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.


Messages - JackBlack

Pages: 1 ... 752 753 [754] 755 756 ... 767
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 IQ :) )
That'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 PITY
Nope. 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.

22592
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 21, 2016, 01:37:12 PM »


Here you go.
If the water level in the tube goes up, h will be more than H and thus it will flow back into the main tank, and vice versa.

This is also a quite common simple science demonstration:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Communicating+vessels&tbm=isch

imgur is forbidden in Turkey. Do you upload it on imgland. ?



Here you go:

22593
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:43:22 AM »


Here you go.
If the water level in the tube goes up, h will be more than H and thus it will flow back into the main tank, and vice versa.

This is also a quite common simple science demonstration:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Communicating+vessels&tbm=isch

22594
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 21, 2016, 12:16:37 AM »
No i'm not.  :-\

I'm ignoring only who is insulting me.

Show me when i ignored someone except proven him/her be a bastard.
You have ignored me repeatedly, and insulted me repeatedly.

I haven't been insulting you, just calling you out on your bullshit.

You haven't proven me to be a bastard.

Go back to the first page, and read my post on the actual theory behind this which shows that it will only push it up the tube to the height of the water in the main tank.

I told you that numbers can prove everything. With numbers you can do everything. A real proof is only an experiment. I know what will i do okey? Just wait, don't panic.  8)
Yes. You said that, but it simply isn't true.
Numbers don't let you magically do or prove anything.
You need to start from formulas that are based upon experiments and the like. We already have these, so we can determine that your experiment wont work from that.
We even have plenty of experiments which are simple demonstrations which show it won't work.

Every-time someone puts a straw in a drink, in a glass, they do this experiment.
The only time the fluid inside rises above the water level in the main tank is if there is some gas released inside the straw (but not the same extent outside).

So we already have real proof, in multiple forms. You just don't care about it. Why ignore these proofs?

Why not explain your theory more and tell me how high the water should be able to go?

Relax man, after my experiment you'll see what happens. Why so panic?
Again, we already know what will happen.
We aren't panicking.
We just expect you wont do it, or when it doesn't work you will think of some excuse for why it doesn't or just run away rather than admit you were wrong.

Your post is so long so i don't understand anything from it. In the other way you seperated my post so i'll not try to reply it.
If that was too long or hard to understand, a shorter, simpler one:

Yes, the pressure at the bottom will be greater than Pa.
But that also applies to the tube when it has water in it. We will call that h.
If H>h, then water will flow into the tube.
If h>H, then water will flow into the tank.
As such, the water will flow until H=h.

So if you start with no water in the tube, it will flow into the tube from the tank until H=h.

H and h are proportional to the height of the water in the respective containers.

This means if the water level in the tube is higher, h>H and thus water flows into the tank.

22595
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 21, 2016, 12:12:56 AM »
No i'm not.  :-\

I'm ignoring only who is insulting me.

Show me when i ignored someone except proven him/her be a bastard.
You have ignored me repeatedly, and insulted me repeatedly.

I haven't been insulting you, just calling you out on your bullshit.

You haven't proven me to be a bastard.

Go back to the first page, and read my post on the actual theory behind this which shows that it will only push it up the tube to the height of the water in the main tank.

I told you that numbers can prove everything. With numbers you can do everything. A real proof is only an experiment. I know what will i do okey? Just wait, don't panic.  8)
Yes. You said that, but it simply isn't true.
Numbers don't let you magically do or prove anything.
You need to start from formulas that are based upon experiments and the like. We already have these, so we can determine that your experiment wont work from that.
We even have plenty of experiments which are simple demonstrations which show it won't work.

Every-time someone puts a straw in a drink, in a glass, they do this experiment.
The only time the fluid inside rises above the water level in the main tank is if there is some gas released inside the straw (but not the same extent outside).

So we already have real proof, in multiple forms. You just don't care about it. Why ignore these proofs?

Why not explain your theory more and tell me how high the water should be able to go?

Relax man, after my experiment you'll see what happens. Why so panic?
Again, we already know what will happen.
We aren't panicking.
We just expect you wont do it, or when it doesn't work you will think of some excuse for why it doesn't or just run away rather than admit you were wrong.

Your post is so long so i don't understand anything from it. In the other way you seperated my post so i'll not try to reply it.
Fine, I'll quote that in its entirety, without breaking it up, and explain why it is wrong:

Yes, H (which I will now designate as PH) is greater than P1.
We can calculate PH.
PH will be PA, as that is pushing against the water and thus gets transfered down, and the additional weight of the water.
Assuming the main tank has a cross sectional area of A, and a height of H, the volume is given by AH, and the mass by AH*rho (density of water).
The resulting force is the mass times the acceleration due to whatever you wish to claim makes things fall down, which I will put as g.

This means the force from the water is g*A*H*rho.
The pressure is thus g*A*H*rho/A (As pressure is force per unit area), or g*H*rho.
This means the pressure at the bottom (PH) will be g*H*rho+Pa.

