere. We are OUTSIDE a solid spinning body on its exterior, and we are INSIDE a fluid that is also in constant unidirectional motion. The plane/train/car analogies only account for half of the equation. Would you agree?




If you spin a spherical ball on a string, would the air surrounding the top hemisphere rotate differently to the air in the bottom hemisphere?
Hi. I admit its cold as winter is almost here and I am sick. Hope things are a lot warmer where your are thewholesoul.

Question, when you imagine something, like a kitten, do you "see" that in your head? Reason I ask is I know some people lack the ability to visualize with pictures and so can find these things very difficult.

So yes, reality is independent of our beliefs, but it is through our models that we understand what reality is. In order to measure stuff we have to do calculations. To not is to deny logic and science itself. If you deny photos of earth are real then calculations are what we do. Science works by making prediction and testing those. With a model we can calculate predictions and test them. If we are measuring speed we are measuring the pressure of wind resistance and calculating a speed, or timing and object moving over a distance and calculating a speed.

The reason I bring up the difference in speed difference between my head and feet is to show how small a difference it is and that it can be really difficult to measure really small differences such that our human senses do not notice.



Lets try a simple picture I drew. In this picture we have the earth, a person, a aeroplane and the blue dots represent air molecules. The red arrows show their velocity. Now the surface of the Earth, the human and the air molecules are all moving at 400m/s in the same direction. Since the are all moving in the same direction, when the person measures the speed of the air, they get zero, since 400m/s of the human minus 400m/s of the air is 0m/s. Since relative to each other there is zero difference in speed, there is no friction.

The aeroplane is moving at 600m/s. When they measure it, they measure 200m/s since they are moving 200m/s faster than the air around them (since 600 - 400 = 200).

Below I show an image from the perspective of the human. Notice that the air and earth show no vectors since they are all moving at the same relative motion. The plane has a vector since it is moving forwards relative to the human, earth and air.



Below this is what it looks like from the plane. To it, it looks like the earth, air and human are all moving backwards.



Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
How come we feel no friction going against the constant direction?
So an object will feel friction when it moves at a different velocity relative to it. The aeroplane in my example measure 200m/s because of the air resistance. A fish in a still stream measures it speed relative to the water. If the water moves 1m/s down stream and the fish moves 1 m/s down stream relative to the water, it is in fact moving 2m/s relative to the ground. Now the fish will feel only 1m/s of water resistance.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
If you spin a spherical ball on a string, would the air surrounding the top hemisphere rotate differently to the air in the bottom hemisphere?
The air on the earth is moving with the earth. Since at different latitudes it moves as a different speed, this causes the coriolis effect. a ball on a string would not cause this since the air around the ball is not moving with the ball as well as it not. Vertasium and the Smarter veryday channel collaborated and shows the effect in this linked 6 minute video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=mXaad0rsV38

Also NASA and other agencies do measure wind speeds. The wind speeds are relative to the ground.

Rockets get the speed boost relative to an acceleration frame of reference of the Earth. The speed boost only has a small effect on planes as they are not travelling fast enough and are corrected by the planes wings. Artillery, bullets on the other hand have to take this speed boost into account when fired far enough.
aussiedwarf 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 07:52 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.