Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.What a waste of your time working out all those numbers. I know those well enough and there is not the slightest problem.
Here is the information:
An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/i5Qh75/airport.jpg) (https://ibb.co/geoPLQ)
The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/bwdfuk/airport_2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gLh6Zk)
The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km
The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.
Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.
Velocity = angular velocity * radius.
If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m
Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5
The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)
The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula
cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)
So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,
value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m
and the velocity at that point will be
Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s
At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get
Velocity = 393.33 m/s.
So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.
Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.
Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!
I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.
If that was not so, we would have winds on earth of hundreds of metres per sec - and we don't.
Your problem is a convoluted waste of time rehash of the question: why doesn't the earth move under a hovering helicopter? (oh and you are using longitude and latitude references that correspond to a round earth).
If I'm on that plane and need a piss, can I go from my seat to the toilet at the front at walking speed? Or will I have to run at 550mph to get there?
If I don't have to run at 550mph does that mean the plane is stationary?
You've typed all that nonsense question as a poor troll attempt - what a waste of time for you.
I'll show you the science when you can first explain how that plane managed to fly the route, what the methods were for navigation, and the theory the pilot studied to qualify to fly.
If you genuinely think you have any round earthers stumped you are living in cuckoo land. The only reason nobody is drawing diagrams and answering your question is because it is rubbish.
No, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.QuoteYour problem is a convoluted waste of time rehash of the question: why doesn't the earth move under a hovering helicopter? (oh and you are using longitude and latitude references that correspond to a round earth).
The earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because the earth is stationary!!!
No, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
QuoteNo, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
And their is no magical device that can create the FBD with the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth movement.
If the Earth moves show me the FBD!!!
0/10 rating.
This thread is ducking retarded.
"No free body diagram needed"
Ok ok... The earth isn't spinning!
Just rest your head, and think happy thoughts, it was only a bad dream. The spinning globe boogieman isn't going to get you.
You're in your safe space, little snowflake!
Of course you did vote for Trump. ;D
Where's your free body diagram? ???Of course you did vote for Trump. ;D
And of course you can't draw a free body diagram.
This might help you
(https://www.cinchlearning.com/clarity/cinch/glencoe_science_2012_texas/images/ebooks/sci7/361_2/sci_19_2_analyze7.jpg)
How does this help you?
This might help you
(https://www.cinchlearning.com/clarity/cinch/glencoe_science_2012_texas/images/ebooks/sci7/361_2/sci_19_2_analyze7.jpg)
QuoteHow does this help you?
No, no you got it all wrong, this is not of me, but your you.
I am trying to explain to you what a free body diagram looks like, since the Spherical Earth Priest have no idea on how to create one since you never took physics in collage...
But the wolf pack really surprised me with their silence.
I was expecting some type of Dark Matter explanation or some other bullshit to try to explain this major problem for the spherical earth model, but I guess this simple question is too much for you.
Maybe you should contact your supervisors to ask for their help in dealing with this question?
But I have news for you, this idea is not mine but GODS. A few nights ago I prayed to GOD to give me wisdom and knowledge in a way to shut you up once and for all.
The next morning this came to my head. I can't take credit for it, since it was given to me.
You all are not going up against me, but you are going up against GOD and we all know that at the end you will lose.
And on this note, good night, see you back tomorrow, and I hope I will find a Free Body Diagram in this thread...
You haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
All you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
You took up God's valuable time to get help arguing with members of a joke forum?
Wouldn't his time be better spent stopping children getting terminal illnesses?
He is God and he can be everywhere at the same time and helping any person that asks for help!
And still no proof one is needed.QuoteYou haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
What we can't create, we say that it not needed...QuoteAll you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.
This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.
OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...
Did you think that I picked random airports location?
If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.
Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.
Good night and you know have a nice dream!
thus a smaller inertia forceThere is no inertia force, just inertia.
Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.When landing, the plane is already roughly synchronised to the rotation of Earth. The force that makes the final synchronisation is the friction between the wheels and the ground.
Of course you did vote for Trump. ;D
The atmosphere is touching the earth (including the runway)QuoteIf I'm on that plane and need a piss, can I go from my seat to the toilet at the front at walking speed? Or will I have to run at 550mph to get there?You are touching the airplane and thus connected to the airplane speed. Not the same with the airplane landing on a runway.
If I don't have to run at 550mph does that mean the plane is stationary?
You've typed all that nonsense question as a poor troll attempt - what a waste of time for you.
Stop trying to change the subject. Show me your FBD with all forces on the airplane and the ones that keep it in sync with the runway.
If you can’t, then your spinning earth is bogus.
By not answering you prove that the spinning earth is bogus.
Yes, it is a waist of time for you to prove something that is untrue, that much is true.
Show us the science…
I am trying to explain to you what a free body diagram looks like, since the Spherical Earth Priest have no idea on how to create one since you never took physics in collage...People who have been to college usually know how to spell it.
since you never took physics in collage...Sorry, I didn't take Physics 101 in collage. Somehow I didn't seem to fit into this collage:
The Earth is Not Moving
The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?
Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.
Here is the information:
An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/i5Qh75/airport.jpg) (https://ibb.co/geoPLQ)
The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/bwdfuk/airport_2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gLh6Zk)
The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km
The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.
Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.
Velocity = angular velocity * radius.
If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m
Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5
The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)
The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula
cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)
So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,
value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m
and the velocity at that point will be
Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s
At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get
Velocity = 393.33 m/s.
So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.
Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.
Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!
I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.
He is God and he can be everywhere at the same time and helping any person that asks for help!
So he chose to answer your trivial request instead of save a child?
People who have been to college don't make dumbass, über retarded grammatical errors such as this:I am trying to explain to you what a free body diagram looks like, since the Spherical Earth Priest have no idea on how to create one since you never took physics in collage...People who have been to college usually know how to spell it.
That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.
And still no proof one is needed.QuoteYou haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
What we can't create, we say that it not needed...QuoteAll you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.
This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.
OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...
Did you think that I picked random airports location?
If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.
Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.
Good night and you know have a nice dream!
And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum. AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.
here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting. Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?
The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.
thus a smaller inertia forceThere is no inertia force, just inertia.Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.When landing, the plane is already roughly synchronised to the rotation of Earth. The force that makes the final synchronisation is the friction between the wheels and the ground.
Prior to that you have the air resistance.
The air is moving with Earth.
You are the one claiming you have disproved a spherical Earth. Thus the burden is on you to prove that.
No shifting the burden to use by demanding we draw you a picture.
How about you draw one for this landing:
Then tell us what one you think is missing.
The air is moving with Earth.
The atmosphere is touching the earth (including the runway)QuoteIf I'm on that plane and need a piss, can I go from my seat to the toilet at the front at walking speed? Or will I have to run at 550mph to get there?You are touching the airplane and thus connected to the airplane speed. Not the same with the airplane landing on a runway.
If I don't have to run at 550mph does that mean the plane is stationary?
You've typed all that nonsense question as a poor troll attempt - what a waste of time for you.
Stop trying to change the subject. Show me your FBD with all forces on the airplane and the ones that keep it in sync with the runway.
If you can’t, then your spinning earth is bogus.
By not answering you prove that the spinning earth is bogus.
Yes, it is a waist of time for you to prove something that is untrue, that much is true.
Show us the science…so the atmosphere is moving at the same velocity as the earth (apart from local winds) and the plane is flying in the atmosphere.
End of story, unless you can prove that the atmosphere is not rotating with the earth.
Here are others asking that question: Why does the atmosphere rotate along with the earth? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth)
End of story, unless you can prove that the atmosphere is not rotating with the earth.
Force is needed either to make something change its speed, or to make its motion point in a new direction.
In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied.
F = ma
All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram?
Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrongNo. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.
If order for the airplane to get synchronized with the rotation of the Earth, there has to be a force that is applied to it. Remember the airplane takes off from a runway that faces East to West, with the supposed spin of the earth which by the way at that location was 94 m/s and then it land on a runway the is facing North to south with a supposed spin of the earth of 393.33 m/sAnd guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary.
Somewhere in between the flight, there was a force acting on the airplane that caused the airplane to get synchronized with the new earth velocity which my the way, overcame the airplanes inertia.Do you mean during?
All that I am asking is for you to place this force on a Free Body Diagram.And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane?
If I would have said that there is no gravity and a block slides on a plain is do to God. If I would also challenge to draw me a Free Body Diagrom of the block and to place the force of gravity on it, you would have no problem in doing it.The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it.
But in the airplane example, how can you place a nonexistent force on the FBD!!!The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?
As for your video, there was a side wind (pressure) that pushed the airplane to the side. This force can be calculate by multiplying the airplanes Surface Area that was perpendicular to the wind with the Pressure, but you must be consistent in your units.And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.
Are you saying that air resistance causes the airplane to get synced with the earth supposed rotation?Yes I am.
Are you also saying thatQuoteThe air is moving with Earth.
Now how about you draw me the Free Body Diagram of the Forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth spinning.Here one is:
OK, with your logic, the Wind velocity on the earth will be a gradient that will have a constant increase from the one airport to the second airport do to that at one location the earth velocity is 94 m/s and in the second location the earth velocity is 393 m/s, but this is not true.No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.
In convention heat transfer we can calculate the thermal layers and motion layers of air do to a moving plate. These boundary layers have a finite height of impact and over height the effect gets lost. Let’s say that I was in the metro dome and I placed a walker in the center of the field. I then jacked up the speed of the walker to 10 m/s, would the air on the top of the dome which was located right over the walker go the way the walker was working. NOIs this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No.
Convection heat transfer disproves this notion that the atmosphere is rotating with the earth.No it doesn't.
Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.
Here is the information:
An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/i5Qh75/airport.jpg) (https://ibb.co/geoPLQ)
The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/bwdfuk/airport_2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gLh6Zk)
The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km
The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.
Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.
Velocity = angular velocity * radius.
If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m
Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5
The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)
The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula
cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)
So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,
value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m
and the velocity at that point will be
Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s
At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get
Velocity = 393.33 m/s.
So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.
Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.
Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!
I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.
Wow what a waste of time to actually bother to read this through. What you're describing is the Coriolis effect, and the difference in linear velocity is something that's under constant correction by the plane.
Coriolis Effect are negligible when considering the scale of the Earth, but if you want to play the Coriolis Effect, then lets play the Coriolis Effect.No. It is negligible when considering just a small section of Earth, without something that will enhance its effects.
In science we make a statement that we can back up with equations and diagrams.Something you are yet to do.
With religion we make statement and pray that the people will believe in our con job. If somebody try's to challenge our beliefs we say that he does not know what he is talking about and make fun of him. If he continues, we send a wolf pack on him to discourage him, if this false, we find other means to deal with him so we will never have to hear from him again.Something you have done repeatedly, except the wolf pack part, which you seem unable to command. Maybe see if your high priests can help.
InFlatEarth The Free Body Diagram of a plane doesn't change if the Earth is moving or stationary. In both cases, the FBD is exactly the same.
If the Earth doesn't move, then the atmosphere doesn't move, and the plane moves through the air.
If the Earth moves, the atmosphere moves with it, and the plane still moves through the air.
So asking for a FBD is completely irrelevant to the motion of the Earth. You can't conclude anything about the motion of Earth by watching an object moving in the atmosphere. You can't conlude that it's in motion, but you can't conclude that it's stationary either.
That is because the atmosphere is firmly attached to the Earth, the same way that the feet of a passenger are attached to the plane : through gravity and friction.
If the Earth moves, the atmosphere moves with it, and the plane still moves through the air.
That is because the atmosphere is firmly attached to the Earth, the same way that the feet of a passenger are attached to the plane : through gravity and friction.
The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.
Friction of the air. The plane is in the air, the air moves with the Earth, so the plane moves with the Earth.
This kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams because it makes no difference on a plane if the Earth moves or not.
So you are telling me that their is no force on the airplane that syncs it with the Earths velocity, which by the way at airport 1 was at 94 m/s and at airport 2 it was 393 m/s
Since you stated that “this kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams” means that it can be represented, so please represent it if it exists.Air resistance AKA drag which goes to the side, just like in a crosswind landing.
In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied.
F = ma
It is F=ma, not F=mv.All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram?
It is simply air resistance.Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrongNo. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.If order for the airplane to get synchronized with the rotation of the Earth, there has to be a force that is applied to it. Remember the airplane takes off from a runway that faces East to West, with the supposed spin of the earth which by the way at that location was 94 m/s and then it land on a runway the is facing North to south with a supposed spin of the earth of 393.33 m/sAnd guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary.
The plane takes off in one direction and has to land in another.
Do you know the force responsible for it? AIR RESISTANCE, or a combination of air resistance, thrust, weight and lift.
I even asked you to draw a free body diagram, but you didn't. I guess that means you accept Earth is round?Somewhere in between the flight, there was a force acting on the airplane that caused the airplane to get synchronized with the new earth velocity which my the way, overcame the airplanes inertia.Do you mean during?
If so, yes, there was a force acting for the entire duration of the flight. It is called AIR RESISTANCE (or more technically a combination of air resistance, thrust, lift and weight). What magic extra force do you think you need?
For the most part, the atmosphere moves with Earth. That means when the plane takes off with Earth moving at (just using your numbers) 94 m/s, the air is moving at that speed.
As the plane travels around Earth to a spot where Earth is moving at 393.33 m/s, the atmosphere is also changing speed and as the plane is in the air, it will experience air resistance to make it travel at that speed.All that I am asking is for you to place this force on a Free Body Diagram.And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane?
You even have that in your diagram to some extent labelled "drag".
Guess what? That drag force is dependent upon the plane's velocity through the air. It can point in any direction (however if it is pointing forwards you will have a problem flying).If I would have said that there is no gravity and a block slides on a plain is do to God. If I would also challenge to draw me a Free Body Diagrom of the block and to place the force of gravity on it, you would have no problem in doing it.The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it.
Even then I likely wouldn't draw you one.But in the airplane example, how can you place a nonexistent force on the FBD!!!The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?As for your video, there was a side wind (pressure) that pushed the airplane to the side. This force can be calculate by multiplying the airplanes Surface Area that was perpendicular to the wind with the Pressure, but you must be consistent in your units.And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.Are you saying that air resistance causes the airplane to get synced with the earth supposed rotation?Yes I am.
Are you also saying thatQuoteThe air is moving with Earth.
The air moves with Earth for the most part. There is some minor wind as the friction is not infinite.
The plane is moving through this air, which results in friction AKA air resistance AKA drag causing the plane to match the speed of the air and thus the speed of Earth.
In the case of winds, the thrust component as well as the lift component can be manipulated to fine tune the matching as occurs in the crosswind landing I provided.
Again, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MISSING?
WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CAN'T SYNC THE PLANE?Now how about you draw me the Free Body Diagram of the Forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth spinning.Here one is:
(https://www.cinchlearning.com/clarity/cinch/glencoe_science_2012_texas/images/ebooks/sci7/361_2/sci_19_2_analyze7.jpg)
Tell me what's missing?
Remember that this is just a generic one not showing any specific direction.
The drag component will be in the direction of the air's velocity relative to the plane.
Assuming it is a simple plane without thrust vectoring thrust will be forwards.
Weight will be down.
Lift will be complex based upon the specific orientation of the flight surfaces and the speed (and direction) of the airflow over it.
The force you are looking for is predominately that drag force.
So happy, you have your diagram. Now going to admit there is no issue for a spinning RE?OK, with your logic, the Wind velocity on the earth will be a gradient that will have a constant increase from the one airport to the second airport do to that at one location the earth velocity is 94 m/s and in the second location the earth velocity is 393 m/s, but this is not true.No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.In convention heat transfer we can calculate the thermal layers and motion layers of air do to a moving plate. These boundary layers have a finite height of impact and over height the effect gets lost. Let’s say that I was in the metro dome and I placed a walker in the center of the field. I then jacked up the speed of the walker to 10 m/s, would the air on the top of the dome which was located right over the walker go the way the walker was working. NOIs this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No.
How about this:
Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air.
Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.Convection heat transfer disproves this notion that the atmosphere is rotating with the earth.No it doesn't.
No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied. It is F=ma, not F=mv.
You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram? It is simply air resistance.
No. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.
And guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary. The plane takes off in one direction and has to land in another. Do you know the force responsible for it? AIR RESISTANCE, or a combination of air resistance, thrust, weight and lift. I even asked you to draw a free body diagram, but you didn't. I guess that means you accept Earth is round?
Do you mean during?If so, yes, there was a force acting for the entire duration of the flight. It is called AIR RESISTANCE (or more technically a combination of air resistance, thrust, lift and weight). What magic extra force do you think you need? For the most part, the atmosphere moves with Earth. That means when the plane takes off with Earth moving at (just using your numbers) 94 m/s, the air is moving at that speed.As the plane travels around Earth to a spot where Earth is moving at 393.33 m/s, the atmosphere is also changing speed and as the plane is in the air, it will experience air resistance to make it travel at that speed.
And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane? You even have that in your diagram to some extent labelled "drag". Guess what? That drag force is dependent upon the plane's velocity through the air. It can point in any direction (however if it is pointing forwards you will have a problem flying).
The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it. Even then I likely wouldn't draw you one.
The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?
And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.
The air moves with Earth for the most part. There is some minor wind as the friction is not infinite. The plane is moving through this air, which results in friction AKA air resistance AKA drag causing the plane to match the speed of the air and thus the speed of Earth. In the case of winds, the thrust component as well as the lift component can be manipulated to fine tune the matching as occurs in the crosswind landing I provided. Again, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MISSING? WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CAN'T SYNC THE PLANE?
Tell me what's missing? Remember that this is just a generic one not showing any specific direction. The drag component will be in the direction of the air's velocity relative to the plane. Assuming it is a simple plane without thrust vectoring thrust will be forwards.Weight will be down. Lift will be complex based upon the specific orientation of the flight surfaces and the speed (and direction) of the airflow over it. The force you are looking for is predominately that drag force. So happy, you have your diagram. Now going to admit there is no issue for a spinning RE?
In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction) is a force acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.
No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.
Is this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No. How about this: Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air. Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.
No it doesn't.
Coriolis Effect are negligible when considering the scale of the Earth, but if you want to play the Coriolis Effect, then lets play the Coriolis Effect.No. It is negligible when considering just a small section of Earth, without something that will enhance its effects.In science we make a statement that we can back up with equations and diagrams.Something you are yet to do.With religion we make statement and pray that the people will believe in our con job. If somebody try's to challenge our beliefs we say that he does not know what he is talking about and make fun of him. If he continues, we send a wolf pack on him to discourage him, if this false, we find other means to deal with him so we will never have to hear from him again.Something you have done repeatedly, except the wolf pack part, which you seem unable to command. Maybe see if your high priests can help.
So you are telling me that their is no force on the airplane that syncs it with the Earths velocity, which by the way at airport 1 was at 94 m/s and at airport 2 it was 393 m/s
No, he is telling you there is no magic extra force needed. It is already there.Since you stated that “this kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams” means that it can be represented, so please represent it if it exists.Air resistance AKA drag which goes to the side, just like in a crosswind landing.
It is fundamentally a 3D problem so you cannot easily represent it in 2D.
If we provided you a diagram showing it more explicitly you would then complain that lift and weight were missing or that thrust and drag were missing.
That's why I told you to draw a free body diagram of a crosswind landing.
It isn't the nice pretty picture people like imaging.
Yes, there are other forms as well. So what?QuoteNo, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied. It is F=ma, not F=mv.How about
F = m * (Vf^2 – Vi^2) / (2 * d)
Or F = (Preasure) * (Cross Surface Area)
Force is a vector, it has both magnitude and directionAnd that direction will change depending upon the scenario.
A resistance to what. By definition resistance is a way of avoiding change, in our case, we have dramatic change, from 94m/s to 393m/sNo, resistance is not always about avoiding change.
Also Air resistance causes lift, what are you trying to do, bullshit your way out of the question?No it doesn't, at least not directly.
I did not bring up the conservation of momentum, some higt heliocentric priest did, so he has to back up his claims.You are the one coming on here trying to disprove a spherical Earth spouting crap which completely ignores it.
Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.No. It also causes drag, typically slowing you down, and it can blow you sideways.
Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.Stop repeating the same BS.
IT'S ALREADY THERE!QuoteThe force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?Then place it on the diagram
Convection Heat transfer disproves your hypothesis, since boundary layers have a finite effect on the environment!!!No it doesn't.
The drag force only slows you down!!!So you have never seen an object being pushed by wind?
The drag forces can’t speed you up.
definitionYes, note the RELATIVE MOTION!!QuoteIn fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction) is a force acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.
No, you are wrong.QuoteIs this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No. How about this: Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air. Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.The earth is a closed system, my example was a closed system.
The scale of the earth to the atmosphere was the same as the walker and the dome height.
You are wrong.
No. I know a fair bit.QuoteNo it doesn't.You know nothing about heat transfer!!!!
You are the ones that are stating that the airplane gets sync with the a rotating earth model, but fail to draw a free body diagramI have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.
DRAW THE FREE BODY DIAGRAM IF YOU CAN!!!!!
I have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.
I have. I explained air resistance, aka drag and what it actually does.QuoteI have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.No you have not, and have you not read, that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Did mommy take away your crayons and maybe that is why you can't draw a Free Body Diagram?
