22591
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:25:02 PM »@JackBlack, why do you still skip taking your medication at right time?
Of course, rather than try to rationally respond to what I have said, where I conclusively show that you are wrong, you just ignore it like a pathetic child sticking their fingers in their ear.
How much more refuting of your crap will I have to do before you admit you are wrong, or the far more likely option, where you run away like a pathetic child that doesn't want to admit they were wrong?
How come that you still haven't conducted such a simple experiment?I did.
I posted the result.
It shows you were wrong.
But like the child you are, you ignore it.
In fact if your IQ were higher than 80 you would be able to understand (on the basis of purely theoretical reasoning) why the results of my experiment are perfectly correct and why they have to be exactly as i've described them!!!No. If you had an IQ higher than 5 you would understand that if you ignore everything else in the shot, and just focus on the camera and the light source, the 2 are equivalent.
In both cases the light source appears to move to the right, so if you consider how it builds up, the light starts in one spot and smears to the right, or if you consider where the light ends, it appears to have a tail to its left.
This is quite simple to understand. This is why your description is completely wrong.
As for the result that has been shown in the FIRST picture (which doesn't match reality) :No. Not the results shown in the first picture. Your claims about the first picture, which do not match reality. I'm not talking about the reality of star trails. I am talking about the reality of the "experiment" you did.
Your claims about it do not match.
Also, instead of comparing them one by one, lets compare them together.
- Shutter speed is set for 2 seconds (mine was 5).
- The camera and light source start out in one position relative to each other.
- The light source (torch in your case, some pixels on the screen in mine) and camera then experience relative motion, where the light moves to the right relative to the camera (it doesn't matter which is moving).
- In the first instance, the camera records the light in its current position.
- In the next instance, the camera records the light in its new position, which is a bit to the right (for the pixels in the camera) of the previous position and adds it.
- This continues throughout the 2 seconds, with more light being added as the light move further right (relative to the camera).
- This results in a picture where the light is spread out. If you compare this to the final position of the light, it appears that the light has a trail behind it.
So no, the trail never appears to be in front of the light.
8. Final result will be the impression that although the source of light APPARENTLY moved to the right, it seems as if the torch trail (which represents star's trail) wasn't left behind the torch, but instead IN FRONT of the torch (because the torch also APPARENTLY moved in the same direction : to the right).HOW???
As you said, the torch has also moved to the right (apparently). This means the final position of the light is at the rightmost position of the blob of light. This means the torch trail appears behind the torch, not in front.
5. However, although in both scenarios my camera registers sequences of the source of light from the left to the right (with respect to the frame/lens of my camera) the final result will be diametrically different (regarding the direction of APPARENT motion (1st case) vs REAL motion (2nd case) of the trail of my torch (which represents star's trail)No. They wont.
The results are exactly the same.
In both cases the light on the photo appears to tail the light source, or the light source appears to leave a trail behind it.
In both cases, if you compare the light trail in the photo with the final position of the light source, the light trail extends to the left.
In both cases, if you compare the light trail in the photo with the starting position of the light source, the light trail extends to the right.
The 2 results are identical. You can only tell them apart by the motion of other things in the photograph.
As such, you cannot tell if the camera is moving, or the room is moving in the first case, and in the second you cannot tell if the light is moving, or the rest of the room (including the camera) is moving.
In both cases, you cannot tell which is moving, the light source or the camera.
So, you don't really need to conduct your experiment, all you have to do is to use your brain, however if you don't believe what you brain tells you, then go ahead and carry out your experiment finally (if for no other purpose, then at least for the purpose of measuring the real number of your IQThat's right. You don't. But you actually need to use your brain, not just spouting crap.)
Using your brain indicates that the light starts at a point and then smears to the right in both cases.
Using your brain indicates that the light appears to have a trail extending to the left from its final position.
And remember, you can't keep on bitching asking people to do an experiment. I did. You just ignored it.
Do I need to repeat it again, this time doing both, a stationary camera with a moving light source, and a moving camera with a stationary light source, instead of just the disputed one to show they are identical?
This comparison is not accurate. You are talking about something that sounds plausible, but you are comparing a closed system (the train) going a mere 60 mph to a comparitively open system (the earth and its atmosphere) supposedly turning at 600 mph.No. It is accurate. The atmosphere turns with Earth.