If the tube is empty, so its height (h) is 0, then it just has Pa.
This means the pressure in the tank will force water up into the tube.
Again, we can calculate the height it will be. That is because it has that pressure (PH) holding up the water in the tube, as well as the air pressure forcing it down.
So, the net pressure acting on it (i.e. adding up the pressure from both sides), will be PH-Pa=Pa+g*H*rho-Pa=g*H*rho.
This will act on a small surface area of the tube, a, and thus the force will be g*H*rho*a.
This force/pressure has to hold up the water, and just like before we can calculate the force involved. This will be g (acceleration) * a*h (volume) * rho (density).
Now we equate the 2. This means g*H*rho*a=g*a*h*rho.
This means H=h.

So if the atmospheric pressure in the tube is the same as that of the tank, the water level in both will be at the same height.

22596
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 06:44:05 PM »
And this means if I am traveling 500 MPH east and I, relative to the Earth, AM MOVING WEST, then all the more so when I am simply elevated above the Earth in a helicopter at 0 MPH above Chicago, I can simply remain elevated above the Earth and wait for Cedar Rapids, Iowa to arrive.
Yes, if you are travelling at 0mph relative to a non-rotating reference frame. If you are travelling 0mph relative to Chicago, then you are moving with Earth.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR STATIONARY EARTH!

Thanks for the admission!
Nope. Just another pile of shit from lying dishonest scum.

22597
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 06:38:18 PM »


It looks to me the above image shows a stationary earth with the stars rotating around it because if the earth was rotating the stars would go out of view of the camera as it and the earth rotates past the stars.

And guess what? You see just that. Sure, not all do because not all should.

You can even check this yourself.
Get a camera, stick it somewhere north of the equator on a ball.
Then go to a dark room with lights around, and spin the ball. What do you see?

The only time it will line up like you have drawn it is if you are on the equator.

This also works if a round Earth is stationary and the celestial sphere is rotating.

Now compare this to a flat Earth model.
With this model, all the stars should always be visible. They will just get a little lower.
This means you should never observe the stars drop below the horizon, but you do.
So clearly Earth isn't flat.

Here is a link for one at the equator:
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

22598
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is Mainstream Science Wrong?
« on: December 20, 2016, 06:33:34 PM »
Thank you. Finally. You cannot explain it... What??? No way!!! Something the globe model cannot explain? But but but... If you cannot explain one tiny detail then the whole theory must be wrong right? That seems to be the mindset with the globullshitters around here. And they are quite rude about it might I add. Egotistical manipulators indeed.
There are lots of things the globe model can't explain. For example, why your such a pathetic troll, why gravity exists, why like electric charges repel and so on.

But who gives a shit?
Dark energy has no bearing on the shape of Earth.
So no, you don't need to be able to explain every tiny detail.
The problem with a FE, is that it can explain basically nothing. These are things which a round Earth can easily explain. The FE supporters need to come up with piles and piles of dishonest crap with absolutely no evidence to support it and which contradicts real evidence and experiments.

I am yet to here of a single thing that FET can explain (without resorting to fictitious bullshit) that RET can't explain just as well if not better.
The only thing which comes close is gravity/why things fall. We can show that gravity exists in some form, acting as a force, but we can't explain what causes it, at least not entirely. But with that, everything else fits. FET can't explain why everything falls, because not everything does. Some will claim Earth is accelerating, but if that was the case, then why don't the sun and moon fall?

So how about this:
Go away, and come back when you find something that FET explains which RET can't.

22599
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 20, 2016, 06:28:18 PM »

If you believe water on a globe Earth due to gravity
Again, it doesn't need gravity ...

So water is not held onto the Earth by gravity...

Thank you for finally admitting gravity does not exist!!!
I did no such thing.

All I did was say that it doesn't need it.
There is a big difference.
Surface tension alone would cause water covering a spherical object to stay put and adopt a spherical shape.

That doesn't magically mean that gravity doesn't exist.

Another VICTORY for FE!!!
Nope.
Another deceit filled pile of shit proving to everyone just how pathetic all these flat earthers are.
There is yet to be a single victory for FE.

22600
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Better lie
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:20:14 PM »
I see you still haven't responded, so I figure I will help you out a bit based upon your previous responses, to move them along and make the question the same:

Atheist mindset:
[your answer] Nothing caused God.

My question:
Then why does the universe need a cause if your god does not?

So happy, now you have the same question for both.
Why does the universe need a cause, but not God?

This question requires 2 parts for an answer, it requires a justification for why the universe needs a cause, and an explanation for why that justification doesn't apply to a god.

You can't just baselessly assert that the universe is a creation and thus needs a cause.
You can't just baselessly assert that everything except your god needs a cause.

22601
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 01:55:34 PM »
Here is an image of you, from me repeating your "experiment", with better controls so you can easily identify where the light ended.



I took this image by having 2 pictures on my screen.
One is a white dot.
The other is that same white dot, in the same spot with the red dot directly above it.
I took a long exposure photograph, starting on the white dot, moved my camera (to the left), and then switched to the one with the white and red dot.
I just did it by hand, so it is a bit shaky.