I have. I explained air resistance, aka drag and what it actually does.QuoteI have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.No you have not, and have you not read, that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Did mommy take away your crayons and maybe that is why you can't draw a Free Body Diagram?
Or are you going to claim wind can blow objects around?
Will an open motor that spins at 12,000 rpm, affect the room environment with its rotation?You debunked nothing.
Will it create tremendous pressure gradients in the closed room
(http://)
The earth is supposedly a giant motor!
I have just debunked your argument, so DRAW the FREE BODY DIAGRAM!!!!
I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?
I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?
Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.
Will an open motor that spins at 12,000 rpm, affect the room environment with its rotation?You debunked nothing.
Will it create tremendous pressure gradients in the closed room
(http://)
The earth is supposedly a giant motor!
I have just debunked your argument, so DRAW the FREE BODY DIAGRAM!!!!
Your example is not merely a giant motor, it is a small motor in a giant room.
And that has the spinning component housed in something else.
Compare this to Earth:
Earth has a radius of 6471 km (roughly), and the atmosphere is roughly 100 km thick (before it starts getting quite thin). But we don't need the entire atmosphere, we just need the altitude planes fly at.
That is roughly 35 000 ft or 10 km.
That is roughly 0.0015 times the radius.
So for a valid comparison, forget the motor, forget the vast majority of the room (although it will effect it and I will discuss that in a second):
You have a spinning axle, lets say it is 10 cm wide, so a radius of 5 cm.
Are you saying this spinning wont effect the air that is 5*0.0015 cm = 75 micron further out?
If so, I would like some evidence of that.
As for the rest of the room, Earth is in space, a fairly friction-less environment. That means there is nothing trying to stop the air from moving with Earth.
Meanwhile your motor is in a room full of air. This room will exert friction on the air stopping it from moving with the motor.
So no, you have debunked nothing, and again, you already have your diagram unless you want to try claiming that wind can't blow things.
I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?
Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.
Please explain in what you want.
Please provide evidence that the earth and airplanes exist. Photos and hearsay won't do.
You need to understand something about FBD, they are always drawn in a given referential. In particular, for FBD of objects moving in the air (such as a ball or an airplane), the referential is always the Earth. That means your referential doesn't move relative to the ground, your referential IS the ground. If the Earth moves, your referential moves with it. If the Earth spins, your referential spins with it. Just like the atmosphere.
That's why you don't see your ball or airplane drifting into all kinds of crazy directions as the Earth revolves on itself, then around the Sun, then around the center of the galaxy, etc. Look at this FBD of a ball thrown into the air :
(http://i.imgur.com/NcnrL19.jpg)
Its referential IS the Earth. The origin of this referential, O, is an actual physical location. If the Earth moves, O moves. And the FBD stays exactly the same. This applies for a plane too. You can't show the motion of the Earth on an object that is moving within the Earth !
Considering only Earth's rotation, yes the velocity of the ground near the Equator is greater than the velocity of the ground near the pole. It is the same for the atmosphere. The Earth rotates => the atmosphere rotates. Where the Earth rotates faster, the atmosphere rotates faster. But if you want to see these velocities, you need to draw a diagram in a referential that is NOT the Earth.
Yes the plane takes off with an inertia given by the ground, corresponding to the latitude of the airport. The air around the airport has the same speed as the ground. Then, for every tiny change of latitude during the flight, the air of this new place applies a corresponding tiny force on the plane to correct its inertia from the previous place.
If the flight is very fast, you get a big Coriolis effect. That means friction of the atmosphere was too weak and didn't have enough time to correct the inertia of the object. Although, you would need something as fast as Superman to notice this effect.
If the flight is realistic, like the one of a subsonic plane which lasts a few hour, then the atmosphere has enough time to carry the plane in its inertia like a current. This actual current force exists. It doesn't need to be strong, but applied continuously over enough time.
I have spent some time reflecting on your question. I think it would be very interesting to explain thoroughly. But it would take quite some time. Actually, it would take a physics lesson. I am not sure that you are looking for physics lessons, if that was the case you would find better teachers than us.
Also, if you had studied FBDs, you would know that the referential is important. Earth isn't the only possible referential, of course. But it is the easiest one for the study of objects moving on its surface. The atmosphere is indeed an extension of its rocky surface, just like the ocean.
Drawing the motion of an object on Earth in a referential that is outside the Earth, is a lot more complicated. For one thing, it could not be drawn to scale. You would also need to understand the use of this referential in the case of a ball, or a stationary helicopter, like previously proposed. It would be a lot to chew on. And it would not convince you that the atmosphere moves, if you refuse to believe so.
Please read the text also. Again, you would not like the physics you're asking for. Pretty sure that if someone did this for you, you would just answer : LOL no.
If I drew the FBD of a plane in a referential outside of Earth, it would show the atmosphere rotating. The plane would be in it with its forces from the classical FBD, plus the force the atmosphere applies on it to correct its inertia. You would say it's wrong. That's why your question has nothing to do with the FBD. Showing the FBD doesn't help.
Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..
Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..
did you ever talk a micro-mechanical devises class?
If you did, you would know that scalling up or down, is needed.
They had micro-mechanical pumps that could isolate at a rate of 1,000,000 time a second, but you will not believe me.
So basically, you are saying that we don't need to scale our results do to the RPM of the motor when compared to the earth, because it has has on effect on its environment?
If yes, then you agree with me that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the atmosphere?
Draw the FBD!!!
Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..
did you ever talk a micro-mechanical devises class?
If you did, you would know that scalling up or down, is needed.
They had micro-mechanical pumps that could isolate at a rate of 1,000,000 time a second, but you will not believe me.
So basically, you are saying that we don't need to scale our results do to the RPM of the motor when compared to the earth, because it has has on effect on its environment?
If yes, then you agree with me that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the atmosphere?
Draw the FBD!!!
The Earth has more than 500 millions km² to drive the atmosphere along with it. Although it doesn't need to, because the atmosphere has its own inertia. But it helps calm down the wind.
Your motor is tiny, it can drive the air around it up to a few microns maybe, but it will have no effect on the air a meter from it, no matter its speed.
Look at it this way : if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside. That tells you that the only way the classical model works, is that the atmosphere follows the Earth. Do you agree ?
I am not trying to convince you that the classical model is true. I am not asking if you believe in it. I am asking if you understand it.
In the classical model, the air moves at the samed speed as the ground. That is the answer to your question.
You said that the velocity of the ground at Svalbard Airport is 94.31 m/s. Then it is also the speed of the air around the airport.
You said that the velocity of the ground at Tel Nov Air Base is 393.33 m/s, and not in the same direction as before. Then in the classical model, it is also the speed and direction of the air around the airport. Any change of magnitude and direction in the velocity of the ground between those 2 points, will have been applied on the plane by the atmosphere during the flight.
Do you understand that this is the necessary answer in the classical model, although you might not agree ? Because if you don't believe that answer, showing it in a FBD will be no different.
You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",
but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.
Have you ever been in an airplane? Notice how if you throw a ball up it comes, pretty much, straight down? And yet it has also travelled many meters in the direction of flight. It's momentum carries in that direction even though it is no longer touching the plane.And still no proof one is needed.QuoteYou haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
What we can't create, we say that it not needed...QuoteAll you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.
This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.
OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...
Did you think that I picked random airports location?
If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.
Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.
Good night and you know have a nice dream!
And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum. AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.
here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting. Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?
In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.
F = ma
All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.
If there is such a force, it would have to make a 90 degree shift. Also if would have to overcome the inertia of the airplane with the 90 degree shift.
The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.
Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong
I don't know anything about Piltdown Mal. But I wanted to answer to that :You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",
but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.
Yes, it may very well be the case. If the Earth is stationary and not rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air doesn't move. If the Earth is moving and rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air moves and rotates with it.
In both cases, planes and balls behave the same. FBDs are the same. That is why you can't conclude anything about the motion of the Earth by observing the motion of an object inside the atmosphere.
It does not tell you that the Earth moves. But it does not tell you that the Earth doesn't move either.
You would have to draw the FBD outside of the Earth referential to see any difference between the two. This would be highly risky though, because if you decide to detach your referential from the Earth movement, you need to define it in another way. Where to stop this detachment ? At the rotation of the Earth only ? That means your referential moves with the Earth as it revolves around the Sun, it just doesn't rotate with it ? That seems fishy and way irrelevant for the study of motion on Earth !
Perhaps you have a quote from any of those scientists stating that.I don't know anything about Piltdown Mal. But I wanted to answer to that :You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",
but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.
Yes, it may very well be the case. If the Earth is stationary and not rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air doesn't move. If the Earth is moving and rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air moves and rotates with it.
In both cases, planes and balls behave the same. FBDs are the same. That is why you can't conclude anything about the motion of the Earth by observing the motion of an object inside the atmosphere.
It does not tell you that the Earth moves. But it does not tell you that the Earth doesn't move either.
You would have to draw the FBD outside of the Earth referential to see any difference between the two. This would be highly risky though, because if you decide to detach your referential from the Earth movement, you need to define it in another way. Where to stop this detachment ? At the rotation of the Earth only ? That means your referential moves with the Earth as it revolves around the Sun, it just doesn't rotate with it ? That seems fishy and way irrelevant for the study of motion on Earth !
But the only thing is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment did tell us that the earth was stationary with the help of the Sagnac experiment.
You may try to discredit the idea, but you will be nothing more than the scientist that believed in the Piltdown Man?
You believe in a lie
I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?
Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.
Have you ever been in an airplane? Notice how if you throw a ball up it comes, pretty much, straight down? And yet it has also travelled many meters in the direction of flight. It's momentum carries in that direction even though it is no longer touching the plane.And still no proof one is needed.QuoteYou haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
What we can't create, we say that it not needed...QuoteAll you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.
This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.
OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...
Did you think that I picked random airports location?
If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.
Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.
Good night and you know have a nice dream!
And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum. AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.
here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting. Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?
In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.
F = ma
All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.
If there is such a force, it would have to make a 90 degree shift. Also if would have to overcome the inertia of the airplane with the 90 degree shift.
The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.
Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong
Kind of the same thing.
I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?
Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.
You'll never get laid saying stuff like that
First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.
How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?
The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.
You know your experiments and how to interpret them for FET, I'll give you that. Although in the classical model, the Michelson-Morley experiment disproves the existence of aether once and for all, and the Sagnac effect can be used to prove the Earth rotates (Michelson and Gale, 1925).First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.
How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?
The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.
That's the thing, the Earth doesn't make any hard left dive. Its rotation (angular speed) is constant. Just like a plane has a constant inertia as long as it does not make a hard left dive.
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
When I find the video, I will post it.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
When I find the video, I will post it.
As per current observations? Measurements show the earth to be round.You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
When I find the video, I will post it.
I will agree with you that the Sun rotates above the earth as described in the book of Enoch (Before Noah's Flood)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64293.msg1818354#msg1818354
As per current observations? Measurements show the earth to be round.You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
When I find the video, I will post it.
I will agree with you that the Sun rotates above the earth as described in the book of Enoch (Before Noah's Flood)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64293.msg1818354#msg1818354
To be clear, the earth is a sphere.As per current observations? Measurements show the earth to be round.You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
When I find the video, I will post it.
I will agree with you that the Sun rotates above the earth as described in the book of Enoch (Before Noah's Flood)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64293.msg1818354#msg1818354
Actually I agree with you because the bible does state that in Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
But that does not mean that when something is round, it is also a sphere, because a rod is round, but it is not a sphere.
Also, in the bible, the same Author, shows us that he know the difference between a circle and a sphere, because he states that in Isaiah 22:18 - He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
So you are in total agreement with GOD.
The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.Sorry, but you are wrong, as I think you know. Measurements prove the shape.
The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.Sorry, but you are wrong, as I think you know. Measurements prove the shape.
Yes if the earth ever makes a hard left dive it would probably fuck up a lot of things. Good thing it doesn't do that. You've only shown your own ignorance and debunked nothingHave you ever been in an airplane? Notice how if you throw a ball up it comes, pretty much, straight down? And yet it has also travelled many meters in the direction of flight. It's momentum carries in that direction even though it is no longer touching the plane.And still no proof one is needed.QuoteYou haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.
What we can't create, we say that it not needed...QuoteAll you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.
OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.
This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.
OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...
Did you think that I picked random airports location?
If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.
Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.
Good night and you know have a nice dream!
And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum. AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.
here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting. Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?
In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.
F = ma
All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.
If there is such a force, it would have to make a 90 degree shift. Also if would have to overcome the inertia of the airplane with the 90 degree shift.
The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.
Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong
Kind of the same thing.
Thank you for given me the information that I needed to once and for all debunk your logic
First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.
How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?
The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.
In order to have a movement of an object, then a force must be applied to it.
End of story.
Please explain how distances across the earth can be used to determine its shape.The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.Sorry, but you are wrong, as I think you know. Measurements prove the shape.
The problem is not taking the measurement, but interpenetrating correctly.
Is the glass filled with water or is the glass filled with air?
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
Please explain how distances across the earth can be used to determine its shape.The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.Sorry, but you are wrong, as I think you know. Measurements prove the shape.
The problem is not taking the measurement, but interpenetrating correctly.
Is the glass filled with water or is the glass filled with air?
Multiple locations to each other give a more accurate result.Please explain how distances across the earth can be used to determine its shape.The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.Sorry, but you are wrong, as I think you know. Measurements prove the shape.
The problem is not taking the measurement, but interpenetrating correctly.
Is the glass filled with water or is the glass filled with air?
It is not distances from all over the place, but from a fixed location. It will be like a spider web. You can then find the outer boundaries and determine it's shape.
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
God draws amusement from being smug? I thought he was better than that.
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
God draws amusement from being smug? I thought he was better than that.
Can a computer variable in a subroutine tell the program on how to act?
We are the variable, God is the programmer!!!
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
God draws amusement from being smug? I thought he was better than that.
Can a computer variable in a subroutine tell the program on how to act?
We are the variable, God is the programmer!!!
What is the subroutine? Peoples houses? And what are animals, is a dog a variable? Or a constant? Goldfish? Are they pointers? Herd of sheep would be an array? What about the shepherd?
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.Wtf are you talking about? I never said that.
The earth is a circle, not a sphere. End of story.But didn't you say it had four corners?
Wrong, I never gave the rotational speed of the motor, so I don't need to scale up anything.You debunked nothing.Wrong, the earth makes 1 revolution per 24 hours where this motor make 12,000 revolutions be minute or 17,280,000 revolutions per day.
Your example is not merely a giant motor, it is a small motor in a giant room.
And that has the spinning component housed in something else.
Compare this to Earth:
Earth has a radius of 6471 km (roughly), and the atmosphere is roughly 100 km thick (before it starts getting quite thin). But we don't need the entire atmosphere, we just need the altitude planes fly at.
That is roughly 35 000 ft or 10 km.
That is roughly 0.0015 times the radius.
So for a valid comparison, forget the motor, forget the vast majority of the room (although it will effect it and I will discuss that in a second):
You have a spinning axle, lets say it is 10 cm wide, so a radius of 5 cm.
Are you saying this spinning wont effect the air that is 5*0.0015 cm = 75 micron further out?
If so, I would like some evidence of that.
As for the rest of the room, Earth is in space, a fairly friction-less environment. That means there is nothing trying to stop the air from moving with Earth.
Meanwhile your motor is in a room full of air. This room will exert friction on the air stopping it from moving with the motor.
So no, you have debunked nothing, and again, you already have your diagram unless you want to try claiming that wind can't blow things.
So you have to scale up your result of 75 micron and the new value will become to 1296 meters.
Like I said
The heliocentric theory is debunked.
This directional force must remain constant in direction and would then have to explain how to calculate it accurately.Why would it need to remain constant?
In all the physics classes I took, we never even talked about this imaginary force.That is because it is a real force, often called drag or air resistance, sometimes combined with thrust, lift and weight (such as during a crosswind landing) as well as the friction between the tires and the ground (once it has actually landed).
OK, let me put it to you this way, you have two identical motor in two identical boxes, with identical air conditions in space, zero gravity.But that isn't the case.
But the only thing is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment did tell us that the earth was stationary with the help of the Sagnac experiment.Why do you keep repeating the same lies?
You may try to discredit the idea, but you will be nothing more than the scientist that believed in the Piltdown Man?No, that would be you, except you are far worse than those scientists. You are completely lying about what the evidence shows.
You believe in a lie
But our airplane did, it changed direction and for an instance it had to deal with stresses that would break it apart.No. The stresses are not great enough to break it apart. If that was the case it would tear itself apart in a slight breeze. In fact, it merely flying through the air would be enough to tear it apart.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.Yes, I suspect this is all bull and you are just making shit up like you normally do to avoid dealing with the arguments presented.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
It is not distances from all over the place, but from a fixed location. It will be like a spider web. You can then find the outer boundaries and determine it's shape.No it can't.
You know, God laughs when people try to show how smart they are by saying that their is NO God.
I'd like to see you drawing a FBD on God.
Wrong, I never gave the rotational speed of the motor, so I don't need to scale up anything.
To prove your point that the earth's atmosphere moves with the spinning earth, please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.
Does the velocity boundary layer extend 1 m, 10 m, 1000 m, 10,000 m, 100,000 m...
If such citation can't be provided, then all this talk about the earth's atmosphere moving with the earth is bullshit!!!
If you want to talk about science, let's talk about science, if you want to spread propaganda, then choose a different site to do so...
Are you saying that Convection Heat Transfer is bogus?
Does not the Earth in the heliocentric model radiate to open space?
Friction, you say, but friction is a force and since it is a force then it could be placed on a Free Body Diagram.
So please draw the Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and label all the forces that it encounters especially the force that keeps it in sync with the supposed earth rotation,
Are you saying that Convection Heat Transfer is bogus?
Does not the Earth in the heliocentric model radiate to open space?
Friction, you say, but friction is a force and since it is a force then it could be placed on a Free Body Diagram.
So please draw the Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and label all the forces that it encounters especially the force that keeps it in sync with the supposed earth rotation,
No, read again properly. I'm saying the atmosphere moves with the earth due to friction.
And has been repeatedly mentioned, the plane retains momentum from the rotating earth on take off as there are no forces to counteract this. No FBD required for this simple concept.
If you love FBDs so much, draw one showing God making the flat earth.
Thank you for taking the time to write this very good explanation, but your explanation deals with crosswinds, which would be also true on a Flat Earth.
As an airline captain that has over 13,000 hour of flying hours, let me ask you this simple question. Every how many minutes do you dip your airplane down to be in sync with the supposed Earth Curvature?
What routes do you fly, just in the USA or do you do transatlantic flights also.
Thank you for taking the time to write this very good explanation, but your explanation deals with crosswinds, which would be also true on a Flat Earth.Yes, it does and that is because that is what happens.
The problem with this explanation, it assumes that the air moves along with the spinning earth.
If this is the case, then we need to have a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning Sphere that radiates to its environment, just like the earth does.The answer is simply:
We need to show the Velocity Boundary Layers to see up to what height the air will moving with the spinning sphere.
Let’s assume that in this model, we can show that the air will move for a height of 100 miles, then yes you will be correct and the air will synchronize any object that is within that boundary layers.
If on the other hand, the velocity boundary layer will only be say 20 meters, then this will disprove this concept.
As an airline captain that has over 13,000 hour of flying hours, let me ask you this simple question. Every how many minutes do you dip your airplane down to be in sync with the supposed Earth Curvature?There is simply no need to conciously "dip the plane down". All that has to be done is to keep to the same altitude.
What routes do you fly, just in the USA or do you do transatlantic flights also.
No, they were based upon a rotating Earth, where the effect of the rotation on the air would result in simple linear scaling.QuoteWrong, I never gave the rotational speed of the motor, so I don't need to scale up anything.So your calculations were based on a station earth!!!!!
To prove your point that the earth's atmosphere moves with the spinning earth, please provide citation of the Convention Heat Transfer Model of a spinning sphere when it radiates to the environment, just like earth does, where it shows the thermal and velocity boundary layers.No, it is simple friction. If it didn't, there would be large amounts of friction which would then drag the atmosphere along with Earth.
Are you saying that Convection Heat Transfer is bogus?No, it doesn't apply to Earth.
Does not the Earth in the heliocentric model radiate to open space?Yes, RADIATE, i.e. it radiates energy in the form of EM radiation.
Friction, you say, but friction is a force and since it is a force then it could be placed on a Free Body Diagram.And it already is. It is called DRAG!
So please draw the Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and label all the forces that it encounters especially the force that keeps it in sync with the supposed earth rotation,You have already been provided with one.
Thank you for taking the time to write this very good explanation, but your explanation deals with crosswinds, which would be also true on a Flat Earth.
The crosswind demonstrates two things: that the force you are looking for is drag from the air mass, and that even on an airless surface the plane (spacecraft, I guess...) would only need 12 degrees to compensate for the spinning planet beneath.
As an airline captain that has over 13,000 hour of flying hours, let me ask you this simple question. Every how many minutes do you dip your airplane down to be in sync with the supposed Earth Curvature?
What routes do you fly, just in the USA or do you do transatlantic flights also.
I won't lie, from a FE standpoint that's an excellent question. But just to understand, for what purpose do you suppose I need to dip down?
