Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I am a pilot. Do you understand what straight and level means?Do you? What's the sensitivity of your artificial horizont? Can it show a diference of 2 parts per million from true level?
Your affirmation was that MANY, including you saw the curvature like that. I flew over the Atlantic 20 times with commercial flights (35k feet) and NEVER saw a curvature like that. So I know that you lied with purpose to advance your agenda.
wut.
Is Felix in on the conspiracy? Did he see a flat horizon that he has to shut up about?What one's eyes see is not necessary the scientific truth. Illusions, mirages, refraction in atmosphere with different density...
we still have very convergent results with the hull disappearing before the mast. if air is so variable, which it is, we should have a lot of different results concerning the horizon. Which we don'tDensity of air varies with altitude - it is more compressed near Earth due to constant upwards acceleration (you might call that gravity). Therefore is not optically the same and generates the refraction that curves the light "downwards" like a half-lens put on top of Earth, between the two points - source and observator.
VW have a test track which is 5 miles long and completely level, however the other end cannot be seen due to the curvature of the earth....which...isnt......there!
http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/03/21/super-secret-volkswagen-test-track/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehra-Lessien
The facility features 96 kilometres (60 mi) of private tarmac which includes a large variety of road surfaces and curves, such known as test tracks to test vehicles. More significantly, there is an unbroken straight of 9 km in length, on which the top speed of several of the cars developed may be determined.Though this portion of the track is absolutely flat and leveled, when standing on one side of the straight, the other end cannot be seen due to the curvature of the Earth. It also includes a banked turn, which is supposedly used to get the cars settled for their final pace at the straight.
You might want to read up on Newton's Laws regarding motion because your post is inane--as usual. An acceleration applied over hours results in a greater distance of travel than an acceleration applied over a second or so.And you should think more about the fact that ocean water RISES also on OPPOSITE side of Earth. Souldn't be water there LOWER since it is attracted by the same Moon (that is o the opposite side of the Earth so its gravitation pull will add to the Earth gravitation pull)?
Thanks for proving my point. I put your personal attack in bold font to help you with your recall. (You might consider reading what you post.)
Your memory is faulty. You started the personal attacks, but I really don't care.See who started? Check you reality circuit breaker... it is triped from overload.
Even I know its "says" not "sais". Also "centripete" is also not a word.Actually object in orbit do "glide" forever. But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever.RE sais: Only if you have a certain speed you can orbit forever - it's the speed where the centripete force cancels tha gravitational pull. So even in RE, it's just a special situation, a space shuttle falls back to RE by reducing the speed...
You're not very good with phisics, even the RE one... easy target
Ok now on to your argument. I know all about orbit. I said, "object in orbit do "glide" forever. But since there’s no air up there, they just fall forever.". So you can see objects in orbit will fall forever. If the object loses orbit then it won't be in orbit and it wont fall forever.
Nice try on trying to act like you know something.
You are (or pretended to be) retarded if you cannot understand such basic things and go on personal attacs about spelling (that you started first).You need to go back to class if you can't see the difference in the two "scenarios". sokarul has demonstrated superior understanding to yours in many cases. You may want to try humility, and a spell checker.blablablaDude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.
blablablaDude, there is no difference in those two scenarios... nobody can prove nothing. Except sokarul that proves that doesn't have the math skills for this discution.
In FE wa are all floating about alreadyI guess you didn't pass the physics class about the acceleration and inertia?
Why can't you get it through your head that the plane has to be accelerated to 9.8m/s2 to match the earths? Air doesn't have to be solid to accelerate objects. The thread you missed, I bought up indoor skydiving. People are "accelerated" at 9.8m/s2 to counter act gravitation.
So Im going to ask again, how can a plane reach terminal velocity if the earth is accelerating towards it?
1. Did the government conspiracy workers have Photoshop in 1969?
(Protip: Optical Illusion doesn't cut it.)
Wrong.In the post above it is stated what means terminal velocity - in any model (FE or RE) is the moment when the delta speed between Earth and plane is constant.
Simply answer question 2.
Ok, for people that want to complicate thinghs more with the air resistance (noted here r):
For plane: Sp=S0+r(a(t-t0))2 - because the air resistance varies with square of the speed (I am simplyfing here). See, the air is accelerating the plane upwards, and the friction force will add to the original speed.
For Earth S=S0+a(t-t0)
Now the relative speed of plane to Earth will be Sp-S
That means Delta S= r(a(t-to)2-a(t-t0)
When this relative speed will be constant (terminal velocity)? When it will not be variable in time. So derivative of this function with the variation of time is zero.
That means r(a(t-to)/2-a=0
So the time when speed will be terminal (constant) t=2/r+t0 - so depends only of the resistance of the plane in air (given by it's shape and position).