Guess what it shows?
Just like a rational person would expect, the light source ends up on the right side of the picture, as the picture is built up, the light source appears to smear to the right.
Or as you put it:
The trail extends from the location of the light (at the end) to the left, matching the direction of movement.

So going to admit you were wrong now?

Here are the images used:



22602
Flat Earth Debate / Re: A topic of logic
« on: December 20, 2016, 01:49:24 PM »
Typically logic (in regards to science) goes more along the lines of:
A->B.
A
Therefore B.
Or:
A->B
!B
therefore !A.

Science also uses a weaker form:
A->B
B.
Therefore A is likely, or this B is evidence of A.

For example:
If Earth is flat, then when viewing a distant mountain on a shore, you should see it from top to bottom.
You cannot see the mountain from top to bottom.
Therefore Earth is not flat.

If Earth is a globe, then the bottom of distant mountains should be hidden below the horizon and thus you shouldn't see them from top to bottom (with the math showing this).
You can't see the mountains from top to bottom.
Thus it is likely Earth is a globe.

Or:
If Earth is flat, with the sun circling above it, you should always be able to see the sun unless it is too faint to see.
This means it would never approach the horizon and never go below it such that standing up lets you see it again (and numerous other issues).
However, it does go to the horizon and then below it.
Thus Earth is not flat.

If Earth is a globe, then the sun should "set" by going below the horizon.
Thus if you stand up or increase elevation you would see it again.
This is observed.
Thus Earth is likely a globe.

22603
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane
« on: December 20, 2016, 01:39:45 PM »
It sounds like a bad attempt to be edgy. The only understandable conclusions you can reach by reading is 1) God is good and Satan is an asshole, or 2) Both are assholes. How the fuck can you conclude that Satan is good?
I'm saying he is better than God, not necessarily good.

Even if I did say he was good, that doesn't make me pretentious.

And that is pure bullshit.
Only people without any morals at all (or who have been so heavily brainwashed it isn't funny) would come away with the conclusion that God is good. God is repeatedly portrayed as a childish evil tyrant. No one in their right mind (with morals) would ever consider him good.
So people that honestly and rationally read it will come away with one of 2 options:
1 - Both Satan and God are bad, but God is far worse.
2 - Satan is good, God is bad. - But this is much less likely. There is the issue of if someone is both good and bad, which wins? Are they automatically bad for just a little bit of bad, good for a little bit of good, or does it depend on the good and bad they do? I would say the latter, and in that case people might try and argue that even though Satan tormented Job, he is still good for the other good he did.

Just look at your posts, you said that God is bad because he left Job to be tormented, but guess who actually tormented him! If I kill a person in front of you and you don't do anything about it, I'm not going to be the "good one"!
If I tell you to torment someone to show that they still love me and you do it, that would make just as bad as you.
Satan didn't just decide to do it.
God wanted Satan to do it to prove Job would still kiss his ass regardless of how badly Job was treated.

You accuse God of testing Adam and Eve with the forbidden tree, but guess who actually tempted them to taste its fruit!
No. I didn't say he was testing them.
I said he set them up to fail/fall. God lied to them, left them with no knowledge of good and evil, and expected them to make the "good" choice and not be naughty and defy God, and threatened them with death for defiance.
What did Satan do? He told them the truth.
There was nothing wrong with them eating the fruit, God was being an evil tyrant.
According to the story (if read honestly and rationally) it also made them realise that god made them in a shameful/evil way with them being naked when that was "bad".

The whole point of Satan is that he fights against people obeying God's commands, which includes the good ones.
What makes you say it includes the good ones? He seems to be fighting against God's tyranny.

Basically he is an asshole who is not interested at all in the well being of the world, and is more interested in pissing God off, and deceiving everyone.
Says you. But there is no actual indication of that.
The first act he does is tell people the truth about the fruit, which to a rational person, would expose God's tyranny.
He then tests Job to try and get him to stop cowering before God and kissing his ass.
He tempts Jesus, trying to get Jesus to rebel against God as well.
The rest is just a bunch of accusations by people against Satan.

I would say that makes him far better than God, an evil tyrant that blatantly lies to people, interferes with their free will so he can show off and commit genocide, commands or carries out acts of genocide, demands horrible things from his followers and so on.

I don't know what kind of thinking process leads someone to believe he is the 'good one'.
A rational mind that is free of the indoctrination/brainwashing of the Abrahamic faiths.
God is certainly not the good one.

"Do you also ask that to the Jews?"

He is not a jew. I think. In any case it's a dumb precaution, it's as if God does not understand what you intend to do, and instead only reads what you actually type.
Well, considering how much of an evil piece of shit God is, do you really think he gives a damn what you intend to do?
People will try not to piss him off.

"No more dumb than all the existing churches."

Yes. MUCH dumber.
No. Not much dumber.

22604
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 01:09:54 PM »
We can consider these three different situations :
Yes. And I already did.
Guess what? The results support a rotating Earth.