Are you referring to allowing the spinning winds to catch me up to speed or to keep pushing the nose over lest I fly off the planet? If it's the former, then never because because the winds at altitude, while blowing, also have an orbital velocity of their own. It is common to find winds out of the west exceeding 150 knots in the winter. Any jet can easily compensate. Wind corrections might be 20-30 degrees. No problem.
If the latter, then also never. The force of gravity is perpendicular to the surface of the earth. It always acts straight down. Lift on an airplane acts exactly opposite gravity, its vector is always straight up. As the surface of the earth curves, the force of gravity would be at an angle between two different points on the globe, as seen from an outside reference such as space. We don't care, because we are inside the reference, and can also never be at two places at once. So from our reference, gravity is always down, towards the center of the earth. As we travel across the surface, the airplane is maintaining a constant pressure altitude. As the atmosphere curves with the earth, so must the airplane's flight path over the horizon due to both the changing angle of gravity (as seen only from an outside reference) and the curve of the atmosphere.
A quick insight on the atmosphere and how an airplane maintains altitude: The pressure of the atmosphere decreases as we increase in altitude. This has been proven time and again by carrying a barometer up a mountain. Airplanes maintain altitude by holding a constant air pressure (called "pressure altitude). The actual height above ground will vary slightly as the air mass changes; pressure increases will cause the airplane to climb a bit to maintain the desired pressure.
I've flown all over North America, and am currently in Japan.
As you flight straight if the earth was curved below you, then the distance between you and the ground would increase.If this was true most planes would never be able to land.
You have to make a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning Earth and show the Thermal and Velocity boundary layers of the atmosphere.
Let the man answer the question.I'm pretty sure the only thing that will shut you up is a lobotomy (if there is any brain left to remove) or a banning.
Stop trying to confuse him.
maybe he will come up with something that will help you and shut me up.
Give him a chance, but
You have to make a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning Earth and show the Thermal and Velocity boundary layers of the atmosphere.
You have to make a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning Earth and show the Thermal and Velocity boundary layers of the atmosphere.
Why is that required?
Let the man answer the question.I'm pretty sure the only thing that will shut you up is a lobotomy (if there is any brain left to remove) or a banning.
Stop trying to confuse him.
maybe he will come up with something that will help you and shut me up.
Give him a chance, but
You have to make a Convection Heat Transfer Model of a spinning Earth and show the Thermal and Velocity boundary layers of the atmosphere.
I already pointed out why your convection BS is bullshit, stop bring it up and focus on what has been said.
Thank you for informing us that you never dip your airplane to be constant with the supposed Earth Curvature.
I'd count that as successful trolling inFlatEarth. I thought your OP was a waste of typing with the obvious factual flaws, but you've managed to elicit considered replies - and even a dignified response from an airline captain. 9/10.
inFlatEarth - God has answered your prayers and given you an experienced pilot with clear answers to your questions. If you don't agree with any of the answers, explain exactly why that is (feel free to use an diagrams you think may help get your point across). If you ask for an FBD or any other irrelevant model again, you may as well hang a neon flashing sign above your head saying "I've lost".
inFlatEarth - God has answered your prayers and given you an experienced pilot with clear answers to your questions. If you don't agree with any of the answers, explain exactly why that is (feel free to use an diagrams you think may help get your point across). If you ask for an FBD or any other irrelevant model again, you may as well hang a neon flashing sign above your head saying "I've lost".
Yes, God has answered my prayers and he has given me a pilot with 13,000 hr of flight that he stated that he does not dip the plane to keep level with the Earth and proving that the Earth has no curvature.
Now, you have to explain why the gyroscopes in the airplane are always leveled...
inFlatEarth - God has answered your prayers and given you an experienced pilot with clear answers to your questions. If you don't agree with any of the answers, explain exactly why that is (feel free to use an diagrams you think may help get your point across). If you ask for an FBD or any other irrelevant model again, you may as well hang a neon flashing sign above your head saying "I've lost".
Yes, God has answered my prayers and he has given me a pilot with 13,000 hr of flight that he stated that he does not dip the plane to keep level with the Earth and proving that the Earth has no curvature.
Now, you have to explain why the gyroscopes in the airplane are always leveled...
Because they level perpendicular with the ground directly beneath.
You really are blind to anything apart from your own thoughts.
Did you read the part where the pilot took great trouble to explain clearly why the concept of an aircraft"dipping" to follow earth's curvature is such a straw man argument.
No.
Because it did not fit your false reality.
Planes fly at altitudes ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
That's it.
The level below them is a globe.
Do if a plane were to fly in a direct straight tangent it would be climbing to a higher altitude.
More power required to maintain climb.
Following the curve IS level flight.
I asked the question: "Every how many minutes do you dip your airplane down to be in sync with the supposed Earth Curvature?"
And you answered : "then never because because the winds at altitude, while blowing, also have an orbital velocity of their own."
Very clearly you said that you never dip the airplane.
As you clearly stated the altimeter is pressure driven, that is, the outside pressure tells you at what altitude you are flying. This would be true for a Flat Earth and a Spherical Earth.
The altimeter does not control the dipping automatically; the pilot manually controls the level of the flight.
BUT the instruments that keep you level while your flying is the gyroscope, which is nothing more than a disk that spins at very high speeds.
In the airplanes they pass compress air to have the disk spin all the times and this technology is from the early 50’s
So since you have told us that you don’t dip the airplane and since in order for you to land your gyroscope has to be level, how does it always become perpendicular to the ground on a spherical Earth model?
What forces make it to always be sync to the ground, which will not violate basic physics…
Maybe you have been lied too…
Please rethink all of the evidence very carefully again…
I asked the question: "Every how many minutes do you dip your airplane down to be in sync with the supposed Earth Curvature?"
And you answered : "then never because because the winds at altitude, while blowing, also have an orbital velocity of their own."
Very clearly you said that you never dip the airplane.
As you clearly stated the altimeter is pressure driven, that is, the outside pressure tells you at what altitude you are flying. This would be true for a Flat Earth and a Spherical Earth.
The altimeter does not control the dipping automatically; the pilot manually controls the level of the flight.
BUT the instruments that keep you level while your flying is the gyroscope, which is nothing more than a disk that spins at very high speeds.
In the airplanes they pass compress air to have the disk spin all the times and this technology is from the early 50’s
So since you have told us that you don’t dip the airplane and since in order for you to land your gyroscope has to be level, how does it always become perpendicular to the ground on a spherical Earth model?
What forces make it to always be sync to the ground, which will not violate basic physics…
Maybe you have been lied too…
Please rethink all of the evidence very carefully again…
Here we go...
You are envisioning a world where pilots have to push the nose over to maintain altitude above a constantly dipping Earth. If I were flying above a basketball, then yes that would be the case. I am flying a plane a few hundred feet long above a curve that is 40,0745 km in circumference. I don't have to "dip" the airplane, because the autopilot maintains a constant altitude following the curve of the earth, the lift acting parallel to gravity keeps the longitudinal axis of the plane perpendicular to the Earth's surface. The "dipping" takes care of itself and is so exceptionally gradual (Rabinoz calculated 1 degree per 111km I think) that no control input would be required.
If someone would kindly explain how I can attach a diagram to a forum post, I'll happily whip one up.
Um, no the altimeter is not like an odometer. It reads one thing and one thing only, the pressure altitude. It takes the atmospheric pressure in millibars and translates it to an approximate height above sea level. As the atmosphere curves around the earth, so must the plane, although as I said no "dip" control input is required because lift is parallel and opposite to gravity, and when lift = gravity then the airplane is maintaining both a constant altitude and is perpendicular to the ground. If lift is greater than gravity, the airplane climbs. If lift is less than gravity, the airplane descends. If I were to consciously attempt to fly a tangent to the earth's surface, then yes I would be increasing in altitude. I would very quickly run out of air pressure required to ensure lift was overcoming gravity, and would cease climbing.
The altimeter does indeed control how we fly. Airplanes are not perfectly stable: minute changes in wind and air pressure and even the act of a flight attendant walking from the back of the plane to the front, and thus shifting the center of gravity, will cause an airplane to pitch up and down ever so slightly. The autopilot will sense the change in pressure and adjust the pitch accordingly to climb or descend. We are talking a mere few feet. Whatever insignificant control input might be required to "dip" the airplane is unnoticeable.
Be back tomorrow!!!
You all have a nice Sunday and pray to God to enlighten you.
I only have one question to the pilot, which I really want to thank him from the bottom of my heart and wish him that he find true happiness in his life.
What made you want to write in this forum on this topic, because last night and this morning, I prayed to God to help me today and he delivered you to me.
Did you think that it was God, that gave you the intensive to write?
Either way, may God give you and your family, happiness, piece and love!!!
Be back tomorrow!!!So you got backed into a corner when you were asked to calculate something you claimed was easy and now you run away.
You all have a nice Sunday and pray to God to enlighten you.
I only have one question to the pilot, which I really want to thank him from the bottom of my heart and wish him that he find true happiness in his life.
What made you want to write in this forum on this topic, because last night and this morning, I prayed to God to help me today and he delivered you to me.
Did you think that it was God, that gave you the intensive to write?
Either way, may God give you and your family, happiness, piece and love!!!
You know, I did not plain to come back today, since it was Sunday, but I was curious if the pilot has an answer about the gyroscope.
But nothing yet...
You know, I did not plain to come back today, since it was Sunday, but I was curious if the pilot has an answer about the gyroscope.
But nothing yet...
You know, I did not plain to come back today, since it was Sunday, but I was curious if the pilot has an answer about the gyroscope.I'm still waiting for you to calculate the size and distance of the sun. Why do you run away when you claimed it was easy?
But nothing yet...
I probably have better things to do with my time, but this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I just can't look away. Having said that, FE theory does have some interesting observations and questions, and I think they deserve a dignified factual response. I can easily understand why "my personal and physical observations say differently to what I'm taught" and if I can add to their education, I will. Tread on my turf, and I'm going to respond.
I understand, however, that you all have been doing this for a long time. Give me a few weeks, I'll be spitting venom like a rabid puff adder.
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Do you have the math that was utilized to render this CGI and can you verify it is legitimate, sourcing Keplar, et.al.?
The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball moves at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
How about you provide those calculations you claimed were so easy? Show us the size of the sun and it's distance. What are you afraid of?The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
How about the Convection Heat Transfer model of the spinning earth with its boundary layers to prove if the atmosphere moves with the earth!!!!
Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)I never claimed I could. You, on the other hand said it was a simple thing to calculate the size of the sun.
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)I never claimed I could. You, on the other hand said it was a simple thing to calculate the size of the sun.
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
Admit it, called your bluff and you have not been able dodge and weave your way out of it.
Just admit you can't do it and move on.
I'm pretty sure it was the sun we were talking about but ok, let's start with the moon.Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)I never claimed I could. You, on the other hand said it was a simple thing to calculate the size of the sun.
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
Admit it, called your bluff and you have not been able dodge and weave your way out of it.
Just admit you can't do it and move on.
I never said the sun, but the moon!!!
I need to by an accurate ruler which I will go into town on Tuesday. In Greece, I live in the mountains and we go shopping in town. It's not like I can go to staples and by it...
The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
Monkey, do not be an idiot.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
If a tennis ball is spinning at 1 revolution per day, and the Earth is spinning at 1 revolution per day, how fast are they both spinning?
If the tennis ball is the size of a tennis ball, and the Earth is the size of a fucking great big planet, which one do you think is moving the fastest on its surface when spinning at 1 revolution per day?
I'm pretty sure it was the sun we were talking about but ok, let's start with the moon.Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)I never claimed I could. You, on the other hand said it was a simple thing to calculate the size of the sun.
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
Admit it, called your bluff and you have not been able dodge and weave your way out of it.
Just admit you can't do it and move on.
I never said the sun, but the moon!!!
I need to by an accurate ruler which I will go into town on Tuesday. In Greece, I live in the mountains and we go shopping in town. It's not like I can go to staples and by it...
Was that so hard? Why did you have to jump through all those hoops and dodges? Not to mention the insults. You could have just said, I'll work on it tomorrow.
QuoteJust remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
...then head to the same airport lounge as your dimwitted pilot friend and explain it to him, shit for brains...Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
...and the earth is not a tennis ball, fuckwad!
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Do you have the math that was utilized to render this CGI and can you verify it is legitimate, sourcing Keplar, et.al.?
Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
Thank you for digging that up!I'm pretty sure it was the sun we were talking about but ok, let's start with the moon.Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)I never claimed I could. You, on the other hand said it was a simple thing to calculate the size of the sun.
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
Admit it, called your bluff and you have not been able dodge and weave your way out of it.
Just admit you can't do it and move on.
I never said the sun, but the moon!!!
I need to by an accurate ruler which I will go into town on Tuesday. In Greece, I live in the mountains and we go shopping in town. It's not like I can go to staples and by it...
Was that so hard? Why did you have to jump through all those hoops and dodges? Not to mention the insults. You could have just said, I'll work on it tomorrow.
This was exactly what he said...QuoteJust remember that according the this Flat Earth Society the sun and moon are each about 50 km in diameter and about 5000 km high.
Have I ever stated this in a post?
Just because some people think this is true, does not mean that I believe it., Actually it could be very easily calculated using the standard that ophthalmology have for 20/ 20 vision.
Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...
the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?
...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Water is fucking water, you moran.The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None.Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball move at one revolution per day no water would fly off...
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
The rotational speed will be 15 degrees an hour. Still very very gentle turning (oh - and the water molecules will be vastly smaller if comparatively scaled).
I - and I suspect many others with a degree of intelligence - will lean towards the opinions of a highly trained and experienced professional vs a stupid and angry little turd.
Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms the rotational force upon it at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
Adjective problem?Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a fucking liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were liar coming in...
Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a fucking liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
Of course, no way to actually represent this in real time or life...Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
0.05 gramms was a rough estimation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)
And it doesn't really matter if I calculated that example for one drop of water only, it would work the same way if the tennis ball was actually covered with water drops by 71 percent of it's surface or even a 100 percent.
And yes, any similar effect of gravity isn't even considered in my calculations, so the effective revolution speed would be even much higher to actually draw the water drops off the tennis ball.
Of course, no way to actually represent this in real time or life...Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
0.05 gramms was a rough estimation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)
And it doesn't really matter if I calculated that example for one drop of water only, it would work the same way if the tennis ball was actually covered with water drops by 71 percent of it's surface or even a 100 percent.
And yes, any similar effect of gravity isn't even considered in my calculations, so the effective revolution speed would be even much higher to actually draw the water drops off the tennis ball.
Real easy to make up shit on the one hand when on the other hand you can say, "Of course I cannot show it to you! JUST BELIEVE!"
I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
You are still left with choosing between your claim (no gravity) and that of science (does have gravity).
I suggest you keep on with no gravity as it will get you closer to the truth...
That calculation is not based on real life application or applied science as demonstrated through repeatable example and it never can be and you know it and all of mankind knows it, so that calculation might as well be pulled from your rectal orifice.Of course, no way to actually represent this in real time or life...Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
0.05 gramms was a rough estimation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)
And it doesn't really matter if I calculated that example for one drop of water only, it would work the same way if the tennis ball was actually covered with water drops by 71 percent of it's surface or even a 100 percent.
And yes, any similar effect of gravity isn't even considered in my calculations, so the effective revolution speed would be even much higher to actually draw the water drops off the tennis ball.
Real easy to make up shit on the one hand when on the other hand you can say, "Of course I cannot show it to you! JUST BELIEVE!"
Since you flat Earthers came up with the notion about a tennis ball and the faulty believe water would be thrown off a tennis ball when it's spinning at the same speed as the Earth in SHM I provided you with a calculation why that isn't true.
Dunno what else to say here, take it however you want. ???
I'm a low hours private pilot - but my training and experience to date has shown there can only be a round earth. Conversely there is a highly experienced commercial pilot on this thread saying the earth is round. All the other genuine pilots that have ever posted on this forum say the earth is round. These are all individuals with 1000s of hours of training and experience based on a round earth. A bunch of poorly educated souls watch a couple of spurious YouTube videos and they begin to labour under the misapprehension they have advanced knowledge? Mental.Nothing in your pilot training or anything else in your life experience shows you there can only be a round earth.
You can swear and rant all you want - as long as you argue the ridiculous case for a flat earth you will always come across as the loser. You've backed the wrong horse. Keep swearing - its all you've got.
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Do you have the math that was utilized to render this CGI and can you verify it is legitimate, sourcing Keplar, et.al.?
I'm a low hours private pilot - but my training and experience to date has shown there can only be a round earth. Conversely there is a highly experienced commercial pilot on this thread saying the earth is round. All the other genuine pilots that have ever posted on this forum say the earth is round. These are all individuals with 1000s of hours of training and experience based on a round earth. A bunch of poorly educated souls watch a couple of spurious YouTube videos and they begin to labour under the misapprehension they have advanced knowledge? Mental.Nothing in your pilot training or anything else in your life experience shows you there can only be a round earth.
You can swear and rant all you want - as long as you argue the ridiculous case for a flat earth you will always come across as the loser. You've backed the wrong horse. Keep swearing - its all you've got.
Keep telling lies.
It is what liars do.
Have a nice day, liar.
You were told they utilize round earth.I'm a low hours private pilot - but my training and experience to date has shown there can only be a round earth. Conversely there is a highly experienced commercial pilot on this thread saying the earth is round. All the other genuine pilots that have ever posted on this forum say the earth is round. These are all individuals with 1000s of hours of training and experience based on a round earth. A bunch of poorly educated souls watch a couple of spurious YouTube videos and they begin to labour under the misapprehension they have advanced knowledge? Mental.Nothing in your pilot training or anything else in your life experience shows you there can only be a round earth.
You can swear and rant all you want - as long as you argue the ridiculous case for a flat earth you will always come across as the loser. You've backed the wrong horse. Keep swearing - its all you've got.
Keep telling lies.
It is what liars do.
Have a nice day, liar.
Instruments, navigation, meteorology, planning all use round earth. You probably download illegally - get hold of the pilot training manuals and look for yourself.
That's all you Flat Earthers have. When you get done, you just call "liar" or "conspiracy". I've not heard one round earth argument that's ever needed to resort to that. Speaks volumes.
If you lie, then I will call you out on it.I'm a low hours private pilot - but my training and experience to date has shown there can only be a round earth. Conversely there is a highly experienced commercial pilot on this thread saying the earth is round. All the other genuine pilots that have ever posted on this forum say the earth is round. These are all individuals with 1000s of hours of training and experience based on a round earth. A bunch of poorly educated souls watch a couple of spurious YouTube videos and they begin to labour under the misapprehension they have advanced knowledge? Mental.Nothing in your pilot training or anything else in your life experience shows you there can only be a round earth.
You can swear and rant all you want - as long as you argue the ridiculous case for a flat earth you will always come across as the loser. You've backed the wrong horse. Keep swearing - its all you've got.
Keep telling lies.
It is what liars do.
Have a nice day, liar.
Instruments, navigation, meteorology, planning all use round earth. You probably download illegally - get hold of the pilot training manuals and look for yourself.
That's all you Flat Earthers have. When you get done, you just call "liar" or "conspiracy". I've not heard one round earth argument that's ever needed to resort to that. Speaks volumes.
You still have not addressed your hypocritical stance of a tennis ball having no gravity and your high priests of science claiming it does.
Choose your side now.
Like you, I know the earth is round. But maybe one day I'll play the game and pretend otherwise - see if I can do any better than you.I do not know the Earth is round or flat.
That calculation is not based on real life application or applied science as demonstrated through repeatable example and it never can be and you know it and all of mankind knows it, so that calculation might as well be pulled from your rectal orifice.Of course, no way to actually represent this in real time or life...Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
0.05 gramms was a rough estimation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)
And it doesn't really matter if I calculated that example for one drop of water only, it would work the same way if the tennis ball was actually covered with water drops by 71 percent of it's surface or even a 100 percent.
And yes, any similar effect of gravity isn't even considered in my calculations, so the effective revolution speed would be even much higher to actually draw the water drops off the tennis ball.
Real easy to make up shit on the one hand when on the other hand you can say, "Of course I cannot show it to you! JUST BELIEVE!"
Since you flat Earthers came up with the notion about a tennis ball and the faulty believe water would be thrown off a tennis ball when it's spinning at the same speed as the Earth in SHM I provided you with a calculation why that isn't true.
Dunno what else to say here, take it however you want. ???
Have a nice day.
Like you, I know the earth is round. But maybe one day I'll play the game and pretend otherwise - see if I can do any better than you.I do not know the Earth is round or flat.
I happen to believe the Earth is flat.
The reason I believe it is flat is because everywhere I have been on this Earth it has always appeared flat to me.
I choose to view the evidence of my own eyes.
Now, care to address your hypocritical and opposing stance you have to your priests of RE-tardness?
OK the "gravity" at the surface of a tennis ball due to its own mass is 0.00000037 N,I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
You are still left with choosing between your claim (no gravity) and that of science (does have gravity).
I suggest you keep on with no gravity as it will get you closer to the truth...
Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?That calculation is not based on real life application or applied science as demonstrated through repeatable example and it never can be and you know it and all of mankind knows it, so that calculation might as well be pulled from your rectal orifice.Of course, no way to actually represent this in real time or life...Assuming the weight of a water drop to be 0.05 gramms...Do not assume anything...what is the fucking weight of a water drop...it weighs what it weighs...the rotational force upon it...Rotational force upon what?...at the equator of the Earth with the angular velocity of 0.00007292115 rad/s (or rotational velocity of 465 m/s) would be as much as 0.000001789 N. To break it down to a tennis ball with the diameter of roughly 6.7 cm and the same force applied to the water drop we get 0.8389 rad/s, 0.0281 m/s, 0.1335 rev/s or just a bit over 8 rev/min.Oh...I see...you are now trying to fucking claim a scaled down representation of the amount of water on the Earth as to a tennis ball is one fucking drop of water is to a tennis ball as the oceans/lakes/rivers, etc., is to the Earth...
Dunno about you guys but in my book that's not even remotely sufficient to throw the water drop off the tennis ball. ???
Are you dense?
71 percent of the tennis ball would be covered by water at the same relative depth.
One fucking drop of water will not cut the mustard, you hayseed.
0.05 gramms was a rough estimation, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(unit)
And it doesn't really matter if I calculated that example for one drop of water only, it would work the same way if the tennis ball was actually covered with water drops by 71 percent of it's surface or even a 100 percent.
And yes, any similar effect of gravity isn't even considered in my calculations, so the effective revolution speed would be even much higher to actually draw the water drops off the tennis ball.
Real easy to make up shit on the one hand when on the other hand you can say, "Of course I cannot show it to you! JUST BELIEVE!"
Since you flat Earthers came up with the notion about a tennis ball and the faulty believe water would be thrown off a tennis ball when it's spinning at the same speed as the Earth in SHM I provided you with a calculation why that isn't true.
Dunno what else to say here, take it however you want. ???
Have a nice day.
Go and calculate it yourself then, it's def no rocket science.
And as if the FE mockery about a tennis ball was based on anything remotely realistic in the first place, so stop whining about the mockery being ridiculed by the numbers. ;)
Ah, the good ole for shit argument...Like you, I know the earth is round. But maybe one day I'll play the game and pretend otherwise - see if I can do any better than you.I do not know the Earth is round or flat.
I happen to believe the Earth is flat.
The reason I believe it is flat is because everywhere I have been on this Earth it has always appeared flat to me.
I choose to view the evidence of my own eyes.
Now, care to address your hypocritical and opposing stance you have to your priests of RE-tardness?
So bacteria doesn't exist? You can't see it with your own eyes so I guess it's not there?
Ah, the good ole for shit argument...Like you, I know the earth is round. But maybe one day I'll play the game and pretend otherwise - see if I can do any better than you.I do not know the Earth is round or flat.
I happen to believe the Earth is flat.
The reason I believe it is flat is because everywhere I have been on this Earth it has always appeared flat to me.
I choose to view the evidence of my own eyes.
Now, care to address your hypocritical and opposing stance you have to your priests of RE-tardness?
So bacteria doesn't exist? You can't see it with your own eyes so I guess it's not there?
Tennis ball, Fenster, as a reminder, is the subject...
Does a tennis ball have gravity? Yes or no...
OK the "gravity" at the surface of a tennis ball due to its own mass is 0.00000037 N,I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
You are still left with choosing between your claim (no gravity) and that of science (does have gravity).
I suggest you keep on with no gravity as it will get you closer to the truth...Would Mr Totally Scrappy care to measure that and prove it's not zero?Did you graduate from the same Flatard Indoctrination Academy as jroa,
though seem to have done the Post Graduate Course in diverting attention away from any sensible discussion.
So you admit you are a liar.Ah, the good ole for shit argument...Like you, I know the earth is round. But maybe one day I'll play the game and pretend otherwise - see if I can do any better than you.I do not know the Earth is round or flat.
I happen to believe the Earth is flat.
The reason I believe it is flat is because everywhere I have been on this Earth it has always appeared flat to me.
I choose to view the evidence of my own eyes.
Now, care to address your hypocritical and opposing stance you have to your priests of RE-tardness?
So bacteria doesn't exist? You can't see it with your own eyes so I guess it's not there?
Tennis ball, Fenster, as a reminder, is the subject...
Does a tennis ball have gravity? Yes or no...
An irrelevant amount of gravity for the purposes of any useful discussion. Is that all you could latch onto in this thread - you're a joke.
Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
If you don't understand why it is required, then don't participate in the thread, it is too advanced for you.If you can't explain why something as useless and inapplicable why that should be required, don't assert that it is.
Very clearly you said that you never dip the airplane.No he didn't. He stated that he doesn't dip it down to specifically follow the curve of Earth.
The altimeter does not control the dipping automatically; the pilot manually controls the level of the flight.The autopilot can do it as well. You can also use the thrust to control the altitude.
BUT the instruments that keep you level while your flying is the gyroscope, which is nothing more than a disk that spins at very high speeds.No, it is much more than that.
In the airplanes they pass compress air to have the disk spin all the times and this technology is from the early 50’sSo you even admit it is more than a simple spinning disk.
So since you have told us that you don’t dip the airplane and since in order for you to land your gyroscope has to be level, how does it always become perpendicular to the ground on a spherical Earth model?What makes you think the gyroscope needs to be level to land?
What forces make it to always be sync to the ground, which will not violate basic physics…You have already been told the answer repeatedly DRAG/air resistance.
Maybe you have been lied too…Yes, by you, repeatedly.
Question, would the altimeter readings be the same if the earth was flat and you were flying level?I see you appear to be backing down again like a cowardly child.
Rab admitted somewhere else he likes the occasional sticky gauge and reach around, so there's another tip for you.OK the "gravity" at the surface of a tennis ball due to its own mass is 0.00000037 N,I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
You are still left with choosing between your claim (no gravity) and that of science (does have gravity).
I suggest you keep on with no gravity as it will get you closer to the truth...Would Mr Totally Scrappy care to measure that and prove it's not zero?Did you graduate from the same Flatard Indoctrination Academy as jroa,
though seem to have done the Post Graduate Course in diverting attention away from any sensible discussion.
Yep - inFlatEarth got routinely pummelled and then the commercial pilot struck the death blow. He's tag teamed with TotallyLacking who can only swear and latch onto a pedantic point about a tennis ball having gravity. Pathetic - they have no idea how much damage they are doing to their precious flat earth with such rubbish.
Do a video of the tennis ball covered in water showing the water remaining on the surface, spinning or not spinning.Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
I just scaled the rotational force upon a water drop on Earths equator down to a tennis ball, so the answer should be yes. Why would you say it's no, you think there's something wrong in my calculations?
Everyone knows that if you trying to represent the Earth at the size of the tennis ball for modeling purposes, any claimed rotational speed for the Earth would be represented as FASTER as the size of the model DECREASES.That depends entirely upon what you are trying to model.
Do a video of the tennis ball covered in water showing the water remaining on the surface, spinning or not spinning.Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
I just scaled the rotational force upon a water drop on Earths equator down to a tennis ball, so the answer should be yes. Why would you say it's no, you think there's something wrong in my calculations?
totallackey is right. If I am going to model the Earth as a spinning ball, and the ball I am using is smaller than the Earth, the spin would be faster.Fixed that long drawn out bullshit for you.
Rab admitted somewhere else he likes the occasional sticky gauge and reach around, so there's another tip for you.OK the "gravity" at the surface of a tennis ball due to its own mass is 0.00000037 N,I cleaned up the profanity adjective in the response.Plus the tennis ball has no gravity. It's utter nonsense what these people come up with - I wonder how they function in day to day life.You do of course realize your own science to which you appeal states you are a - - - - - - -liar when you make the claim the tennis ball has no gravity.
That's okay though.
Knew you were a liar coming in...
you'll make yourself ill with all that anger
You are still left with choosing between your claim (no gravity) and that of science (does have gravity).
I suggest you keep on with no gravity as it will get you closer to the truth...Would Mr Totally Scrappy care to measure that and prove it's not zero?Did you graduate from the same Flatard Indoctrination Academy as jroa,
though seem to have done the Post Graduate Course in diverting attention away from any sensible discussion.
Yep - inFlatEarth got routinely pummelled and then the commercial pilot struck the death blow. He's tag teamed with TotallyLacking who can only swear and latch onto a pedantic point about a tennis ball having gravity. Pathetic - they have no idea how much damage they are doing to their precious flat earth with such rubbish.
The commercial pilot was shown to be a douche bag by making this statement: "The Earth is a big place, and what seems like insurmountable forces are actually quite weak when given the scale. Take, for example, the FE meme of a wet spinning tennis ball, trying to estimate it moving at 1000 mph and watching the water go flying in all directions. But that’s not an equivalent model. The Earth rotates once per day. So spin the tennis ball at one revolution per day, and see how much water goes flying off. None."
False comparison and I had to call him out on it.
You then tried to lend support and got called out on your asshattery...
Go get soused with Rab and the pilot...get a nice tight circle jerk, aided by inertia and the Coriolis, and then try breathing slower as climax approaches...
Out of everything the pilot posted, the only thing you could call out was a an extremely minor debatable technicality about a tennis ball that in no way detracted from the main topic of inFlatEarth having his ass handed to him.Of course, outright and proven liars such as yourself are perfectly normal in character.
The anger, the swearing, the aggressive sexual metaphors - you are coming across as somewhat disturbing in character.
Do a video of the tennis ball covered in water showing the water remaining on the surface, spinning or not spinning.Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
I just scaled the rotational force upon a water drop on Earths equator down to a tennis ball, so the answer should be yes. Why would you say it's no, you think there's something wrong in my calculations?
Out of everything the pilot posted, the only thing you could call out was a an extremely minor debatable technicality about a tennis ball that in no way detracted from the main topic of inFlatEarth having his ass handed to him.Of course, outright and proven liars such as yourself are perfectly normal in character.
The anger, the swearing, the aggressive sexual metaphors - you are coming across as somewhat disturbing in character.
GFY.
And there has been nothing the pilot nor anyone else here has posted, demonstrating that InFlatEarth has had his ass "handed," to him.
Nothing you can verify anyway.
All you do is parrot....
Now go away, little parrot...
Get with your friend Sentinel.Do a video of the tennis ball covered in water showing the water remaining on the surface, spinning or not spinning.Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
I just scaled the rotational force upon a water drop on Earths equator down to a tennis ball, so the answer should be yes. Why would you say it's no, you think there's something wrong in my calculations?
To construct a scale model of the earth, don't you think you would need to remove the influence of earths gravity??
You do not know that and cannot demonstrate it as a fact.Do a video of the tennis ball covered in water showing the water remaining on the surface, spinning or not spinning.Can the math be applied to something observable AND repeatable, yes or no?
The answer = no?
Result = shove the math up your ass and STFU.
I just scaled the rotational force upon a water drop on Earths equator down to a tennis ball, so the answer should be yes. Why would you say it's no, you think there's something wrong in my calculations?
Could be tricky to show because I would need a zero gravitational enviroment in order to do it as far as my calculations are concerend. The point still stands that no water would be thrown off the ball at a mere 8 revolutions per minute.
Water in zero g will not stick to a sphere either.
No, just like always, you are being a dishonest piece of shit and blatantly lying about what people have said.totallackey is right. If I am going to model the Earth as a spinning ball, and the ball I am using is smaller than the Earth, the spin would be faster.Fixed that long drawn out bullshit for you.
You are left admitting the claim cannot be replicated, either in zero g or one g.It can be replicated but it requires technology that FEers would just dismiss as a lie anyway, such as going to space.
Water in zero g will not stick to a sphere either.Water alone will form a sphere. and will adhere to lots of things in 0g, primarily because of surface tension.
You do not know that and cannot demonstrate it as a fact.We can calculate both, the force due to gravity and the apparent centrifugal force (including based upon experimental observations).
Aside from believing that any person in their sane fucking mind would turn loose water in an electrified tin can purportedly in space...Water in zero g will not stick to a sphere either.
Well, obviously it does stick to a hand...
We don't need to do it exactly like you want to know, because in truth, we can't and you are right.
You think gravity is the cause of his hand being wet...
Idiot...
Overtly, nowhere.
You think gravity is the cause of his hand being wet...
Idiot...
Where did I actually said that? ???
Overtly, nowhere.
You think gravity is the cause of his hand being wet...
Idiot...
Where did I actually said that? ???
By implication in your BS video.
Now go peddle your papers, little parrot...
Obviously you didn't understand a thing in that video. :-\Obviously, you believe in:
Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)That is totally irrelevant to your own topic, "Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all".
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
:D In other words there was no “Big Bang” and it occured everywhere. :D
There's no exact spot that the Big Bang happened.
In fact, the Big Bang happened everywhere in the Universe. The problem generally comes from the term “Big Bang”. It brings to mind explosions, detonations, balloons being popped, and everything being blown out to chickenbasket hades. Feb 27, 2017
Go read the rest for yourself in: Where Did the Big Bang Happen? - Universe Today (https://www.universetoday.com/118904/where-did-the-big-bang-happen/)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/4vxoa7k6s9s5nz6/Where%20did%20the%20%27Big%20Bang%27%20happen.jpg?dl=1)
Can you please tell us, the coordinates where the Big Bang happened. (x, y, z)
or is this too hard for you...
That would be the origin of the Universe.
All I asked the pilot was about the gyroscope and the deafening silence from him is overwhelming….
I think that we may have a new Flat Earther…
All I asked the pilot was about the gyroscope and the deafening silence from him is overwhelming….
I think that we may have a new Flat Earther…
Or, perhaps, the pilot has a job and had to sleep last night and operate four flights today. Lighten up, Francis, I'm getting to it.
Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball moves at one revolution per day no water would fly off...Gosh, that was immature.
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
Don't come on here spouting off about being some genius of a fucking airline pilot and then try to pull some fucking shit out your ass comparison between a tennis ball and the earth, claiming if the tennis ball moves at one revolution per day no water would fly off...Gosh, that was immature.
The tennis ball IS SMALLER and the rotational speed would by necessity be FASTER you tremendous fucking dick.
GTFO with your stupidity.
Go back to the fucking lounge in the airport,cop a couple of more drinks, and never post such ignorance again.
I brought up the experiment of the water and tennis ball, which I have seen before in a vapid attempt to demonstrate that if the earth were spinning we would all go flying off into space, only to demonstrate that many of the FE attempts to refute a round Earth use analogies that are not scaled correctly. Like a tennis ball spinning at 1000 RPM, or a pilot having to noticeably "dip" the airplane every few minutes.
So first: the tennis ball. Forget about the tennis ball. You wonder why we don't feel motion spinning at the equator at 1000 m/s? Because everything around you is spinning at the SAME SPEED. The ground, the air, the grass, the water. Try this: drive a car on the freeway with the windows rolled up. Stick your hand next to the window. You won't feel anything, because everything in the car is moving at the same speed. There is no howling wind, it feels as if you are still. (Apply a force, like a turn, or acceleration/deceleration, and you will feel the motion, but once the car returns to a steady state of motion, you will feel nothing again. Don't bother with the video of the pickup filled with water, it was all over the place, and the forces were in constant change.)
Now, roll down the window. You feel the air - it's called DRAG - pushing against your hand. That is what FE theorists expect to feel if the Earth were rotating, but it would require an atmosphere that is NOT rotating. The rotating Earth, four billion years ago, created friction with the lower layers of the primordial atmosphere, and that DRAG caused the atmosphere to rotate with the Earth. The upper layers began to rotate because of DRAG. I have demonstrated that DRAG is a real thing in a gas. This is why the atmosphere rotates. There is nothing above it to create DRAG in the opposite direction to slow it down, and because an object in motion (the atmosphere) remains in motion it will always rotate with the Earth.
Now, about the gyroscope. If airplanes were equipped with the toys you showed images of we would all be dead. Fortunately, aerospace engineers know that the earth is round, so they created a means to keep the gyro upright. When an airplane powers down, the gyro tumbles and comes to rest in any odd position, like this.
(http://pdp-technologies.com/Image3.jpg)
If we were to fire up the plane and there was no means to erect the gyro, it would always look like this, and be useless for flight. But engineers designed "vanes" in the base of the gyro to allow airflow to pass. If the gyro is tipped, more air is forced out in one direction, which pushes the gyro in the opposite direction. It keeps wobbling like this until it reaches equilibrium where air is moving through the vents equally. The vents are kept in position because of gravity, so this self erecting mechanism will always keep the gyro upright in relation to the ground beneath, and it will follow the curve of the earth because gravity always works perpendicular to the surface of the earth in any given location.
Here's a video of a gyro stabilizing in the upright position. You can see the wobble as the air is pushing the gyro around until it reaches equilibrium. The view is of the back side.
(http://)
There were other questions in the last 24 hours, but I don't have time right now, I'll address them later.
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Do you have the math that was utilized to render this CGI and can you verify it is legitimate, sourcing Keplar, et.al.?
Our own solar system is tipped by about 60 degrees with respect to the plane of the galaxy. You can see that on this infrared picture taken by the IRAS satellite. The picture is a little tricky to interpret because, like many maps of the Earth, it's an Aitoff projection, which means that the entire sky has been flattened onto an ellipse. But you should be able to see that the angle between the bright horizontal band (the Milky Way's disk) and the blue haze (dust in the plane of the solar system) crosses at an angle of something like 60 degrees.
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
The pilot has already answered you, no. Why do you keep asking ?
Toy gyroscopes have 3 degrees of liberty. Gyroscopes in planes have only 2. The last one is always corrected to point downwards, even when the plane makes a banked turn.
Imagine a toy gyroscope of which the vertical axis is constrained by a plumb line. That's more or less what happens in planes, although they use more sophisticated accelerometers.
If you have to correct something while he is flying, then it not dependable and would never get approved by the FAA.
It's like you having to calibrate your speedometer every 3 minutes while your driving.
If on the other hand, once the airplane has landed, then yes, you can calibrate the gyroscope. Different scenario totally.
He has not answered if he fixes it manually as someone posted a link in this thread, while he is in flight.
From the documentation that I have posted, their are non automatic fixing mechanism in the gyroscope machinery.
If he tells us, that he manually corrects the gyroscope while he is flying ever x amount of minutes, then I would agree with you that the Earth is round.
Yes you do seem to like fucking things don't you?Quote from: totallackey being a lying piece of shitWe don't need to do it exactly like you want to know, because in truth, we can't and you are right.
FTFY.
Now GFO Jack.And there you go describing yourself again.
You are the biggest sack of shit liar the internet has ever seen.
May I suggest that nobody writes in this thread until the pilot answers.No. How about you respond to what others have said like a rational adult.
That way we will not miss his post.
Do we all agree?
May I suggest that nobody writes in this thread until the pilot answers.No. How about you respond to what others have said like a rational adult.
That way we will not miss his post.
Do we all agree?
Gyroscopes in planes have a self righting mechanism. They will automatically re-right themselves to align with the effective direction of gravity.
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
Also I have found this document where they explain "How to build an attitude indicator with servomotors"
www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=35&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=8cbc50c30f6ba3bf003cf960a20cf1a9
I did not see any mechanism to automatically correct the gyroscope position. If their is, please tell me the page on the document.
If i would take a portable gyroscope on a flight from the USA to Japan, would it remain level for the entire flight, or would it rotate with the earths curvature?
Do you mean 3 degrees of freedom?
If you have to correct something while he is flying, then it not dependable and would never get approved by the FAA.
It's like you having to calibrate your speedometer every 3 minutes while your driving.
If on the other hand, once the airplane has landed, then yes, you can calibrate the gyroscope. Different scenario totally.
He has not answered if he fixes it manually as someone posted a link in this thread, while he is in flight.
From the documentation that I have posted, their are non automatic fixing mechanism in the gyroscope machinery.
If he tells us, that he manually corrects the gyroscope while he is flying ever x amount of minutes, then I would agree with you that the Earth is round.
May I suggest that nobody writes in this thread until the pilot answers.No. How about you respond to what others have said like a rational adult.
That way we will not miss his post.
Do we all agree?
Gyroscopes in planes have a self righting mechanism. They will automatically re-right themselves to align with the effective direction of gravity.
Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!
http://www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download/item/how-to-build-an-attitude-indicator-with-servomotors (http://www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download/item/how-to-build-an-attitude-indicator-with-servomotors)
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
Also I have found this document where they explain "How to build an attitude indicator with servomotors"
www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=35&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=8cbc50c30f6ba3bf003cf960a20cf1a9
I did not see any mechanism to automatically correct the gyroscope position. If their is, please tell me the page on the document.
If i would take a portable gyroscope on a flight from the USA to Japan, would it remain level for the entire flight, or would it rotate with the earths curvature?
1 - No, aviation gyroscopes are designed to maintain constant level with the surface of the earth. As we move around the earth and the surface curves, the gyroscope is designed to stay level, therefore it curves with the earth. Space gyroscopes do not do that, they maintain orientation with the stars.
2 - You're joking, right? You realize the title of this is "Tutorial on how to modify a real attitude indicator to be used with IOCards and servo motors," and that he's using the servos so the instrument can be used with a PC flight simulator? The subject of self correction never came up because, for his purposes, the gyro will never spin and it will never move. It sits on his desk while he's playing X Plane and the servo moves the horizon indicator. Try again.
Oh, here, I'll do it for you.