It doesn't need to be trapped. It just needs to not have something dragging it along.
There isn't anything to drag Earth's atmosphere.
Also, any air inside this train is obviously trapped by the FOUR WALLS of the train car (which makes for an obvious container) and is plainly moving the same speed as the train. This air WOULD provide a resistance to the slowing down for a jumping man simply because it is moving. I agree to that much. But the problem here is going to be the inexactness of your metaphor.No. The air isn't providing a resistance to the slowing down. Objects will continue with their motion until acted upon by a force. In this case, as the air is moving with the person, there is no force acting to slow them down.
If they were moving relative to the air, then they would experience a force opposed to that relative motion.
That is why if you jump out of a plane, you will be moving very quickly relative to the air, and thus you will experience a force trying to make your speed match the air. This applies regardless of if the air is stationary, and you are moving, or if the air is moving and you are stationary.
And the same thing happens with the atmosphere and Earth. As such, it is fine and there is no problem with this comparison.
If you don't like that, get on a boat with a large swimming pool. Get a little toy submarine. See if that can go back and forth just fine (make sure it is calm waters or else that will interfere).
It is no longer trapped by 4 walls.
If you are going to complain about the walls at the front and back, don't worry, I've got a solution for that.
Get a large turntable, very large. Construct an annulus shaped fish tank around/at the outside edge of this turntable.
So basically the large turntable has a ditch at the outside which runs all the way around.
Fill it with water, and put in your toy submarine.
Now you just have walls on the side and base, no walls at the front and back, and no wall on top.
Start it spinning, and wait for it to reach a steady state.
Now try using your toy. You will notice it is just as happy to move in either direction, as if it doesn't care about the water.
Try with me to visualize the air and what kind of thing that it is. Let me try this angle. Let's say the air is turning with the earth as you say.Yes, as it is. So yes, lets say reality is correct.
Now we all know there are all sorts of winds. They pop up constantly and in almost random directions. First, what force would cause the air to break from the rotation of the earth?The winds are primarily caused by differences in pressure. This will likely be caused by local heating and cooling of the surface. Regardless, this is irrelevant as it applies regardless of the shape and motion of Earth.
And secondly, what force, do you suppose, would cause all these randomly moving air molecules to re-align themselves with the earth's west to east rotation? Do you not suppose all these various molecules would bump into each other and slow each other down? Wouldn't the air/atmosphere logically, therefore, work itself to a stop?Friction. Again, this is irrelevant to the shape and motion of Earth.
No. It wouldn't work itself to a stop.
That only applies if there is nothing causing it to move.
Think of a car, driving along a highway. It is bumping into loads of molecules. Shouldn't it therefore come to a stop? No. That is because it is burning fuel to propel itself.
It is a dynamic system, with an energy input (or several), which results in motion which is combatted by friction (effectively an energy output).
If you removed the energy input, yes, it would work itself to a stop.
But again, this applies regardless of the shape and motion of Earth.
So lets get back to the topic at hand.
If reality is real, and thus the atmosphere moves with Earth, then it works just like walking back and forth on a moving plane or train.
YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND? - OMG, YOUR IQ MUST BE LOWER THAN 50...WHAT A PITYNope. We do understand, and aren't going to accept your bullshit.
I HAVE MADE ANOTHER PICTURE IN ORDER TO HELP YOU TO FOLLOW THE EXPLANATION ABOVE :Good, now do the same for the second one. Complete with those lines indicating the first position, the second sequence etc.
If you still don't understand then either you are stupider than JackBlack, or you just play dumber than you really are!So stupider than something that is much smarter than you? If I was as stupid as you claim, you would easily be able to respond to my claims and refute them rather than continually spouting the same nonsense.
Let me guess what motivates you to pretend being even much dumber than you really are : the real reason for your sad behaviour is your need to avoid an inevitable consequence (under the assumption that you are adult and honest person, which you are not) : an admission that the earth is at rest which is 100 % proved with my irrefutable STAR TRAILS argument!!!No. The question actually applies to you. We are speaking the truth, pointing out the pure bullshit of your argument.
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending to be because you are so desperate to find something to refute Earth being round and moving?
Just like all your other "irrefutable" arguments, this one just proves you are either a moron, or a liar and they are extremely easy to refute. I'm pretty sure a dog could do it.