Now, if we assume that the stars are stationary, by conducting our "Taking Long Exposure Photographs" experiment IN ALL THREE CASES we are going to yield THE SAME RESULT in a sense that IN ALL THREE ABOVE CASES star trails are going to go IN THE SAME DIRECTION. - I wont tell you which EXACT direction would that be since the true answer to this question you can find in one of my older videos "THE FLAT EARTH - THE STARS (A STAGGERING PROOF AGAINST THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH) " :
Yes. For this particular case we do. The stars appear to move west. And guess what? They do. But instead of accept that you claim it shows the stars moving west.


- However, if the earth is at rest the results will be as follows
3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion
No. This is because the star's westbound motion (which is actually Earth's eastbound motion) will overcome your local westbound motion, and thus the star will still appear to move in direction A.

The 2 options are equivalent.
You cannot distinguish them.


Option 1:
Earth rotates, stars stationary:
Earth rotates at 1000 mph east. Plane travels east or west at 500 mph relative to Earth, and thus travels at 1500 mph east or 500 mph east, both relative to the magic fixed frame and thus the stars appear to move 1500 mph west, or 500 mph west relative to the plane.

Option 2:
Earth stationary, stars move.
Star moves at 1000 mph west.
Plane travels east or west at 500 mph relative to the magic fixed earth.
Thus relative to the plane the star moves 1500 mph west or 500 mph west.

Do you notice how that is exactly the same?

So no, the case is far from closed.

(see my video)
No. Your video will likely just be more crap.
How about you address the points I have raised first?



STAR TRAILS XXX :
You have incorrectly indicated the source of the light (or where it is at the end).
As you move to the left, the light remains stationary and causes a trail to go to the right.
The simplest way to notice this is instead of taking a long-exposure, take 2 pictures.
In the second picture, the source of the light will be further right than in the first picture.
This produces a trail that is now to the left of the source, or if you note how the image builds up over time, the light starts at a point, and then smears to the right.

STAR TRAILS XXX 2 :
This produces the same as the above.
The light has now moved to the right, so the trail appears to lag behind to the left, or if you note how the image builds up over time, the light starts at a point, and then smears to the right.

It doesn't matter if you move or the light does. The result is the same, the light source appears to have a trail of light lagging behind it going to the left, or noting how the image builds up over time, the light starts at a point and then smears to the right.

In the first picture i have designated the VERY CENTER OF THE SOURCE OF LIGHT which is on THE LEFT SIDE (star trail goes to the right), and in the second picture i have also designated the VERY CENTER OF THE SOURCE OF LIGHT which is on THE RIGHT SIDE (star trail goes to the left)!
You are aware that makes no sense at all?
The light moved relative to the camera so there is no "center of the source of light"
In the first image, you indicated where the light started.
In the second you indicated where it finished.
So in both, the star trail goes the same way.
From the start it goes right. From the end it goes left.

Now i am going to quote myself once again (for the reason : i have to correct one error) :
Really?
Only one?
I found so many it isn't funny and you are yet to correct them.

- However, if the earth is at rest the results will be as follows :

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A"  (see my video)
3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for the different reason than in the 2. case (due to our local WESTBOUND motion) (see my video)

So, if there is something specific that you don't understand just ask (only you have to specify what EXACTLY you don't understand)...
Nope. That is still wrong. (The point I understand but you don't is relative motion. In this case it is why the star trails are directed in direction B (west) for the eastbound motion while it already moves west if we are stationary. You are saying if you move to make the relative speed greater, it magically changes direction, which makes no sense, however your clarification at point 3 makes it even more insane. If it was due to our westbound motion then it would be in an opposite direction to that of the stationary case where the star moves west relative to us).

I already explained what is wrong, but I will try again. If you don't understand, tell me exactly what you don't understand.
Lets start with the stationary w.r.t. Earth case:
2a - Earth is rotating 1000 mph east and the sun is "stationary". This means the sun is moving 1000 mph west relative to us.
2b - Earth is stationary and the sun is moving 1000 mph west. This means the sun is moving 1000 mph west relative to us.

Notice how this produces the same result?

Now lets consider a plane moving east at 500 mph relative to Earth:
1a - Earth is rotating 1000 mph, the plane moves at 500 mph relative to that, making its speed 1500 mph east relative to the stationary sun. This means that the sun is moving 1500 mph west relative to the plane.
1b - Earth is stationary, the plane is thus moving 500 mph east, while the sun is moving 1000 mph west. This means the relative speed of the sun, w.r.t. the plane is 1500 mph west.

Again, notice how they are the same?

Now the moving west.
1a - Earth is rotating 1000 mph, the plane moves at 500 mph relative to that, but in the opposite direction, making its speed 500 mph east relative to the stationary sun. This means that the sun is moving 500 mph west relative to the plane.
1b - Earth is stationary, the plane is thus moving 500 mph west, while the sun is moving 1000 mph west. This means the relative speed of the sun, w.r.t. the plane is 500 mph west.

Again, notice how they are the same?

In all three cases, you get the same result.