(http://)
You're interested in 1:40 on, where he describes the vanes and how the air blowing through vents in the bottom keep the AI perfectly aligned with the surface of the Earth. Which, as we all know, curves, and so this is the mechanism, through the force of gravity, that allows the AI to follow the curvature of the Earth.
3 - Are you taking a toy? Then no. Are you taking a professionally calibrated attitude indicator with the associated vacuum pump to run it? Then yes. But hey, the pilots are already doing that for you.
Actually, in modern commercial aircraft the gyros are much more sophisticated, but the principle is the same.
So bottom line, a mathematical model of how the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the earth's rotation must be provided, because we can go back an forth on this subject forever.
I'm a low hours private pilot - but my training and experience to date has shown there can only be a round earth. Conversely there is a highly experienced commercial pilot on this thread saying the earth is round. All the other genuine pilots that have ever posted on this forum say the earth is round. These are all individuals with 1000s of hours of training and experience based on a round earth. A bunch of poorly educated souls watch a couple of spurious YouTube videos and they begin to labour under the misapprehension they have advanced knowledge? Mental.Nothing in your pilot training or anything else in your life experience shows you there can only be a round earth.
You can swear and rant all you want - as long as you argue the ridiculous case for a flat earth you will always come across as the loser. You've backed the wrong horse. Keep swearing - its all you've got.
Keep telling lies.
It is what liars do.
Have a nice day, liar.
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
Also I have found this document where they explain "How to build an attitude indicator with servomotors"
www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=35&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=8cbc50c30f6ba3bf003cf960a20cf1a9
I did not see any mechanism to automatically correct the gyroscope position. If their is, please tell me the page on the document.
If i would take a portable gyroscope on a flight from the USA to Japan, would it remain level for the entire flight, or would it rotate with the earths curvature?
1 - No, aviation gyroscopes are designed to maintain constant level with the surface of the earth. As we move around the earth and the surface curves, the gyroscope is designed to stay level, therefore it curves with the earth. Space gyroscopes do not do that, they maintain orientation with the stars.
2 - You're joking, right? You realize the title of this is "Tutorial on how to modify a real attitude indicator to be used with IOCards and servo motors," and that he's using the servos so the instrument can be used with a PC flight simulator? The subject of self correction never came up because, for his purposes, the gyro will never spin and it will never move. It sits on his desk while he's playing X Plane and the servo moves the horizon indicator. Try again.
Oh, here, I'll do it for you.
(http://)
You're interested in 1:40 on, where he describes the vanes and how the air blowing through vents in the bottom keep the AI perfectly aligned with the surface of the Earth. Which, as we all know, curves, and so this is the mechanism, through the force of gravity, that allows the AI to follow the curvature of the Earth.
3 - Are you taking a toy? Then no. Are you taking a professionally calibrated attitude indicator with the associated vacuum pump to run it? Then yes. But hey, the pilots are already doing that for you.
Actually, in modern commercial aircraft the gyros are much more sophisticated, but the principle is the same.
Thank you for your time and honest effort to shine some light on the subject, but...
If you were actually flying on a Flat Earth, would you see any difference than in a spherical Earth?
If I was to have a professional independent gyroscope on an airplane as I was traveling, would it remain at a constant level or would it turn with the earths curvature?
Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.
It's like just because your car can do 200 mph, does not mean that you are traveling at 200 mph.
So bottom line, a mathematical model of how the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the earth's rotation must be provided, because we can go back an forth on this subject forever.
In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?
Also I have found this document where they explain "How to build an attitude indicator with servomotors"
www.opencockpits.com/index.php/en/download?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=35&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=8cbc50c30f6ba3bf003cf960a20cf1a9
I did not see any mechanism to automatically correct the gyroscope position. If their is, please tell me the page on the document.
If i would take a portable gyroscope on a flight from the USA to Japan, would it remain level for the entire flight, or would it rotate with the earths curvature?
1 - No, aviation gyroscopes are designed to maintain constant level with the surface of the earth. As we move around the earth and the surface curves, the gyroscope is designed to stay level, therefore it curves with the earth. Space gyroscopes do not do that, they maintain orientation with the stars.
2 - You're joking, right? You realize the title of this is "Tutorial on how to modify a real attitude indicator to be used with IOCards and servo motors," and that he's using the servos so the instrument can be used with a PC flight simulator? The subject of self correction never came up because, for his purposes, the gyro will never spin and it will never move. It sits on his desk while he's playing X Plane and the servo moves the horizon indicator. Try again.
Oh, here, I'll do it for you.
(http://)
You're interested in 1:40 on, where he describes the vanes and how the air blowing through vents in the bottom keep the AI perfectly aligned with the surface of the Earth. Which, as we all know, curves, and so this is the mechanism, through the force of gravity, that allows the AI to follow the curvature of the Earth.
3 - Are you taking a toy? Then no. Are you taking a professionally calibrated attitude indicator with the associated vacuum pump to run it? Then yes. But hey, the pilots are already doing that for you.
Actually, in modern commercial aircraft the gyros are much more sophisticated, but the principle is the same.
Thank you for your time and honest effort to shine some light on the subject, but...
If you were actually flying on a Flat Earth, would you see any difference than in a spherical Earth?
If I was to have a professional independent gyroscope on an airplane as I was traveling, would it remain at a constant level or would it turn with the earths curvature?
Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.
It's like just because your car can do 200 mph, does not mean that you are traveling at 200 mph.
So bottom line, a mathematical model of how the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the earth's rotation must be provided, because we can go back an forth on this subject forever.
Seriously? Okay, I'll bite. From the perspective of our puny bodies in our puny aircraft barely skimming the lowest layers of the atmosphere there the curve of the Earth is vast and wide, then no, I fly my plane AS IF it were a level, flat Earth. (Quick! Sound bite! The pilot said the earth is flat!) But that does not mean the earth is flat. That means that, for all the reasons I have stated above, the instruments we use and the physics that make flight possible allow the airplane to account for the curvature of the earth without intervention from the pilot.
If you were to have a professional level gyro on a plane, then yes it would curve with the earth, but you would never know it because it would always point to the ground beneath your feet.
By your own argument, just because you claim that the gyros on the flat earth are working as if they were on a curved earth does not mean that they are actually working on a flat Earth.
Which comes back to our original argument, Free Body Diagram.
Please show the pressure force (PA) on the airplane that keeps it in sync with the earths rotation on a Free Body Diagram!
Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!I'm talking about a real one, with an actual gyroscope.
In other words you don't know the first thing about aircraft attitude indicators, AI's.Do you mean 3 degrees of freedom?In your 13,000 hours of flight, have you ever manually correct your gyroscope while in flight and if so, at what intervals?The pilot has already answered you, no. Why do you keep asking ?
Toy gyroscopes have 3 degrees of liberty. Gyroscopes in planes have only 2. The last one is always corrected to point downwards, even when the plane makes a banked turn.
Imagine a toy gyroscope of which the vertical axis is constrained by a plumb line. That's more or less what happens in planes, although they use more sophisticated accelerometers.
If you have to correct something while he is flying, then it not dependable and would never get approved by the FAA.
It's like you having to calibrate your speedometer every 3 minutes while your driving.No it is not!
If on the other hand, once the airplane has landed, then yes, you can calibrate the gyroscope. Different scenario totally.Yes the gyro should be reset before take-off, though the built-in erecting mechanism would gradually do that anyway.
He has not answered if he fixes it manually as someone posted a link in this thread, while he is in flight.I am not a pilot, but to my knowledge the pilot would never need to "manually correct the gyroscope while he is flying", unless the gyro has "tumbled" due to violent manoeuvres.
From the documentation that I have posted, their are non automatic fixing mechanism in the gyroscope machinery.
If he tells us, that he manually corrects the gyroscope while he is flying ever x amount of minutes, then I would agree with you that the Earth is round.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Aircraft Attitude Indicators
Have you ever investigated HOW an aircraft attitude indicator really works
Look in here:Aviation Stack Exchange, How are attitude indicators kept accurate? (http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16376/how-are-attitude-indicators-kept-accurate)QuoteA gyroscopic AI has an erection mechanism, which continuously corrects the AI to be upright based on the local level, or downward acceleration vector. The correction rate is generally 3-5 degrees per minute. The way that the AI corrects itself is a system of pendulous vanes. When the gyro is not upright relative to the local level, centrifugal force pushes open vanes on the gyro's case. Air escapes through the uncovered holes, applying a force to the case, and correcting for precession.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(http://i.stack.imgur.com/yUQLB.png). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Note that modern instruments are fully "solid state", but operate in a similar way.
The second half is somewhat counter-intuitive, but flying in a coordinated turn will not continuously increase the error in the AI. For the first half of the turn, the AI will add error; in the second half, it removes the error. After a 360 degree turn, the precession error will be removed completely.
Note the important feature is the explanation:Quotecorrects the AI to be upright based on the local level, or downward acceleration vector. The correction rate is generally 3-5 degrees per minute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
If NASA was able to send a man to the moon then they can have a mathematical model with actual numbers that prove that the earth rotates with the earth.
Second, the airplanes can also fly on a Flat Earth just as well, and even better than a spherical earth
Just because you can eat 100 hot dogs an hour, that means you actually eat 100 hot dogs.
If you want me to say that the Earth is round, then you have to provide proper mathematical evidence, not just throw up equations, that the Earth's atmosphere revolves around the earth in perfect synchronization.
Which comes back to our original argument, Free Body Diagram.
Please show the pressure force (PA) on the airplane that keeps it in sync with the earths rotation on a Free Body Diagram!
Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!I'm talking about a real one, with an actual gyroscope.
The link you have is to make a fake one, where it is controlled by servos instead of a gyroscope. The instructions are to basically take the gyro out and discard it.
With correct controls for reducing error, maybe. Eyes and the human brain's ability to be subjective with the data it receives from those eyes are not the most accurate measuring devices. But give us the details.Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!I'm talking about a real one, with an actual gyroscope.
The link you have is to make a fake one, where it is controlled by servos instead of a gyroscope. The instructions are to basically take the gyro out and discard it.
read the articular, but as usual, you attack before you read. it takes an actual gyroscope from an commercial airplane and makes it into a fake one for a computer game!!
If I was to post an experiment, that I don't know the outcome, that we could all do and it deals with our eyesight and the moon, but the results might disprove NASA, would you do it?
Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!I'm talking about a real one, with an actual gyroscope.
The link you have is to make a fake one, where it is controlled by servos instead of a gyroscope. The instructions are to basically take the gyro out and discard it.
read the articular, but as usual, you attack before you read. it takes an actual gyroscope from an commercial airplane and makes it into a fake one for a computer game!!
If I was to post an experiment, that I don't know the outcome, that we could all do and it deals with our eyesight and the moon, but the results might disprove NASA, would you do it?
Also I'm waiting for your answer to my question.
Please re-post question
Please re-post question
Scroll up to the last FBD. All forces on the plane cancel out. F = 0. a = 0. What happens ?
Was the airplane in motion when this happened or are we going to assume (no joke here) that it was beamed into the environment that way.
Was the airplane in motion when this happened or are we going to assume (no joke here) that it was beamed into the environment that way.
It's in motion since it has thrusted to take off.
Is their wind blowing on the airplane and in which direction relative to the airplane
If their is no wind, then the law of conservation of momentum in all three axis, x, y, and z will come in effect.
This is nothing more than a zeppelin balloon.
And on a spherical Earth, since the lift will be equal to the gravity and the gravity will not be able to synchronize it with the earth's rotation, it will fly into space, do to momentum.
Perhaps you should read what I have said?Bullshit, prove it, download the document and show me where it is!!!I'm talking about a real one, with an actual gyroscope.
The link you have is to make a fake one, where it is controlled by servos instead of a gyroscope. The instructions are to basically take the gyro out and discard it.
read the articular, but as usual, you attack before you read. it takes an actual gyroscope from an commercial airplane and makes it into a fake one for a computer game!!
If I was to post an experiment, that I don't know the outcome, that we could all do and it deals with our eyesight and the moon, but the results might disprove NASA, would you do it?That would depend upon what it would take to do the experiment, and if you were willing to accept the data if it indicates that Earth is roudn and spinning? If you aren't I see no reason to do it as I have already analysed both the RE model and FE model and found numerous flaws in the FE model which are not present in the RE model, while the RE model can withstand scruitiny.
Should I post it in the debate section?That would be more for if you do the experiment and provide the results to show one way or the other. I think the better section would be in the Tech & Science section.
And on a spherical Earth, since the lift will be equal to the gravity and the gravity will not be able to synchronize it with the earth's rotation, it will fly into space, do to momentum.What on earth do you mean by
And on a spherical Earth, since the lift will be equal to the gravity and the gravity will not be able to synchronize it with the earth's rotation, it will fly into space, do to momentum.What on earth do you mean by"the gravity will not be able to synchronize it with the earth's rotation, it will fly into space, do to momentum."That's nothing more than meaningless gobbledegook!
I ask in the other thread you ran away from, do you own a blender?
OK, in order for you to say that the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the Earth's spin, you must provide a mathematical model that will show this, with numbers.But we've talked about this. You can demonstrate it yourself by throwing a ball on an airplane, or in a car for that matter.
I can easily say that it is not the air pressure in motion that keeps the airplane on a circular path, but the tooth fairy.
Would you be OK with you?
That the only reason the airplane remains on a circular orbit is the tooth-fairy?
One fairy-tail deserves an other
if you can show me THE mathematical model of the earth spin which will cause the earth's atmosphere to rotate with the earth at the height of the atmosphere, with actual numbers, I will say that you are right and I am wrong.
So you agree a rotating solid in a fluid will move the fluid?
Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
You don't need a FBD for a fly as it flies around the inside of your car at 65 mph.QuoteNo, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
And their is no magical device that can create the FBD with the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth movement.
If the Earth moves show me the FBD!!!
Maths
http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/2layer/
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html
It's not speculation, it's proven.
Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
You don't need a FBD for a fly as it flies around the inside of your car at 65 mph.QuoteNo, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
And their is no magical device that can create the FBD with the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth movement.
If the Earth moves show me the FBD!!!
The fly doesn't take off from the headrest and immediately smash into the rear window.
My daughter tossing the ball up in the air while in the back seat doesn't get hit in the face with the ball.
The is because the fly and ball are moving within the inertial frame of reference of the cabin of my car.
It's the exact same thing for a helicopter or an airplane on the inertial frame of the surface of the earth.
Of course, if you time it right in my brother-in-laws Dodge HellCat you might be able to get that fly to smash into the rear window. :D
Mike
If you have 300 lives in an airplane, you had better make sure that your navigation system knows the correct shape of the earth.Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
When you have 300 lives in an airplane and are faced with possible 300 million dollars in lawsuit for negligence do to poorly constructed machinery, you will not have automatic corrections to minimize the possibility of an accident?
If you have 300 lives in an airplane, you had better make sure that your navigation system knows the correct shape of the earth.Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
When you have 300 lives in an airplane and are faced with possible 300 million dollars in lawsuit for negligence do to poorly constructed machinery, you will not have automatic corrections to minimize the possibility of an accident?
It must also have been rather disconcerting to find out that lines of longitude are diverging as you fly south in the southern hemisphere when your "official" map says that they should be converging.If you have 300 lives in an airplane, you had better make sure that your navigation system knows the correct shape of the earth.Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
When you have 300 lives in an airplane and are faced with possible 300 million dollars in lawsuit for negligence do to poorly constructed machinery, you will not have automatic corrections to minimize the possibility of an accident?
And you would not trust a system that was forced to auto-correct its self every minute, in order for the airplane not to crash.
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
Simply maintain a constant altitude, no dipping.If you have 300 lives in an airplane, you had better make sure that your navigation system knows the correct shape of the earth.Just because the airplane gyros are capable of working, if that is the case, in a spherical earth, does not mean that they are actual working on a spherical earth.If the earth was flat, then attitude indicators wouldn't need to self-correct, would they?
When you have 300 lives in an airplane and are faced with possible 300 million dollars in lawsuit for negligence do to poorly constructed machinery, you will not have automatic corrections to minimize the possibility of an accident?
And you would not trust a system that was forced to auto-correct its self every minute, in order for the airplane not to crash.
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
The atmosphere works like the inside of the car with the windows up. The atmosphere moved right along with the globe.You don't need a FBD for a fly as it flies around the inside of your car at 65 mph.QuoteNo, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
And their is no magical device that can create the FBD with the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth movement.
If the Earth moves show me the FBD!!!
The fly doesn't take off from the headrest and immediately smash into the rear window.
My daughter tossing the ball up in the air while in the back seat doesn't get hit in the face with the ball.
The is because the fly and ball are moving within the inertial frame of reference of the cabin of my car.
It's the exact same thing for a helicopter or an airplane on the inertial frame of the surface of the earth.
Of course, if you time it right in my brother-in-laws Dodge HellCat you might be able to get that fly to smash into the rear window. :D
Mike
If your windows were open in the car, while you were driving would the fly still be in the car. When you see a bee in your car while you are driving, what do you do, open up the windows.
In a spherical earth, the atmosphere is open to space, like the window. In a flat earth, their is a dome to keep the air pressure.
The atmosphere works like the inside of the car with the windows up. The atmosphere moved right along with the globe.
You can spin a globe in a barrel of water and the water at the boundary layer will wind up keeping up with the surface of the globe. The shear stress at the globe - boundary layer interface will be essentially zero.
It's actually called a planetary boundary layer. You can numerically model it if you have the right software.
If there were a done to keep the pressure in the pressure would equalize inside it. It does not, ergo, no dome.You don't need a FBD for a fly as it flies around the inside of your car at 65 mph.QuoteNo, the earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because no helicopter hovers with respect to the stars. And there is no magical device that will cancel the helicopter's momentum.
And their is no magical device that can create the FBD with the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth movement.
If the Earth moves show me the FBD!!!
The fly doesn't take off from the headrest and immediately smash into the rear window.
My daughter tossing the ball up in the air while in the back seat doesn't get hit in the face with the ball.
The is because the fly and ball are moving within the inertial frame of reference of the cabin of my car.
It's the exact same thing for a helicopter or an airplane on the inertial frame of the surface of the earth.
Of course, if you time it right in my brother-in-laws Dodge HellCat you might be able to get that fly to smash into the rear window. :D
Mike
If your windows were open in the car, while you were driving would the fly still be in the car. When you see a bee in your car while you are driving, what do you do, open up the windows.
In a spherical earth, the atmosphere is open to space, like the window. In a flat earth, their is a dome to keep the air pressure.
But the bible also talks about the four angles that hold the 4 winds. This was BC time and the japans discovered the jet streams during WWII and their are 4 of them.Come in from where? Still doesn't address the fact the pressure would be equalized if there was a dome. It is not.
So fresh air could come inside the dome.
It's standard fluid dynamics so there's no speculation here.QuoteThe atmosphere works like the inside of the car with the windows up. The atmosphere moved right along with the globe.
Really, that stop's the air from leaving and going into orbit? Np dome to hold it under pressureQuoteYou can spin a globe in a barrel of water and the water at the boundary layer will wind up keeping up with the surface of the globe. The shear stress at the globe - boundary layer interface will be essentially zero.
Stop speculating, provide Convection Heat transfer Model of Earth....QuoteIt's actually called a planetary boundary layer. You can numerically model it if you have the right software.
Provide documentation and algorithm!
FTFY.No.Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.Hey, finally a RE-tard that claims to have the CGI of the Solar System in motion through the Universe!!!
Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.
The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.
If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.
But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4 (http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4)
Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.
Do you have the math that was utilized to render this CGI and can you verify it is legitimate, sourcing Keplar, et.al.?
A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips
OK, in order for you to say that the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the Earth's spin, you must provide a mathematical model that will show this, with numbers.No we don't.
I can easily say that it is not the air pressure in motion that keeps the airplane on a circular path, but the tooth fairy.No, because that would be appealing to pure fiction.
Would you be OK with you?
Supposedly you have a rotatory sphere that dissipates heat to its environment which based on Convection Heat Transfer, will create a thermal and velocity boundary layer that will hug it for a certain amount of height.HOW MANY TIMES MUST THIS BE POINTED OUT TO BE PURE BULLSHIT!!!!
This is pure Convection Heat Transfer, so if you want to talk about the atmosphere and the earth being stuck together, I have NO problem with believing it, if you show me the numerical calculations, based on Convection Heat Transfer.Since you want to keep bringing this BS up, how about you do the calculating, explaining all the steps.
It was the hardest thing that I ever did, but the math just don't work out and add the fake videos of NASA, for political reasons, no person will be willing to accept what you are saying as being true.Then why don't you show the math that just doesn't work? You completely failed at showing that NASA's video was fake.
If your windows were open in the car, while you were driving would the fly still be in the car. When you see a bee in your car while you are driving, what do you do, open up the windows.No, it is nothing like that.
In a spherical earth, the atmosphere is open to space, like the window. In a flat earth, their is a dome to keep the air pressure.
And you would not trust a system that was forced to auto-correct its self every minute, in order for the airplane not to crash.Again, it isn't needed to prevent the air-plane crashing.
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.Why every 2 minutes?
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
Really, that stop's the air from leaving and going into orbit? Np dome to hold it under pressureI already explained and showed how gravity does.
But the bible also talks about the four angles that hold the 4 winds. This was BC time and the japans discovered the jet streams during WWII and their are 4 of them.Which doesn't address the point at all.
OK, in order for you to say that the earth's atmosphere will rotate with the Earth's spin, you must provide a mathematical model that will show this, with numbers.We don't have to show you anything of the sort!
I can easily say that it is not the air pressure in motion that keeps the airplane on a circular path, but the tooth fairy.Believe what fairy tales you like, that's your right.
Would you be OK with you?
That the only reason the airplane remains on a circular orbit is the tooth-fairy?
One fairy-tail deserves an other
if you can show me THE mathematical model of the earth spin which will cause the earth's atmosphere to rotate with the earth at the height of the atmosphere, with actual numbers, I will say that you are right and I am wrong.
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
Jesus Christ you guys and this false nose dip. Do pilots have to keep turning the plane to the left when they fly east on a flat earth model?
And you would not trust a system that was forced to auto-correct its self every minute, in order for the airplane not to crash.Well, don't fly again, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
A gyroscopic AI has an erection mechanism, which continuously corrects the AI to be upright based on the local level, or downward acceleration vector. The correction rate is generally 3-5 degrees per minute. The way that the AI corrects itself is a system of pendulous vanes. When the gyro is not upright relative to the local level, centrifugal force pushes open vanes on the gyro's case. Air escapes through the uncovered holes, applying a force to the case, and correcting for precession.Those are not my words Mr Smarty Pants, is is from :Aviation Stack Exchange, How are attitude indicators kept accurate? (http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16376/how-are-attitude-indicators-kept-accurate).
In the old day, when flying was new, it must have been very hard for the pilot to dip the airplane every 2 minutes to keep it level on a spherical earth. A trip of 10 hours would require 300 dips and no time for the pilot to get a coffee and talk to the passengers.In other words, once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
But in the airlines commercials they had the pilot talking to the passengers. Kinda makes you want to think about everything
But the bible also talks about the four angles that hold the 4 winds. This was BC time and the japans discovered the jet streams during WWII and their are 4 of them.Come in from where? Still doesn't address the fact the pressure would be equalized if there was a dome. It is not.
So fresh air could come inside the dome.
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
So far, I have asked from the Heliocentric priest to show me three mathematical models that defends the Heliocentric hypothesis, the first was a Free Body Diagram of the forces that keep the plane synchronized with the rotating Earth, the second one which I asked for a Convection Heat Transfer model of a radiating rotating Sphere with the thermal and velocity boundary layers in order for them to defend their hypothesis that the air pressure keeps the airplane in sync with the Earth's spin and now a model on a Heliocentric Model that explains why and how the Moon accelerates.
All I got in return was a bunch of essays and no math.
If a wanted to read a bunch of essays , I would go to a literature forum instead.
When somebody questions you on real scientific, all you know what to do is to right essays...
So far, I have asked from the Heliocentric priest to show me three mathematical models that defends the Heliocentric hypothesis, the first was a Free Body Diagram of the forces that keep the plane synchronized with the rotating Earth, the second one which I asked for a Convection Heat Transfer model of a radiating rotating Sphere with the thermal and velocity boundary layers in order for them to defend their hypothesis that the air pressure keeps the airplane in sync with the Earth's spin and now a model on a Heliocentric Model that explains why and how the Moon accelerates.
All I got in return was a bunch of essays and no math.
If a wanted to read a bunch of essays , I would go to a literature forum instead.
When somebody questions you on real scientific, all you know what to do is to right essays...
Blah blah, you're just passing the buck - what is absent here is you providing anything to support your claim "spherical earth is disproved once and for all".
So far, I have asked from the Heliocentric priest to show me three mathematical models that defends the Heliocentric hypothesis, the first was a Free Body Diagram of the forces that keep the plane synchronized with the rotating Earth, the second one which I asked for a Convection Heat Transfer model of a radiating rotating Sphere with the thermal and velocity boundary layers in order for them to defend their hypothesis that the air pressure keeps the airplane in sync with the Earth's spin and now a model on a Heliocentric Model that explains why and how the Moon accelerates.
All I got in return was a bunch of essays and no math.
If a wanted to read a bunch of essays , I would go to a literature forum instead.
When somebody questions you on real scientific, all you know what to do is to right essays...
Blah blah, you're just passing the buck - what is absent here is you providing anything to support your claim "spherical earth is disproved once and for all".
I have and asked for math and all you do, is to write essays, no math because your "science" is full of it!!!
Put up or shut up
So far, I have asked from the Heliocentric priest to show me three mathematical models that defends the Heliocentric hypothesis, the first was a Free Body Diagram of the forces that keep the plane synchronized with the rotating Earth, the second one which I asked for a Convection Heat Transfer model of a radiating rotating Sphere with the thermal and velocity boundary layers in order for them to defend their hypothesis that the air pressure keeps the airplane in sync with the Earth's spin and now a model on a Heliocentric Model that explains why and how the Moon accelerates.All the theory and equations is available online so why do you need someone here to give it to you. You seem to spend a lot of time asking others to do the research for you.
All I got in return was a bunch of essays and no math.
If a wanted to read a bunch of essays , I would go to a literature forum instead.
When somebody questions you on real scientific, all you know what to do is to right essays...
So far, I have asked from the Heliocentric priest to show me three mathematical models that defends the Heliocentric hypothesis, the first was a Free Body Diagram of the forces that keep the plane synchronized with the rotating Earth, the second one which I asked for a Convection Heat Transfer model of a radiating rotating Sphere with the thermal and velocity boundary layers in order for them to defend their hypothesis that the air pressure keeps the airplane in sync with the Earth's spin and now a model on a Heliocentric Model that explains why and how the Moon accelerates.No. So far you have come in claiming to have proof, provided completely pathetic arguments and were refuted time and time again.
When somebody questions you on real scientific, all you know what to do is to right essays...I take it you have never read a scientific paper?
Try this math for size:
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
Yawn
QuoteYawn
you go back to sleep in your heliocentric fair-tail. The big bad Flat Earth will just vanish when you wake up....
QuoteYawn
you go back to sleep in your heliocentric fair-tail. The big bad Flat Earth will just vanish when you wake up....
Flat earth is your handicap not mine - I'm just here for the giggles.
Try this math for size:Keep it in its own thread. Stop spamming the same garbage all over the place.
QuoteYawn
you go back to sleep in your heliocentric fair-tail. The big bad Flat Earth will just vanish when you wake up....
Flat earth is your handicap not mine - I'm just here for the giggles.
Try this math for size:
Have you heard of leap year, every 4 years we add a date to the calendar (February 29).
There is also something called leap second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
Since this system of correction was implemented in 1972, 27 leap seconds have been inserted, the most recent on December 31, 2016 at 23:59:60 UTC
So the rate that the leap second is added is
27 seconds / 44 years = 0.613636364 seconds/year
.
What does that actually means?
Last year the earth needed 0.614 seconds to complete it’s revolution.
Than in turn means that last year was spinning faster than this year.
Let extrapolate the math at this rate:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nG00h5/Leap_second.jpg) (https://ibb.co/miPRN5)
We see that in the bible timeline, the earth rotation is very close to our about 23 hours in a day, but at 140,800 years, the earth spins at 60 RPM, that is 60 revolutions per minute.
At 1 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of about 480 RPM
At 100 million years ago, the earth rotated at a rate of 42,613.6 RPM
But let me guess, gravity was much stronger back them and kept everything in place…
Busted!!!
QuoteYawn
you go back to sleep in your heliocentric fair-tail. The big bad Flat Earth will just vanish when you wake up....
Flat earth is your handicap not mine - I'm just here for the giggles.
Even the band Eurythnmics in 1983 got wind of how fake NASA isYou mean Earth?
Look at what she is pointing out when see sings at time 0:012
"Sweet dreams are made of these"
Look again, I was talking about the fake moon rockets...No. You look again.
Look again, I was talking about the fake moon rockets...
On the screen she pointed to, when she was pointing to it, it was an image of Earth.
Draw me the FBD of the airplane landing with all forces or else accept the fact that the Earth is stationary.
This is physics 101
The earth does not move under a hovering helicopter because the earth is stationary!!!
How come a train moving at constant speed doesn't affect me when I jump?What he is going for is actually a slightly different answer, akin to these questions:
How come a moving zero-g plane (meant to simulate zero-g) doesn't affect the floating passengers? The plane is moving hundreds of miles per hour(!!!). By your logic they occupants should be slammed to the back of the plane while floating.
How come a rotating earth doesn't affect flying planes?
Hint: the answer is the same for all 3.
So the fresh air comes in from the water? That doesn't make any sense at all.But the bible also talks about the four angles that hold the 4 winds. This was BC time and the japans discovered the jet streams during WWII and their are 4 of them.Come in from where? Still doesn't address the fact the pressure would be equalized if there was a dome. It is not.
So fresh air could come inside the dome.
From the waters above the firmament.
But I have, the four angles open up the "windows" to let fresh air in and to create a pressure gradient.
But you have a more serious problem know on your hands, can you please provide a mathematical model to explain why the Moon Accelerates?QuoteThe time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false)
On the screen she pointed to, when she was pointing to it, it was an image of Earth.
This image, to be precise:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5353.jpg
Here it is in a newspaper published just after they landed back on Earth, my own copy.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wpf32d3666_06.png)
The weather patterns in it match those that can be found on 3 weather satellites for the time it was taken, and the view could only be from waaaay out in cislunar space. Lovely and spherical it is.
On the screen she pointed to, when she was pointing to it, it was an image of Earth.
This image, to be precise:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5353.jpg
Here it is in a newspaper published just after they landed back on Earth, my own copy.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wpf32d3666_06.png)
The weather patterns in it match those that can be found on 3 weather satellites for the time it was taken, and the view could only be from waaaay out in cislunar space. Lovely and spherical it is.
Your argument does not make any sense.
If they have faked the Earth photo,
don't you think that they would also fake the satellite photos?
Logically speaking it does not hold up.
The newspaper is two small to read, can you please paste a true size of it, I wan't to read it.
Also the photo that you sent me, was it from the moon or a satellite and how far away from the earth if you know.
On the screen she pointed to, when she was pointing to it, it was an image of Earth.
This image, to be precise:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5353.jpg
Here it is in a newspaper published just after they landed back on Earth, my own copy.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wpf32d3666_06.png)
The weather patterns in it match those that can be found on 3 weather satellites for the time it was taken, and the view could only be from waaaay out in cislunar space. Lovely and spherical it is.
Your argument does not make any sense.
If they have faked the Earth photo,
They didn't..Quotedon't you think that they would also fake the satellite photos?
Logically speaking it does not hold up.
They could not have faked the photos. For one thing, the satellite photos were public knowledge, not just in the sense that they were published all over the place in all kinds of newspapers and technical journals, but also in that they were 'free to air'. Anyone with the right receiving equipment could download the image transmissions just like they can now. They were sent out to meteorological organisations world wide.
Secondly, they could not just 'fake' one satellite image. The images are part of a continuous sequence, they would have to fake all of them, all the time. All of this at a time when they did not have any kind of digital imaging software.QuoteThe newspaper is two small to read, can you please paste a true size of it, I wan't to read it.
I'm sure you do, but I'm not sure what you think it will prove. If I get time I'll look at my scans of them, and if I can be bothered I'll post it. That newspaper was published on August 4 1969. I have other newspapers where the same image was published on July 31, it's also been featured in several books. My point is that you are not dealing with images that have been hidden away - both the Apollo satellite images have always been public.QuoteAlso the photo that you sent me, was it from the moon or a satellite and how far away from the earth if you know.
Which image?
I've posted images in threads, I haven't sent you any.
Am I the only one who think that saying that thousands of NASA's photos, videos and various data cannot be real and must be all faked in a quasi global conspiration, but using bible as a reference is complete bs ??? ???
I dont know the ratio of different religions believers in FE or RE camps, but this shit blows my mind everytime.
But you wouldn’t have a problem with a plane that must continually bank when flying east-west?
And you would not trust a system that was forced to auto-correct its self every minute, in order for the airplane not to crash.
<snip>
Film, not tape.On the screen she pointed to, when she was pointing to it, it was an image of Earth.
This image, to be precise:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5353.jpg
Here it is in a newspaper published just after they landed back on Earth, my own copy.
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wpf32d3666_06.png)
The weather patterns in it match those that can be found on 3 weather satellites for the time it was taken, and the view could only be from waaaay out in cislunar space. Lovely and spherical it is.
Your argument does not make any sense.
If they have faked the Earth photo,
They didn't..Quotedon't you think that they would also fake the satellite photos?
Logically speaking it does not hold up.
They could not have faked the photos. For one thing, the satellite photos were public knowledge, not just in the sense that they were published all over the place in all kinds of newspapers and technical journals, but also in that they were 'free to air'. Anyone with the right receiving equipment could download the image transmissions just like they can now. They were sent out to meteorological organisations world wide.
Secondly, they could not just 'fake' one satellite image. The images are part of a continuous sequence, they would have to fake all of them, all the time. All of this at a time when they did not have any kind of digital imaging software.QuoteThe newspaper is two small to read, can you please paste a true size of it, I wan't to read it.
I'm sure you do, but I'm not sure what you think it will prove. If I get time I'll look at my scans of them, and if I can be bothered I'll post it. That newspaper was published on August 4 1969. I have other newspapers where the same image was published on July 31, it's also been featured in several books. My point is that you are not dealing with images that have been hidden away - both the Apollo satellite images have always been public.QuoteAlso the photo that you sent me, was it from the moon or a satellite and how far away from the earth if you know.
Which image?
I've posted images in threads, I haven't sent you any.
Just by NASA saying that they are real does not make it so. It's like when George Bush said "that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons" does that make it true...
First of all, all the photos that NASA has from the Apollo missions where on tape, which means that they had to come back to earth and get developed and be distributed by NASA.
i stand corrected, the image that you posted on the thread of just the earth
Film, not tape.
The Earth in live transmissions matches satellite photos of the same few hours.
But they could not have faked it live. For example, 2001 a space odyssey took 2 years to make 2,5 hours. Plenty of Apollo missions have a single EVA longer than that. It was not possible to edit things on the fly as the audio, video and telemetry came in from the moon. That is not possible even now. Otherwise, interactive, live Sci-fi shows would exist.
Lets start with one thing:
Apollo hoaxers say all the live footage was sped up. Alright. How did they do this live, without distorting voices, with fooling all the receiving and transmissions stations and all the private radio people that were receiving signals, while also fooling the people at mission control, including the computer complex.
That is video, not photos.Film, not tape.
The Earth in live transmissions matches satellite photos of the same few hours.
But they could not have faked it live. For example, 2001 a space odyssey took 2 years to make 2,5 hours. Plenty of Apollo missions have a single EVA longer than that. It was not possible to edit things on the fly as the audio, video and telemetry came in from the moon. That is not possible even now. Otherwise, interactive, live Sci-fi shows would exist.
Lets start with one thing:
Apollo hoaxers say all the live footage was sped up. Alright. How did they do this live, without distorting voices, with fooling all the receiving and transmissions stations and all the private radio people that were receiving signals, while also fooling the people at mission control, including the computer complex.
You are correct in that nearly all the photos were on film a lot of which was shot on an incredible Hasselblad with a Zeiss lens. A beauty of a camera. I was the ships photographer on my boat and we had a couple of nice cameras but nothing like the Hasselblad 500.
However, there was quite a bit of magnetic tape that had Apollo video. The Apollo missions had TV cameras that transmitted video to earth which was recorded on one inch analog magnetic video tape. These tapes were scanned and converted to NTSC for broadcast.
Mike
Dayyyummmm I better not Jump for joy at anytime in my life as I might have it that I land in another Province or something cause I will be suspended above the spinning world hahahaha shit, never thought of that!!!! wonder why I never moved before when I jumped or hit a jump snow boarding and got airborne !?!?!? TRIPPY ;)Because your knowledge of conservation of momentum is even less than your knowledge of photography.
And seems to be about on par with his knowledge of reference frames.Dayyyummmm I better not Jump for joy at anytime in my life as I might have it that I land in another Province or something cause I will be suspended above the spinning world hahahaha shit, never thought of that!!!! wonder why I never moved before when I jumped or hit a jump snow boarding and got airborne !?!?!? TRIPPY ;)Because your knowledge of conservation of momentum is even less than your knowledge of photography.
And seems to be about on par with his knowledge of reference frames.Dayyyummmm I better not Jump for joy at anytime in my life as I might have it that I land in another Province or something cause I will be suspended above the spinning world hahahaha shit, never thought of that!!!! wonder why I never moved before when I jumped or hit a jump snow boarding and got airborne !?!?!? TRIPPY ;)Because your knowledge of conservation of momentum is even less than your knowledge of photography.
Well he should fit in nicely with the rest of the FE "researchers" then.And seems to be about on par with his knowledge of reference frames.Dayyyummmm I better not Jump for joy at anytime in my life as I might have it that I land in another Province or something cause I will be suspended above the spinning world hahahaha shit, never thought of that!!!! wonder why I never moved before when I jumped or hit a jump snow boarding and got airborne !?!?!? TRIPPY ;)Because your knowledge of conservation of momentum is even less than your knowledge of photography.
Well. I suppose goofs like that are bound to happen when you have to reinvent all of your physics from scratch to fit your otherwise unworkable model.Well he should fit in nicely with the rest of the FE "researchers" then.And seems to be about on par with his knowledge of reference frames.Dayyyummmm I better not Jump for joy at anytime in my life as I might have it that I land in another Province or something cause I will be suspended above the spinning world hahahaha shit, never thought of that!!!! wonder why I never moved before when I jumped or hit a jump snow boarding and got airborne !?!?!? TRIPPY ;)Because your knowledge of conservation of momentum is even less than your knowledge of photography.
A severe lack of ability in utilizing cognitive functions is a prerequisite to joining that club isn't it.
Which comes back to our original argument, Free Body Diagram.
Please show the pressure force (PA) on the airplane that keeps it in sync with the earths rotation on a Free Body Diagram!
I have a question for you. Take your beloved FBD of a plane :
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
Now imagine that Thrust = Drag and Lift = Weight. So the forces effectively cancel out :
(https://i.imgur.com/zk2XJBe.jpg)
We have F = ma, but F = 0 so a = 0.
What happens to the plane ?
This isn't a free body diagram.And of course, rather than point out why you just dismiss it so you can act all high and mighty without any intelligence at all.
And the fact that none of you have even noticed this fact shows conclusively that none of you have any right to speak on Newton's laws of motion.
You are all retards & you prove it in post after post after post...
Lulz!!!
you can act all high and mighty without any intelligence at all.
One of the primary allures of FE.
This isn't a free body diagram.And of course, rather than point out why you just dismiss it so you can act all high and mighty without any intelligence at all.
And the fact that none of you have even noticed this fact shows conclusively that none of you have any right to speak on Newton's laws of motion.
You are all retards & you prove it in post after post after post...
Lulz!!!
Grow up.
No. I know what a free body diagram is and I know how to make you.
No. I know what a free body diagram is and I know how to make you.
LMFAO!!!
You're clearly drunk, Paul White...
Go to bed & get ready to face the music at work tomorrow...
You fucking paedo loser.
None of you have any idea why this isn't a free body diagram do you?And there you go with a bunch more pathetic, baseless insults.
You can't tell the difference between Newton's first, second & third laws & just spam wiki-shit with 39,000 sockpuppets whilst pretending you understand it...
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
I have fucking ruined you all today...
Yes I have, & you fucking know it!
What hopeless bastards you all are...
Toodle-pip, REtards!
None of you have any idea why this isn't a free body diagram do you?And there you go with a bunch more pathetic, baseless insults.
You can't tell the difference between Newton's first, second & third laws & just spam wiki-shit with 39,000 sockpuppets whilst pretending you understand it...
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
I have fucking ruined you all today...
Yes I have, & you fucking know it!
What hopeless bastards you all are...
Toodle-pip, REtards!
Calm down and try a rational argument.
Please, can you type 'feel my wrath insignificant humans' next time.
Try understanding why this is not a free body diagram, REtard...And once again, nothing more than a bunch of baseless insults.
Oh, you can't do that cos you're a scientific illiterate...
So my insults aren't baseless at all are they?
You fucking retard.
Fuck this, you autistic meat calculators are hopeless, I'll just ask a real robot instead & cut out the bullshit:
http://www.cleverbot.com/conv/201707231448/WXFMDN4TK1_Can-you-draw-me-a-free-body-diqgram
Well, that wasn't much use...
But it still made more sense than you fuckwits.
Can you explain why this isn't a free body diagram next time?Can you? No you can't. If you could you likely would have done so already.
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
No, you can't.
Because you're just a shitposting REtard sockpuppet.
'Legba mighty. Legba defeats puny humans'.
😂 Shit man, you should take this act on the road!
Your salty tears are getting you no nearer explaining why it is not a free body diagram...Perhaps that is because it is a free body diagram.
Your salty tears are getting you no nearer explaining why it is not a free body diagram...Perhaps that is because it is a free body diagram.
It may be cartoonish but it does represent all the forces acting on a plane in flight. It is accurate in that regard.'Legba mighty. Legba defeats puny humans'.
Shit man, you should take this act on the road!
You should learn what a free body diagram is.
It would save you from looking retarded.
This is not a free body diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
Please explain why.
Or keep looking retarded...