Are you going to tell me how even though the torch moved to the right, the numerous separate photos of it are as if it started further to the right than where it is now?
Yes! Amazing? Isn't it? The interesting part is that i didn't discover that result by chance, i came to such conclusion by pondering on this issue, then i tested my speculative inference by conducting the experiment, and the experiment proved that my IQ is really higher than 130, once again...sorry for that!
No. The only amazing part of it is that you believe such bullshit.
The experiment doesn't prove your IQ is higher than 130.
It shows you can't tell the difference between the start and end of the light.

Do it again, but this time with a twist, have a second light taped to the first, above it.
Do the experiment, but before turning off the camera, turn on the second light (have it off for the rest).
See if there is any difference then. You might need someone to help you.

Or, instead of taking a long exposure photo, take a video, and note the position of the light in pixels.
Or take a normal photo after the long exposure photo and not the position of the light in pixels.

All options will show you are wrong and are simply mislabelling the picture.

Would you like me to do an animation in openscad/povray or the like?

Accept that you messed up or you're going to force me to repeat your "experiment".
It seems that you wont believe it until you do repeat my experiment (without quotes)... Why quotes? Put that word between quotes after you conduct you own experiment and see for yourself that i didn't lie...O.K.?
It is in quotes because of how crappy your "experiment" is.
You have no way of knowing, just from the picture, if the light started at the left or right.
You have no way of knowing, just from the picture, if the movement is to the left or right.
This means your assumption that the light source finished on the left is just that, an assumption, and it is a false one. This means your conclusions are false as well (technically that alone just indicates your conclusions are baseless, but a proper analysis to make it a proper experiment, shows it is false).

Would you be happy with a simulation, or do you need a real life experiment?

22605
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:43:46 PM »
From this experiment, it looks to me we would see elongated star trails at night instead of circular star trails. Unless the notion is the stars are also being drug along with a rotating earth.
This just shows linear motion, not the rotation of Earth.
This would correspond to star trails near the equator (i.e. the stars directly "above" the equator, observed from the equator).

22606
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:13:24 PM »
Oh shit you're not joking. You're actually that pretentious.
No. I'm not pretentious. I'm just making a rational conclusion based upon the available evidence.

How about rather than being an arrogant self-righteous asshole you try explaining what is so pretentious about it?

Why are you doing this weird thing removing the "o" from God?
Do you also ask that to the Jews?
Basically, they don't think people should say God, so instead they change it so they don't actually say God. This is in part to make sure the word isn't destroyed, which would be considered blasphemous (and which happens every time you clear the cache on your computer, or it does it for you, when there is a page with "God" written on it).

And please don't create a new christian church, that will be dumb.
No more dumb than all the existing churches.

22607
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:08:41 PM »
No i'm not.  :-\

I'm ignoring only who is insulting me.

Show me when i ignored someone except proven him/her be a bastard.
You have ignored me repeatedly, and insulted me repeatedly.

I haven't been insulting you, just calling you out on your bullshit.

You haven't proven me to be a bastard.

Go back to the first page, and read my post on the actual theory behind this which shows that it will only push it up the tube to the height of the water in the main tank.

I told you that numbers can prove everything. With numbers you can do everything. A real proof is only an experiment. I know what will i do okey? Just wait, don't panic.  8)
Yes. You said that, but it simply isn't true.
Numbers don't let you magically do or prove anything.
You need to start from formulas that are based upon experiments and the like. We already have these, so we can determine that your experiment wont work from that.
We even have plenty of experiments which are simple demonstrations which show it won't work.

Every-time someone puts a straw in a drink, in a glass, they do this experiment.
The only time the fluid inside rises above the water level in the main tank is if there is some gas released inside the straw (but not the same extent outside).

So we already have real proof, in multiple forms. You just don't care about it. Why ignore these proofs?

Why not explain your theory more and tell me how high the water should be able to go?

Relax man, after my experiment you'll see what happens. Why so panic?
Again, we already know what will happen.
We aren't panicking.
We just expect you wont do it, or when it doesn't work you will think of some excuse for why it doesn't or just run away rather than admit you were wrong.

22608
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antartica now revealed
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:54:24 AM »
Jack, I don't know if you're a FE'r or not, but I quite like your willingness to debate, very rare in here so first off, respect to you for that
Thanks. I'm not a FEer. And I agree, finding people that will actually debate can be quite difficult.
I find most (at least of the FEers) will continue to assert the same thing and ignore any points you make.

my point regarding the difference between us and primates is the chromosomes.. ALL primates have 48, humans do NOT.. there's MANY differences

This is entirely circular.
You declare that humans are not primates, to then say all primates have 48, to then conclude humans can't be primates.
The simple fact is humans are primates. Primates do not all have 48 chromosomes.

think about all the stories of half man half horse, half man half bull etc.. maybe the aliens tried other animals first, but primates worked best? again, total guesswork, going off ancient texts and myths
Or maybe it was just man's nature to personify things and make them like people.
Do you really think aliens intelligent enough to travel through interstellar space would have screwed up that bad?
And primates are already very close to being human.
We aren't half gorilla half human, we are human.
If anything was going to be half gorilla half human it would be something like a chimp.