Your choice.
LMFAO!!!Do you know why no one knows why, not even you?
No it isn't.
And you don't even know why....
Maybe Papa Legba's gone back to haunt his old Voodoo stamping ground in Haiti.LMFAO!!!Do you know why no one knows why, not even you?
No it isn't.
And you don't even know why....
Because it is a free body diagram depicting a plane in flight, showing the balance of forces.
If you wish to claim it isn't one, then you explain why.
Like I said before, if you can't then shut up.
yes you are correct, the retarded can't create a free body diagram and show the forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed spinning Earth hypothesis.According to the Newton's First Law, there is no force needed to keep an object in the same position. That's why hovering helicopter hovers on spinning Earth (because it was spinning before take off and is still spinning).
Maybe Papa Legba's gone back to haunt his old Voodoo stamping ground in Haiti.
I am not here to 'respond'.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
I suspect I may get banned soon as I can't help trolling these trolls back.
If so I'd just like to say keep fighting guys. Even if just a few 'on the fencers' are turned back due to your efforts it's worth it.
Thing is: Poppa really got his sorry ass banned. ;D
I think SCG said a week. Something like that.Thing is: Poppa really got his sorry ass banned. ;D
Really? Banned for all time, or suspended again?
I think SCG said a week. Something like that.Thing is: Poppa really got his sorry ass banned. ;D
Really? Banned for all time, or suspended again?
Agreed. He's on my listI think SCG said a week. Something like that.Thing is: Poppa really got his sorry ass banned. ;D
Really? Banned for all time, or suspended again?
It must have been 100 days last time - that's about how long he was gone.
Just add him to your ignore list whenever he comes back. As he said, he doesn't respond in any meaningful way, so there's no reason to reply to his posts, and they're certainly not worth reading. Any replies just elicit even more useless nonsense. Don't feed the trolls.
It may be cartoonish but it does represent all the forces acting on a plane in flight.'Legba mighty. Legba defeats puny humans'.
Shit man, you should take this act on the road!
You should learn what a free body diagram is.
It would save you from looking retarded.
This is not a free body diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
Please explain why.
Or keep looking retarded...
Your choice.
Really? So because it shows all the forces on the plane it isn't a free body diagram?It may be cartoonish but it does represent all the forces acting on a plane in flight.'Legba mighty. Legba defeats puny humans'.
Shit man, you should take this act on the road!
You should learn what a free body diagram is.
It would save you from looking retarded.
This is not a free body diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
Please explain why.
Or keep looking retarded...
Your choice.
Exactly.
Which is why it is not a correct free body diagram.
And also why you would fail high school physics.
Your increasingly erratic ranting gets you no nearer passing high school physics...You mean using a cartoony picture showing all the forces involved? (or at least the relevant ones)
Though it does give me a good laugh.
Here's a nice man explaining how it's done:
That video above is not a true representation of would really happen in what we are told, is a vacuum of space.For the most part it is.
pushing a bowling ball or wall in so called space would not push the person and object in opposite directions.Yes, it will.
To create a push you have to have a resistance of something to allow you to push.That is called inertia, which is also known as mass.
A floor will give you that for your feet and legs to use as a friction grip. So called space does not have this.That is when you are pushing against the floor. In this case, they are pushing against a ball.
A person holding the bowling ball with feet on the ground can push that bowling ball away from him because his feet allow him to use the floor as leverage/friction.That is right. They can remain stationary, due to the friction with the ground.
In so called space, a person trying to push a bowling ball away would do nothing more than outstretch their arms and finger tips which takes the bowling ball with them and leaves it at the end of the fingertips.No, your analysis is nonsense.
Nobody goes anywhere and is why space is nonsense and even told to us about being real, would absolutely not allow action and reaction to take place to create equal and opposite movement in opposite directions in terms of propulsion.
The genuine people who can think, need to sit down and think hard on this.No, most already have. If you can think you should sit down and think hard on it, not this crap you have come up with.
It's interesting that you left out the rest of my post.It may be cartoonish but it does represent all the forces acting on a plane in flight.'Legba mighty. Legba defeats puny humans'.
Shit man, you should take this act on the road!
You should learn what a free body diagram is.
It would save you from looking retarded.
This is not a free body diagram:
(https://i.imgur.com/StZDSym.jpg)
Please explain why.
Or keep looking retarded...
Your choice.
Exactly.
Which is why it is not a correct free body diagram.
And also why you would fail high school physics.
That video above is not a true representation of would really happen in what we are told, is a vacuum of space.
pushing a bowling ball or wall in so called space would not push the person and object in opposite directions.
To create a push you have to have a resistance of something to allow you to push.
A floor will give you that for your feet and legs to use as a friction grip. So called space does not have this.
A person holding the bowling ball with feet on the ground can push that bowling ball away from him because his feet allow him to use the floor as leverage/friction.
In so called space, a person trying to push a bowling ball away would do nothing more than outstretch their arms and finger tips which takes the bowling ball with them and leaves it at the end of the fingertips.
Nobody goes anywhere and is why space is nonsense and even told to us about being real, would absolutely not allow action and reaction to take place to create equal and opposite movement in opposite directions in terms of propulsion.
The genuine people who can think, need to sit down and think hard on this.
That video above is not a true representation of would really happen in what we are told, is a vacuum of space.Scepti! Where you been? Good to see you back.
pushing a bowling ball or wall in so called space would not push the person and object in opposite directions.
To create a push you have to have a resistance of something to allow you to push.
A floor will give you that for your feet and legs to use as a friction grip. So called space does not have this.
A person holding the bowling ball with feet on the ground can push that bowling ball away from him because his feet allow him to use the floor as leverage/friction.
In so called space, a person trying to push a bowling ball away would do nothing more than outstretch their arms and finger tips which takes the bowling ball with them and leaves it at the end of the fingertips.
Nobody goes anywhere and is why space is nonsense and even told to us about being real, would absolutely not allow action and reaction to take place to create equal and opposite movement in opposite directions in terms of propulsion.
The genuine people who can think, need to sit down and think hard on this.
He lives in another reality where our physics don't apply. I don't know how he communicates with this world but its abolutely useless do argue with him about space or vacuum or something else.The genuine people who can think, need to sit down and think hard on this.No, most already have. If you can think you should sit down and think hard on it, not this crap you have come up with.
He lives in another reality where our physics don't apply. I don't know how he communicates with this world but its abolutely useless do argue with him about space or vacuum or something else.The genuine people who can think, need to sit down and think hard on this.No, most already have. If you can think you should sit down and think hard on it, not this crap you have come up with.
Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.
Here is the information:
An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/i5Qh75/airport.jpg) (https://ibb.co/geoPLQ)
The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.
(https://preview.ibb.co/bwdfuk/airport_2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gLh6Zk)
The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km
The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.
Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.
Velocity = angular velocity * radius.
If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m
Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5
The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)
The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula
cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)
So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,
value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m
and the velocity at that point will be
Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s
At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get
Velocity = 393.33 m/s.
So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.
Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.
Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!
I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.
Your increasingly erratic ranting gets you no nearer passing high school physics...You mean using a cartoony picture showing all the forces involved?
Though it does give me a good laugh.
Here's a nice man explaining how it's done:
Probably was off conducting some super accurate experiment (that no one will ever see the results of ) utilizing extremely high powered lasers only available through his government connections and funding that prove (with elevendy hundred percent certainty, and of that he is certain) that Earth is flat.
Scepti! Where you been? Good to see you back.
Your increasingly erratic ranting gets you no nearer passing high school physics...You mean using a cartoony picture showing all the forces involved?
Though it does give me a good laugh.
Here's a nice man explaining how it's done:
So you didn't understand him?
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?
So you didn't understand him?Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?
So you didn't understand him?Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?
Once again, your link shows free body diagrams, using cartoons and arrows to show the forces.
So once again I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT??
Can you point out anything sepcific or just continually assert it is wrong and link to various sources which show you to be either a complete fucking imbecile or a lying piece of shit?
So you didn't understand him?Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?
Once again, your link shows free body diagrams, using cartoons and arrows to show the forces.
So once again I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT??
Can you point out anything sepcific or just continually assert it is wrong and link to various sources which show you to be either a complete fucking imbecile or a lying piece of shit?
Lol fail.
And I'm not a flat Earther...
Nice try though, sounds almost plausible!
You'd still fail high school physics though...
You REtard.
Your insane ranting is noted.You mean me repeatedly refuting your crap?
Please note that it does not change the fact you know nothing about free body diagrams, refuse to learn how they work, & would fail high school physics very, very badly indeed.You mean it doesn't change the fact that I know plenty about them, how they work and would easily pass high school physics; unlike you who continually spouts pathetic crap about them and provides links to prove yourself wrong.
A normal person in your shoes would likely drop dead of shame...So is that your problem? You are autistic and feel no shame, so you continue to post pure stupidity and prove yourself wrong?
Your autism, however, sadly prevents that, so we must put up with your overweening bullshit forever.
Now carry on raging...
Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.
Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.
Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.
Understandable, but the OP specifically wanted clarification about how the plane could land perpindicular to the Earth's rotation given that it started with a much smaller lateral vector. (Using my high school physics words to impress.) Just trying to address that piece. Icing on your cake.
You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.
You are clearly mental....
And shameless,
That is because you are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
"So smart that science is unnecessary"...
Classic!
You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.
You are clearly mental....
And shameless,
That is because you are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
"So smart that science is unnecessary"...
Classic!
If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that what we've already explained is quite adequate to answer your questions. We cannot possibly provide a more detailed diagram because we'd have to know the mass of the aircraft (constantly changing as fuel is consumed), the thrust of the engines (varying by pilot adjustments), rolling friction during takeoff, wind speed and direction, rate of ascent and descent, cruising altitude, drag (varying with atmospheric conditions throughout the flight), and so forth. We would need to draw dozens of diagrams to represent different conditions at different phases of the flight. And what would we be drawing in each of those? LIFT, DRAG (push and pull of the air), THRUST, and GRAVITY
You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.
You are clearly mental....
And shameless,
That is because you are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
"So smart that science is unnecessary"...
Classic!
If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that what we've already explained is quite adequate to answer your questions. We cannot possibly provide a more detailed diagram because we'd have to know the mass of the aircraft (constantly changing as fuel is consumed), the thrust of the engines (varying by pilot adjustments), rolling friction during takeoff, wind speed and direction, rate of ascent and descent, cruising altitude, drag (varying with atmospheric conditions throughout the flight), and so forth. We would need to draw dozens of diagrams to represent different conditions at different phases of the flight. And what would we be drawing in each of those? LIFT, DRAG (push and pull of the air), THRUST, and GRAVITY
No, you'd have to know how to draw a free body diagram.
Which you don't.
Which you've proved by not actually providing one for pages...
Just saying you have.
Why are you so mental?
Oh right, cos you're these:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
" So smart, science is unnecessary"...
Sums you up in a nutshell.
Now fuck off.
The applied force is the repulsion of the atmosphere behind the jet engines caused by the rapid expansion of the air leaving the engine.
Of note that the normal force is also applied to the atmosphere around the craft identically just like it does to every other thing on the planet.
The applied force is the repulsion of the atmosphere behind the jet engines caused by the rapid expansion of the air leaving the engine.
Of note that the normal force is also applied to the atmosphere around the craft identically just like it does to every other thing on the planet.
Both are correct. The force is created by the reaction/repulsion of the forces being applied from the exhaust of the engine.
The action (cause): Expell a mass of compressed and heated air to push against another mass. The air behind the engine, and the engine itself.
This does apply force produced by the expansion of the air at the nozzle, and the repulsion of the air behind the engines. Imagine a balloon being inflated between two masses. It applies equal push force in both directions.
The reaction: Repulsion of the pushed air, and the pusher (the jet engine)
This is a simplified model still since it does not take into consideration the pull force the engine applies to the air at the intake.
At the end of the day you are talking about a controlled explosion of rapid expansion, in the case of a commercial jet, applying push in two directions (assuming you are in a working mass like the atmosphere).
I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.
In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f1 = -f2 because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.
Congratulations!
Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.
Care to tell me what creates the applied force, though?
It can't be a force exerted by the body like the gas from the engines...
No, it must be from an object external to the body.
Please name the applied force for Legba!
Begin dancing now!
BTW there's a big clue in the 2nd paragraph of this link:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
There is no voodoo here.
F net = m * a
Where m = mass
Where a = acceleration
In the case of air breathing engines you are accelerating a mas of atmosphere.
In the case of rockets you are accelerating a mass of fuel which is carried on board.
Congratulations!
Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.
Care to tell me what creates the applied force, though?
It can't be a force exerted by the body like the gas from the engines...
No, it must be from an object external to the body.
Please name the applied force for Legba!
Begin dancing now!
BTW there's a big clue in the 2nd paragraph of this link:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
Your link is good, but it is a bit confusing when it says that jets "push on the air itself."
I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.
In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f1 = -f2 because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.
LOL!!!
So you didn't read this:
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...
Knew you were just another talking horse shill right from the start...
Joined the forum solely to gatekeep NASA bullshit.
Do you not realise how many of your sad ilk I have come across in my time here?
You'll never get voodoo past Legba!
I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.
Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.
Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.
Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.
Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.
What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.
I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.
Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.
Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.
Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.
Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.
What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.
I think you are confused about how to apply the laws. All the laws always apply to all bodies all the time. Not just one. The basic concept of these reaction mass engines work in the same way as the recoil of a gun.
Many people are familiar with the fact that a rifle recoils when fired. This recoil is the result of action-reaction force pairs. A gunpowder explosion creates hot gases that expand outward allowing the rifle to push forward on the bullet.
Consistent with N3 the bullet pushes backwards upon the rifle through the compressed gas behind it. At the same time the rifle is pushing the bullet through the compressed gas between them because the compressed gas is pushing outward on both. The bullet is also pushing the air in front of it, this force is overcome by the force behind it.
Consistent with N2 the acceleration of the rifle is the same size as the acceleration of the bullet.
Consistent with N1 the acceleration of both is changing the momentum and/or direction of the movement of both, which they will resist by pushing back.
What type of mass your bullet is made from makes no difference. The laws apply the same way.
https://www.google.com/patents/US4126077?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent
Plus this:
Lol REtard.
Sure, what's your problem with that? Not my problem if a Voodoo Priest can't understand Newton's Third Law!I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.
In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f1 = -f2 because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.
So you didn't read this:
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...Who cares? You don't need N3 to analyse Rocket Propulsion!
The thrust of a rocket (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3) can be modeled from a generalization of Newton's 2nd Law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/limn2.html#ln22) to include a variable mass:But that includes sums well above the head our Voodoo Priest, so don't you bother your pretty little head over it.
Knew you were just another talking horse shill right from the start...Gee, But I didn't see any mention of NASA in that Hyper Physics link!
Joined the forum solely to gatekeep NASA bullshit.
Do you not realise how many of your sad ilk I have come across in my time here?Yes, you've been peddling your stupid Papa Fyzix for years,
You'll never get voodoo past Legba!
The air behind the engine IS the exhaust of the engine, a.k.a the "jet" which is accelerated by expansion as it leaves the nozzle, pushed out by the compressed air behind it. Which is not moving very quickly by comparison.
We can walk through all of the forces involved in the entire chain of actions/reactions up to that point, but primarily the thrust is from the expansion of the exhaust, which by definition is the air behind the engine.
If your argument that the force comes from within the engine were true than there would be no need to exhaust the mass straight back. You could simply redirect the exhaust in any direction but the applied force would still be forward for the engine. This is not the case. It is the jet of exhaust that produces the force.
[youtube][/youtube]
Which creates a constant, and directed pressure wave from the acceleration of the mass.
[youtube][/youtube]
This is why in order to calculate the net force of a jet engine you use the acceleration of the jet/exhaust mass.
Fnet = mair(Vj-V)
Where mair = Mass
Where Vj = Speed of the exhaust plume
Where V = Airspeed of the engine.
So the engine produces 0 net thrust if the craft is traveling at the same speed as the mass of exhaust.
Gross thrust at the nozzle is calculated as (mair+mf)Vj where mf = fuel
You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.No. We have proven it by providing them.
Congratulations!Nope. Not finally. It was done long ago.
Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.
If your argument that the force comes from within the engine were true than there would be no need to exhaust the mass straight back. You could simply redirect the exhaust in any direction but the applied force would still be forward for the engine. This is not the case. It is the jet of exhaust that produces the force.That would all depend upon how it is redirected.
Funny how the men who actually design jets and rockets all acknowledge they push on the air through which they move, yet brainwashed minions like you all claim the opposite...That information is from Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. Are you now claiming that Source: Encyclopedia Britannica are
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
Jet engineFunny that they forgot to mention the outside air pressure, :D surely that would be highly important in your Papa Fyzix! :D
The propulsor
The gas horsepower generated by the prime mover in the form of hot, high-pressure gas is used to drive the propulsor, enabling it to generate thrust for propelling or lifting the aircraft. The principle on which such a thrust is produced is based on Newton’s second law of motion[1]. This law generalizes the observation that the force (F) required to accelerate a discrete mass (m) is proportional to the product of that mass and the acceleration (a). In effect,
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/84/15984-004-A3F97479.jpg)
where the mass is taken as the weight (w) of the object divided by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at the place where the object was weighed. In the case of a jet engine, one is generally dealing with the acceleration of a steady stream of air rather than with a discrete mass. Here, the equivalent statement of the second law of motion is that the force (F) required to increase the velocity of a stream of fluid is proportional to the product of the rate of mass flow (M) of the stream and the change in velocity of the stream,
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/83/15983-004-5BB1F20D.jpg)
where the inlet velocity (V0) relative to the engine is taken to be the flight velocity and the discharge velocity (Vj) is the exhaust or jet velocity relative to the engine. W is the rate of weight flow of working fluid (i.e., air or products of combustion) divided by the acceleration of gravity in the place where the weight flow is measured. The relatively small effect of the weight flow of fuel in creating a difference between the weight flow of the inlet and exhaust streams is intentionally disregarded.
One thereby infers that the components of a propulsor must exert a force F on the stream of air flowing through the propulsor if this device accelerates the airstream from the flight velocity V0 to the discharge velocity Vj. The reaction to that force F is ultimately transmitted by the mounts of the propulsor to the aircraft as propulsive thrust.
From: Encyclopedia Britannica, Jet engine (https://www.britannica.com/technology/jet-engine)
The quantity ṁve is the propulsive force, or thrust, produced on the rocket by exhausting the propellant,And they forgot to mention the outside air pressure again! ;D ;D ;D How remiss of them! ;D ;D ;D
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/92/15992-004-B805BDEF.jpg)
I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?
If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.
I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?
If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.
Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):
https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false
I grow weary of this debate. What does the inner workings of a jet engine have to do with the fact that a plane can fly inside a spinning sphere? Nothing.
I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?
If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.
Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):
https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false
Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.
The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.
Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.
I guess that just depends on what you are using as semantics for "inside the engine" the nozzle is a part of the engine and it is at the nozzle that the force is produced. Where is the nozzle though?
If you want to say the nozzle is inside the engine, fine, but in my eyes the nozzle is where the engine stops. I don't see the point of arguing over semantics. It does not change the physics.
Been reading further...The reaction force is not on the nozzle. It is INSIDE the engine. Here's a link to a page from a book by Rolls Royce (maker of jet engines):
https://books.google.com/books?id=QUQxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=where+is+the+reaction+force+in+a+jet+engine&source=bl&ots=46SIVSNM-k&sig=dJyAwupsnCp3HCrQOolGH1-NBfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4-JSL2PPVAhVB1oMKHXUNBlY4ChDoAQgyMAQ#v=onepage&q=where%20is%20the%20reaction%20force%20in%20a%20jet%20engine&f=false
Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.
The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.
Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.
Fair enough, but if someone says "how does a car work?" we don't say "burning gas makes your wheels push on the street."
I'm only pressing this because our host is being such a know-it-all jerk. I like learning and understanding and (maybe) teaching in this site, but our host has made this a contest of "whoever knows physics knows the shape of the Earth," and then repeats some bad physics. Hard to let that go! I wish he would explain what this has to do with the shape of the Earth. Until then, we have his "I know the shape of the Earth because I know (incorrectly) that jets gain thrust by pushing on the air behind them." By his standard, he is wrong about he shape of the Earth because I have shown him to be wrong about jet thrust. Makes no sense to me, but it was his idea of a contest--and he lost.
Yes we know that in any system of motion that the generated force is sum of all of the unbalanced forces in that system.
The engine creates an unbalance of force, this is true. Saying that this is what produces the thrust is like saying the motion in an engine is what causes your car to roll forward.
Theoretically sound, but we don't measure the speed of a car at the engine, we measure it at the wheel, where the energy is actually producing the acceleration of the car.
It's the only way you can get your silly rokkitz to work in shpayze, by stating N3 as f1=-f1...You mean to get the real, functional rockets to work in space, is by having Newton's standard third law of motion?
Total bullshit.Are you capable of making a rational argument yourself rather than linking to a bunch of crap.
Again, here is some real science in response to your just saying mad illogical shit and hoping the reader is too dumb to notice:
Total bullshit.
Again, here is some real science in response to your just saying mad illogical shit and hoping the reader is too dumb to notice:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/
And here is what you are again:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
Lol you lost all credibility when you quoted N2 and implied it represented N3, REtard...I don't know you are raving at here, but in case I'm the victim, just where did I "quote N2 and imply it represented N3".
Quote from: Papa LegbaAnd you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...Who cares? You don't need N3 to analyse Rocket Propulsion!QuoteThe thrust of a rocket (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket.html#c3) can be modeled from a generalization of Newton's 2nd Law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/limn2.html#ln22) to include a variable mass:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gee, But I didn't see any mention of NASA in that Hyper Physics link!
Maybe you could read Robert H. Goddard's "A METHOD OF REACHING EXTREME ALTITUDES", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Volume 71. Number 2. (http://www2.clarku.edu/research/archives/pdf/ext_altitudes.pdf).
And do you know something Robert H. Goddard had never heard of NASA - the paper was written about 39 years before NASA!
Then Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, not NASA, developed the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation way back around 1900 - no NASA.
Gee, Mr VooDoo Priest, blaming NASA seems a big waste of time.
Conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature
Conservation laws are fundamental to our understanding of the physical world, in that they describe which processes can or cannot occur in nature. For example, the conservation law of energy states that the total quantity of energy in an isolated system does not change, though it may change form. In general, the total quantity of the property governed by that law remains unchanged during physical processes. With respect to classical physics, conservation laws include conservation of energy, mass (or matter), linear momentum, angular momentum, and electric charge.
Lol you are all completely fucking mental...
Just so far gone it is impossible to discuss the simplest things with you.
Are you not embarrassed by your behaviour?
Of course the thrust of a rocket can be modelled by N2...
But, as the man I quote goes on to say, unless that thrust creates a force pairing with an outside body motion cannot be produced.
This is Newton's third law, and nothing can move without it, you mad bastard.
Read again:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
"All aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself"...
ALL of them, REtard.
And yes, this does include rocket engines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Ergo: without the atmosphere, no aircraft propulsion device can create motion.
It could not be simpler...
Yet you will never, ever, stop bullshitting on the subject, will you?
Because you are weaponised idiots, set loose on the internet, to ruin it for everyone on behalf of your oligarchal masters...
You are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
"rockets carry a full load of atmosphere with them".....
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!
Enough 'atmosphere' to pressurise an infinite vacuum?!?!?
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!! Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, have a look at yourself will you?
Cos you've blown this latest sockpuppets credibility to fucking shreds with that statement...
Just so far gone it is impossible to discuss the simplest things with you.Nope! You're the one that should be embarrassed.
Are you not embarrassed by your behaviour?
Of course the thrust of a rocket can be modelled by N2...Close! But what is the "other body" in the case of a jet engine? That Mr Legba is the crucial question.
But, as the man I quote goes on to say, unless that thrust creates a force pairing with an outside body motion cannot be produced.
This is Newton's third law, and nothing can move without it, you mad bastard.Nope again! You're the mad one around here!
Read again:Yep Mr Legba, I read that again! Maybe you should, you might learn something!
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
"All aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself"...
ALL of them, REtard.
Jet Engine
Any of a class of internal-combustion engines that propel aircraft by means of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid,usually hot exhaust gases generated by burning fuel with air drawn in from the atmosphere.
The only practical means of propulsion so far devised is to take advantage of Newton's third law of motion. In its simplest form, this law states that action and reaction are equal and opposite. It is observed in nature that forces (e.g., "pushes" or "pulls") never occur singly but always in equal or opposite pairs. Thus the existence of a force on a body requires the coexistence of an equal and opposite force. If a pair of forces acts between two separate bodies (and provided that no other forces act), the bodies will be impelled to separate or come together depending on whether the force pair is repulsive (a push) or attractive (a pull). The combination of Newton's second and third laws shows that the resulting motion of the two bodies can be expressed by the statement that the change in momentum of the two bodies is equal and opposite and along the line of action of the force pair. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity, and, because (at aircraft velocities) the mass of any body remains constant, a force pair acting between two bodies produces a change in the velocity of each. It is clear that in order to propel a body it is necessary to find something to push against. All aircraft-propulsion devices push against the air itself. If the air is used as the propelling medium, it must experience a change in momentum--i.e., it has to be accelerated toward the rear of the aircraft and discharged rearward with enough velocity that the reaction produces an appreciable thrust in the opposite direction.
And yes, this does include rocket engines:Who's arguing? You just have to correctly identify what is "accelerated toward the rear of the air/space-craft and discharged rearward".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Ergo: without accelerated toward the rear of the aircraft and discharged rearward, no aircraft propulsion device can create motion.
It could not be simpler...
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PRINCIPLES OF OPERATIONNot a word about "pushing on any outside air"!
The rocket differs from the turbojet and other “air-breathing” engines in that all of the exhaust jet consists of the gaseous combustion products of “propellants” carried on board. Like the turbojet engine, the rocket develops thrust by the rearward ejection of mass at very high velocity.
<< Idiotic tripe deleted >>
But, as the man I quote goes on to say, unless that thrust creates a force pairing with an outside body motion cannot be produced.That "outside body" can be a part of the main body which is released/discarded from it.
"All aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself"...And in the case of rockets, that air is produced or released by the rocket.
ALL of them, REtard.
And yes, this does include rocket engines:
Ergo: without the atmosphere, no aircraft propulsion device can create motion.No, without air/gas, which rockets produce.
Yet you will never, ever, stop bullshitting on the subject, will you?I see you are back to talking about yourself, so retarded you think science and reason isn't necessary.
Because you are weaponised idiots, set loose on the internet, to ruin it for everyone on behalf of your oligarchal masters...
Both forces described by the third law cannot be created on the same body and result in motion...It isn't the same body.
Both forces described by the third law cannot be created on the same body and result in motion...It isn't the same body.
One force is acting on a bit of gas, which used to be part of the rocket. The other force is acting on the rest of the rocket.
How long have the rest of you REs been here? 24 hours of bullshit, and I am ready to call it quits.
You are the only one to make such an idiotic suggestion!Both forces described by the third law cannot be created on the same body and result in motion...It isn't the same body.
One force is acting on a bit of gas, which used to be part of the rocket. The other force is acting on the rest of the rocket.
So the gas stops, turns around and pushes back on the rocket once it has left the nozzle?
You are the only one to make such an idiotic suggestion!Both forces described by the third law cannot be created on the same body and result in motion...It isn't the same body.
One force is acting on a bit of gas, which used to be part of the rocket. The other force is acting on the rest of the rocket.
So the gas stops, turns around and pushes back on the rocket once it has left the nozzle?
A force is required to accelerate (you have heard of f = ma?) the exhaust gas to its exhaust velocity and that force it supplied by the rocket.
Well Rabinoz is a special kind of insulting blowhard. Apparently the FE scammers that are higher up on the pyramid like to call on him to spread chaotic nonsense as a distraction tactic. He isn't worth debating when he just slings moronic insults. He will get bored soon enough.
Lol you are all completely fucking mental...
Just so far gone it is impossible to discuss the simplest things with you.
Are you not embarrassed by your behaviour?
Of course the thrust of a rocket can be modelled by N2...
But, as the man I quote goes on to say, unless that thrust creates a force pairing with an outside body motion cannot be produced.
This is Newton's third law, and nothing can move without it, you mad bastard.
Read again:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
"All aircraft propulsion devices push against the air itself"...
ALL of them, REtard.
And yes, this does include rocket engines:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket-powered_aircraft
Ergo: without the atmosphere, no aircraft propulsion device can create motion.
It could not be simpler...
Yet you will never, ever, stop bullshitting on the subject, will you?
Because you are weaponised idiots, set loose on the internet, to ruin it for everyone on behalf of your oligarchal masters...
You are these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
Yawn!
Seems mit goes full retard when it comes to rockets...
Cos that ain't a proper scientific explanation at all.
And braeunig is well known to be military industrial propaganda bullshit...
No real engineer takes them seriously.
That's because shpayze rokkit enjyneerink is not a genuine career path for anyone.
Jet turbine engineering is, so they actually explain things correctly...
Like this man does:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
As he states, they push on the medium through which they move...
Like everything else does.
Hardly 'rokkit siennz' is it?
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now?
Autistic shills don't make the most congenial company you know?
If MIT is so prestigious why is their section on rocket propulsion written for kids?
I'll tell you why, because they know the whole subject is bullshit so don't bother including any proper science.
And you still seem to believe that N3 only involves one object, somehow impossibly creating a reaction from its own action.
It does not.
There's no hope for you, frankly...
Sane people can read this to find out how aircraft propulsion functions:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...
They'll never be right, no matter how big a sperg-fit they throw.
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now?
If MIT is so prestigious why is their section on rocket propulsion written for kids?
So the gas stops, turns around and pushes back on the rocket once it has left the nozzle?No. There is an action-reaction pair between the gas and the rocket. This causes the rocket to be pushed forwards and the gas to be pushed backwards, out the nozzle.
You all agreed it was earlier, remember?No we didn't.
Cool story, shill, but I prefer the explanation of a professor of engine design, like this guy, to a REtarded sockpuppet shill on a mad flat Earth forum.Depending upon how you think about it.
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
He says it pushes on the air itself...
He is correct.
Simple stuff, but you will never give up on it...I see you are back to describing yourself again.
Because mad shills.
So smart, science is unnecessary!
No, your lies about him and physics are dead wrong.A force is required to accelerate (you have heard of f = ma?) the exhaust gas to its exhaust velocity and that force it supplied by the rocket.LMFAO!!!
You just quoted N2 and claimed it represented N3...
You're making the same mistake as NASA, describing both the forces required by N3 on the same body:
This would mean you think N3 is f1=-f1...
Which is DEAD WRONG:
Jet turbine engineering is, so they actually explain things correctly...No, he doesn't state that. He states aircraft engines push on air. That is not saying they push on the medium through which they travel.
Like this man does:
http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm
As he states, they push on the medium through which they move...
Like everything else does.
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now?Then how about you do us all a favour and fuck off or shut up, or better still, act like a rational human being for once in your pathetic existence and admit you are full of shit.
Autistic shills don't make the most congenial company you know?
BREAKING NEWS LIVE FROM THE BBC!Nicely done.
Local man overturns 3,000 years of science after reading about it on the Internet
(London)
A local man has overturned the work of thousands of scientists working for centuries based on information from an anonymous website.
Papa Legba, realized that modern science is all wrong.
"I was browsing the Web, watching some YouTube and stuff, and then this bloke suggested this site. So I checked it out, and now I know science is all wrong," said Legba.
Since Mr. Legba's discovery, scores of professors of physics, astronomy, and engineering were forced to resign. Flights across Europe have been cancelled as airline executives were suddenly realizing that the designers of their aircraft didn't know how they worked. At least six airlines, two helicopters, four private planes, and a dozen RAF fighters dropped out of the sky when the physics that they had relied upon no longer applied. "I tried to warn them," Mr. Legba said upon hearing the news.
Apparently, flights in other parts of the world have not been affected as their operators still accept conventional physics. While safety crews have been standing by in case of an emergency, many front-line firefighters express concern. "Every time I turn on my fire hose, the water squirts out, but it also pushes back on me. I really have to work to hold onto the hose. They always said that it was Newton's Third Law at work, but now this Legba says maybe not," said Jo Marianas, a firefighter at JFK Airport in New York. "Maybe the hose won't even work now that we know that the people who invented the whole thing don't know their science."
Reaction from Sweden has been strong. At least 39 Nobel Prizes in science may be revoked, and the entire Nobel committee may be replaced by astrologers and acupuncturists.
Back in London, Queen Elizabeth has been rumored to be considering revoking the knighthood of Sir Isaac Newton and instead knighting Legba. "Everyone who finds something really smart in a lost corner of the Internet should be knighted," said Prince Phillip. "Gosh, if I wasn't already a Prince, I'd spend all night in my parent's basement trying to find the truth the way Legba did."
Critics of these moves have only begun to speak out. Julie Simmons, in secondary school in Brighton, along with her little sister Chelsea, formed the Brighton Model Rocket Club last summer. "I don't know what the fuss is about. My rockets still fly," said Chelsea. Julie says that she has done several experiments in both chemistry and physics class that support her rocketeering. "It is fun to see all of science come together in a project. That [man] Legba should do some real science instead of just trying to read some [stuff] on the Internet," Julie said.
When asked if she would invite Mr. Legba to see one of her rockets in Brighton, she said, "No. Aside from not knowing anything other than some half-baked quackery, I hear he's a total prat."
Mr. Legba, upon hearing of Ms. Simmons' remarks, launched into a string of unprintable expletives.
BREAKING NEWS LIVE FROM THE BBC!
Local man overturns 3,000 years of science after reading about it on the Internet
(London)
A local man has overturned the work of thousands of scientists working for centuries based on information from an anonymous website.
Papa Legba, realized that modern science is all wrong.
"I was browsing the Web, watching some YouTube and stuff, and then this bloke suggested this site. So I checked it out, and now I know science is all wrong," said Legba.
Since Mr. Legba's discovery, scores of professors of physics, astronomy, and engineering were forced to resign. Flights across Europe have been cancelled as airline executives were suddenly realizing that the designers of their aircraft didn't know how they worked. At least six airlines, two helicopters, four private planes, and a dozen RAF fighters dropped out of the sky when the physics that they had relied upon no longer applied. "I tried to warn them," Mr. Legba said upon hearing the news.
Apparently, flights in other parts of the world have not been affected as their operators still accept conventional physics. While safety crews have been standing by in case of an emergency, many front-line firefighters express concern. "Every time I turn on my fire hose, the water squirts out, but it also pushes back on me. I really have to work to hold onto the hose. They always said that it was Newton's Third Law at work, but now this Legba says maybe not," said Jo Marianas, a firefighter at JFK Airport in New York. "Maybe the hose won't even work now that we know that the people who invented the whole thing don't know their science."
Reaction from Sweden has been strong. At least 39 Nobel Prizes in science may be revoked, and the entire Nobel committee may be replaced by astrologers and acupuncturists.
Back in London, Queen Elizabeth has been rumored to be considering revoking the knighthood of Sir Isaac Newton and instead knighting Legba. "Everyone who finds something really smart in a lost corner of the Internet should be knighted," said Prince Phillip. "Gosh, if I wasn't already a Prince, I'd spend all night in my parent's basement trying to find the truth the way Legba did."
Critics of these moves have only begun to speak out. Julie Simmons, in secondary school in Brighton, along with her little sister Chelsea, formed the Brighton Model Rocket Club last summer. "I don't know what the fuss is about. My rockets still fly," said Chelsea. Julie says that she has done several experiments in both chemistry and physics class that support her rocketeering. "It is fun to see all of science come together in a project. That [man] Legba should do some real science instead of just trying to read some [stuff] on the Internet," Julie said.
When asked if she would invite Mr. Legba to see one of her rockets in Brighton, she said, "No. Aside from not knowing anything other than some half-baked quackery, I hear he's a total prat."
Mr. Legba, upon hearing of Ms. Simmons' remarks, launched into a string of unprintable expletives.
Well I would attempt to teach you, but wasting my time really isn't high on my list of to do things at the moment. Honestly it would be less of a waste of my time to teach my dog the Klingon language. Probably easier too, he has shown me that he may have quite a few more undamaged synapse pathways than you. That's not proven yet, but I would love to study the walking braindead. Papa are you up for a little exploratory cranial "proceedure". I am 95% sure I can't make things worse.Well Papa Liar is a special kind of insulting blowhard. Apparently the FE scammers that are higher up on the pyramid like to call on him to spread chaotic nonsense as a distraction tactic. He isn't worth debating when he just slings moronic insults. He will get bored soon enough.
Fixed your crazed shilling for you!
Come back when you're ready to understand N3...
I.e. Never.
Well I would attempt to teach you, but wasting my time really isn't high on my list of to do things at the moment. Honestly it would be less of a waste of my time to teach my dog the Klingon language. Probably easier too, he has shown me that he may have quite a few more undamaged synapse pathways than you. That's not proven yet, but I would love to study the walking braindead. Papa are you up for a little exploratory cranial "proceedure". I am 95% sure I can't make things worse.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/q6u8btbwat3wju0/Papa%20Legba.jpg?dl=1) | Oh where, oh where, has our Legba gone? Oh where, oh where can he be? With his brains cut out and his spells cast wide Oh where, oh where can he be? |
Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
yes he was, the length of time I do not know.Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
He hasn't been back since I reported him to the moderator for posting a link to the home address of a participant. Did you see that? It was up for maybe an hour. I reported it to the moderator, and then that post went down. He's been quiet since. Do people get banned?
that was at least the fourth post of his doing that. it seems people only get banned temporarily here.Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
He hasn't been back since I reported him to the moderator for posting a link to the home address of a participant. Did you see that? It was up for maybe an hour. I reported it to the moderator, and then that post went down. He's been quiet since. Do people get banned?
that was at least the fourth post of his doing that. it seems people only get banned temporarily here.Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
He hasn't been back since I reported him to the moderator for posting a link to the home address of a participant. Did you see that? It was up for maybe an hour. I reported it to the moderator, and then that post went down. He's been quiet since. Do people get banned?
Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.
IIRC he did something similar to get banned the previous time. One might come to the conclusion the leadership here wants the derailing and chaos and how it makes the entire forum look like a joke.that was at least the fourth post of his doing that. it seems people only get banned temporarily here.Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
He hasn't been back since I reported him to the moderator for posting a link to the home address of a participant. Did you see that? It was up for maybe an hour. I reported it to the moderator, and then that post went down. He's been quiet since. Do people get banned?
Such severe violation of privacy should result in a perma if you ask me. Pretty much all the other boards I've been active so far would do that as it is an absolute no go, but here he got only 2 weeks as far as I know... ::)
IIRC he did something similar to get banned the previous time. One might come to the conclusion the leadership here wants the derailing and chaos and how it makes the entire forum look like a joke.that was at least the fourth post of his doing that. it seems people only get banned temporarily here.Autistic shills can keep saying 1+0=2 until they're blue in the face...I know he's gone for now, but
It's pitiful when the real ignoramuses among us like jroa and Papa Legba use the term Autistic to imply dim-witted,
when many with ASD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, are the real savants.
And while someone with ASD might know that 1 + 0 = 1, they might also seriously claim that 1 + 1 = 10 and 7 x 7 = 61.
Then think you a bit dim-witted when you don't see those as obvious.What I find sickening is the use of terms like "autistic" and "spastic" used as insults. It just shows up the mentality of those like Papa Legba who do this.:P May I now get down off my soap box. :P
Things like 7 x 7 = 61 turned up a bit when looking at machine language on the old GE-225, designed by Arnold Spielberg (father of Steven Spielberg) and and Chuck Prosper.
He hasn't been back since I reported him to the moderator for posting a link to the home address of a participant. Did you see that? It was up for maybe an hour. I reported it to the moderator, and then that post went down. He's been quiet since. Do people get banned?
Such severe violation of privacy should result in a perma if you ask me. Pretty much all the other boards I've been active so far would do that as it is an absolute no go, but here he got only 2 weeks as far as I know... ::)
I would absolutely love to see someone use autistic as a derogatory term in front of my sister-in-law, who's son is autistic. The hilarity that would ensue as they get the absolute shit beat out of them by a 5 ft 4 woman would be worth watching.
The funny thing is, they have no clue as to what they are talking about when they think people that are classified as autistic means they are stupid or equal to the worst false impressions of a mentally challenged person. Many autistic people show signs of having a very high intellect. People who would make folks like Papa look like a slobbering fool after a full scale lobotomy that went horribly wrong if he was ever to try to compare his intellect to theirs. I can't tell you about many of them, but I do know my nephew. He is brilliant with patterns but doesn't socialize the same way. He recently started talking and it is difficult to get his attention, but can do advanced mathematics (as in college calculus) and he is 7 years old. When I think of someone like him vs someone who thinks they are winning arguments by just being insulting, I feel more pity for the insulting guy since they are obviously the weaker intellectually. I feel sad at the loss of oxygen and the possible person that could have had a life in the place of someone who thinks they should spew constant insults from the safety of anonymity of the internet. What a shame.
Funny, did I mention that my sister-in-law is a preacher's daughter, she is a teacher in the church school and my brother is the youngest deacon in this decent sized Baptist church.I would absolutely love to see someone use autistic as a derogatory term in front of my sister-in-law, who's son is autistic. The hilarity that would ensue as they get the absolute shit beat out of them by a 5 ft 4 woman would be worth watching.
The funny thing is, they have no clue as to what they are talking about when they think people that are classified as autistic means they are stupid or equal to the worst false impressions of a mentally challenged person. Many autistic people show signs of having a very high intellect. People who would make folks like Papa look like a slobbering fool after a full scale lobotomy that went horribly wrong if he was ever to try to compare his intellect to theirs. I can't tell you about many of them, but I do know my nephew. He is brilliant with patterns but doesn't socialize the same way. He recently started talking and it is difficult to get his attention, but can do advanced mathematics (as in college calculus) and he is 7 years old. When I think of someone like him vs someone who thinks they are winning arguments by just being insulting, I feel more pity for the insulting guy since they are obviously the weaker intellectually. I feel sad at the loss of oxygen and the possible person that could have had a life in the place of someone who thinks they should spew constant insults from the safety of anonymity of the internet. What a shame.
Flat Earth Logic.... Maybe if you would have prayed a little more things would be different....