So it would be more along the lines of trying with a bunch of things, then just deciding fuck it we will just have a few stay here and for some reason be very close to these primates.

I'm not saying I'm sure about anything, no one can be, but certain things don't make sense and need further investigation.. if you've never seen the Lloyd Pye lectures, I suggest watching some, they're eye opening and explain things a lot better than I can
Maybe when I have more time.

22609
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:48:10 AM »
ok rotation is a constant acceleration (thanks for explaining that to me), but it doesn't change anything about the logic, only the terms
No. It makes a massive change.
It changes it so the objects stay moving together, to one object is no longer being accelerated and thus is not moving with the rest.

Jack, i don't understand how you agree that in a rotating/moving wagon (with constant acceleration, like on the earth), everything follows the movements of the train, but you can't apply it to a church or a building that has the exact same properties?

why don't you make the link?
I'm not agreeing with that.

I am saying in a wagon/train/whatever that is moving in a linear (NOT ROTATIONAL) motion, such that there is no acceleration will have everything following the movements.
That is not like Earth or a rotating building.

I am saying that if you have it accelerating, either simply speeding up/slowing down, or undergoing rotational motion, then things will not just magically bond, instead they need something to transfer that acceleration.
For the case of Earth rotating, we have gravity and physical contact with Earth, and the air.
In the case of a train rotating, we have physical contact and the air.
Sometimes physical contact isn't enough, and you fall over or fall/fly against the wall, like in a centrifuge. Fortunately, Earth is spinning far too slowly for that.
Air will only be enough for things with significant air resistance, things like butterflies, things that will stop moving relative to the air if they stop exerting energy.

So no, a pendulum moving with a rotating wagon/train/church/building/earth/whatever will not rotate with it.
It does not have anything "connecting" it in any significant way to cause it to precess.
If the air was going to be enough it would not be able to swing.

Even if the air was accelerating it, due to its back and forth motion, you will have serious issues about how it accelerates it.
The acceleration doesn't provide it with rotational momentum, it will provide it with linear momentum, which will then be combated on the other side, pushing it the other way, so it will trace out an ellipse (a very thin one).

22610
You already provided one where there is no noticeable delay.

are you joking? this is really the only one you have?
Well, I don't often have chats with people on the ISS, and as you have dismissed this one, I see no point in looking for others.


Quote
I did the math. Assuming a good set up, it has a delay of a few ms if I recall correctly.

you can do math on a lot of things, doesn't means it is reality
And you can dismiss the math for lots of things. That just means you are pathetic and grasping at straws. It doesn't mean you have an argument.

Like I said, tell me why there should be a delay and what the delay should be. Not based upon what is observed from crappy interviews which are delayed while talking to someone a few blocks away, the delay required for them being in space, roughly 400 km above Earth.

Can you do that, at all?

22611
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:38:27 AM »
don't you wonder why in the OT G-D was exactly the opposite of the NT ?

is just pure luck? or is there a pattern there?

Are you seriously implying a cosmic goodcop badcop thing? Or did you just suggest the Abrahamic god (the god of the old testament that the big three religions all worship) is actually the infernal prince?

Honestly I missed the meaning there.

well it's all new theology, no wonder you can't attach it to anything existing. In the next few years i will create a new Christian church based on these teachings. Iknow it sounds cocky, but G-d willing this is exactly what will happen

So you are basically suggesting what I was already saying, that Jesus is actually Satan or working with him, and God is the bad one?

22612
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:37:11 AM »
I do not speak empty. I show the theory, and I will do the experiment.

Sit back and watch the show. Stand by just a few days...
You do speak empty.
You are all bark and no bite.
Your theory is pathetic.
I have told you why it is wrong. Explaining it quite simply.
I have provided a link to an experiment showing it is wrong.

This is already quite well known.

No i'm not.

Yes you are. You are yet to provide the theory which shows that water will flow up the tube above the level of water in the tank. You just assert it.

Just like always, you spout pure bullshit and ignore anyone that calls you out on it or proves you wrong.

22613
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:50:09 AM »
Yes sure! but since the sun is about 93,000,000 miles away and any stars much further than that, what will it show?

Naught!

cikljamas doesn't understand the simplest bit of astronomy, so he thinks that this proves that the earth is flat.

Well, no it doesn't, it just proves that "cikljamas doesn't understand the simplest bit of astronomy.,"

It shows a lot more than you think, depending on what you notice from the picture/video/whatever.

At the equator that 1000 mph makes everything appear to move 15 degrees because it is rotation, not just translation.
Slowing it down to 500 mph makes it only move 7.5 degrees an hour.
Speeding it up to 1500 mph makes it move 22.5 degrees an hour.

22614
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Infinitive energy (Alternative)
« on: December 20, 2016, 12:47:48 AM »
I do not speak empty. I show the theory, and I will do the experiment.

Sit back and watch the show. Stand by just a few days...
You do speak empty.
You are all bark and no bite.
Your theory is pathetic.
I have told you why it is wrong. Explaining it quite simply.
I have provided a link to an experiment showing it is wrong.

This is already quite well known.

22615
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane
« on: December 19, 2016, 11:41:11 PM »

Anton Levey started the church of satan. He also wrote the satanic bible and coined Atheistic satanism and was a devout Atheist, you might actually enjoy the book.

I disagree with his approach to magick and karmic law but still a worthwhile read. He does use "Satan" as a figurehead in his rituals much like someone who practices chaos magick uses a chosen deity to help them summon magickal energy.

You seem pretty well read on philosophy I am surprised you missed it to be honest.

Like you say, no one would actually worship what they consider "evil"

There is one group who believes Satan (the deity) is the ruler of earth and God (deity) is the ruler of heaven and all forgiving, thus they try to please Satan while on the earth thinking that God will forgive them no matter what they do.

Pretty weird tbh.

I belive in one God, doesn't leave room for lesser deitys, that's just my opinion, I often think that (trigger warning) "satan" was created by the church as a method of control, actually the more history I read the more I am convinced.

Sorry for the spiritual rant.

It may just be a difference in understanding.
Like I said, for me to consider someone as a satanist, they need to follow Satan in some way, not just think he is the good one.

Personally, I think it makes more sense that people invented gods for control and Satan/original sin to explain why the world was so crap.

22616
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shap of the dome.
« on: December 19, 2016, 11:39:25 PM »
This might be true for lines. For surfaces it is possible to calculate the curvature independently of coordinates (called sectional curvature). Basically you can do it by comparing the radius of a circle with its circumference (assuming constant curvature). It is not necessarily true that a nonuclidean earth is not flat, there exist surfaces apart from a plane which have zero curvature. (You could make a donut-shaped flat earth for example, but I doubt anyone argues for that)
That is a way of determining what kind of space you are in.
In Euclidean geometry, you have a curvature of 0.
In spherical geometry, you have a positive curvature.
In hyperbolic geometry, you have a negative curvature.
For a donuts it will depend on exactly where you are and how large the circle is.
On the outside it will be positive, on the inside it will be negative, and in some places it will be 0.

But this describes the space itself, not objects in that space.

Lines in spherical geometry when viewed from a Euclidean perspective curve. That doesn't mean they are not straight lines in spherical geometry.

Similarly, in some non-Euclidena 3D space (like the one I suggested) it would be possible to have a surface which is curved when viewed from a Euclidean perspective, but which is still flat for that geometry.

22617
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: Ariane
« on: December 19, 2016, 10:41:14 PM »
That is an atheistic satanist.

Doesn't believe in either but believes satan is a better role model than the god of the bible.
I thought a Satanist was meant to be a follower of Satan, for the atheistic ones a member of the church of Satan?

22618
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 19, 2016, 10:38:48 PM »
And like many people have pointed out, the exact same rules apply inside moving objects, including planes and ships.

To avoid the issue of contact with the ground, you will need to jump rather than simply walk, or you can use a paper plane.
But people are fine to move back and forth and even jump in a plane, even though their walking speed (or jumping speed), is much much much less than that of the plane.

If what you are saying is true, and inertia is magically cancelled by being in an atmosphere, the instant you jump on a plane mid-flight, you would be thrown straight to the back of the plane as you remain stationary while the plane moves at 500 mph.

A boeing 747-400 has a total length of 70.66 m and a cruise speed of 933 km/hr, so 3358.8 m/s.
This means it would take all of 0.02 seconds for you to smash against the back of the plane.
But that never happens. Instead you (or your plane) keep your momentum.

If you throw a plane with a parachute to slow it down it will still keep its momentum, but be slowed down (relative to the plane) by the air on the plane. It will work equally going forwards and backwards.

Now how about you quit with the dishonest ignorant bullshit and try to explain that in your bullshit model or just accept reality?

22619
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 19, 2016, 10:27:18 PM »
If you understand heliocentric model then you should know that according to that model the helicopter have to keep up STARTING INERTIA in order to stay above the certain point from which the helicopter took off, THIS IS THE BASIC HELIOCENTRIC ASSUMPTION : KEEPING UP STARTING INERTIA!!! ALL FLYING OBJECTS PRESERVE THEIR STARTING INERTIA ALL THE TIME (NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY STAY IN AIR, NO MATTER IN WHICH DIRECTION THEY FLY)!

IS IT SO, OR IS IT NOT SO?
No. This is just your ignorance/dishonest misrepresentation.
Inertia is kept unless a force acts upon it to change it.
For a plane, their engines provide a force. A force which causes them to speed up, increasing velocity if travelling eastbound, or slow down, reducing velocity when travelling westbound.
So no, they don't magically keep their momentum (keeping their inertia makes no sense) all the time. Unless by maintain it, you mean they don't just magically loose that speed/momentum, in which case it is true and there is no issue.
(For both, they have lift and gravity affecting their momentum to keep them at the same altitude).

The problem is that maintaining starting inertia actually means this : Your basic-starting speed (1000 m/h) stays the same! All your calculations have to take into account that basic-starting speed!
In which case there is no issue at all as long as you remember that Earth keeps moving as well, it doesn't magically stop because the plane takes off.

If airplane flies 500 miles per hour westbound and the earth turns (above the equator) 1000 miles/h eastbound, then according to the law of INERTIA such airplane wouldn't be able to fly towards WEST AT ALL, since any attempt TO FLY TOWARDS WEST 500 miles/h would actually end up as moving eastbound at the same rate : 500 miles/hour (since 1000 - 500 = 500), that is to say such airplane would proceed TOWARDS EAST against the will of those who tried to direct it westbound BECAUSE YOUR BASIC-STARTING SPEED IS STILL 1000 M/H TOWARDS EAST, AND YOUR LOCAL SPEED (THE SPEED OF AN AIRCRAFT) IS ONLY 500 M/H...SO FINAL RESULT IS THAT YOU ACTUALLY FLY TOWARDS EAST 500 M/H, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE TRYING TO FLY TOWARDS WEST!

Can it be simpler than this?
No. It can't be simpler. So why are you failing to understand what this means?
It means you are flying 500 mph east, while the Earth below you is travelling at 1000 mph east. That means the earth below will overtake you, and thus relative to it, you will move west.

A nice simple pair of examples, you want to fly from one location to 500 miles east. You take off, with your initial speed of 1000 mph and speed up to an additional 500 mph, making your speed 1500 mph east.
After 1 hour, you have travelled 1500 miles east.
But Earth below you has travelled 1000 miles east, as has the point you were flying to.
This means the point you wanted to go to, which had a 500 mile head start, is now 1500 miles east of your starting position. In the hour, you also travelled to 1500 miles east of your starting position. Now, both you and your destination are at the same point. So you flew to a point which started 500 miles east of your position in an hour.
Now try going west (so to a point 500 miles to your west):
You start heading west, with your initial speed of 1000 mph and gain 500 mph in the westerly direction, meaning you are not travelling 500 mph east.
But Earth below you continues to move at 1000 mph.
This means after 1 hour, you have moved 500 miles to the east.
Your destination started out 500 miles west, and has travelled 1000 miles eastward, making it 500 miles east of your starting position, once again, putting you and your destination in the same spot.
As such, you flew "to the west" with no problem at all.

Perhaps you can try explaining what you think the issue is?

We should take a long (in fact not too long) exposure photograph (of some star or of the sun) from an airplane which flies eastbound (1500 m/h total velocity) and from an airplane which flies westbound (500 m/h total velocity).
1.5 km/hr is a very slow speed. Did you mean miles instead of m?
 
If we set all parameters on both cameras equally then the result which we would see in the pictures that were to be taken from both cameras would be the same if the earth is at rest.

If the earth is spinning then the results would be drastically different since the difference between the speeds at which both cameras flew while taking these pictures would be 1000 m/h.
No. We don't need a long exposure photograph. A video would do fine.
Even something like just looking at things before and after would be fine, or the 2 locations.
You said the sun, fine, use the sun.
(note: I'm not picking a flight. I'm just giving a result of what would happen on a hypothetical flight. The results are the same regardless of if the flight is real).
Lets use a point near the equator, say Kisangani, Orientale, Democratic Republic of the Congo, on the 21st of March, at 10 am UTC. The sun is pretty much directly overhead. It has an altitude of 89.87 degrees.
Now, lets take a 2 hour flight, travelling at 500 mph east or west, so that would be 1000 miles away, and 2 hours later.
So, going east, this puts us near Spaju, Wajir County, Kenya, roughly 1021 miles east. The sun has moved to an altitude of 45.23 degrees (remember, it is 2 hours later).
What about the 2 hour flight west? This puts us near Anzem, Gabon. The sun has moved to an altitude of 74.70 degrees.

That isn't the same. And in both cases the sun moved towards the west.
The difference to Anzem is 15.27 degrees. The difference to Spaju is 44.74. That is roughly 3 times the difference, almost like you moved 3 times the distance (with both moving to the east)....
Meanwhile, Kisangani has moved to 60 degrees, so a difference of 30, twice that of the flight to Anzem.
It seems like you move 15 degrees for every 1000 miles you travel (at the equator).
On flying to Anzem (speed, 500 mph), you flew 1000 miles and thus the sun dropped 15 degrees.
By staying put in Kisangani (speed 1000 mph), you travelled 2000 miles and the sun dropped 30 degrees.
On flying to Spaju (speed 15000 mph), you travelled 3000 miles and the sun dropped 45 degrees.

So an experiment which matches the expected results for a spinning globe Earth.

But of course, you will dismiss it, claiming Earth is at rest and the sun is travelling those 1000 miles (or 15 degrees) per hour.
That is the problem with experiments like these and why they are pointless. You can't tell from this alone if it is Earth moving or the object you are watching.

This is just one another example of the simple experiment which noone is going to perform in near future, since every sane person knows by now that the earth is at rest!!!
No. It is another simple experiment no one has bothered to do because there is no need for it and even without it we can see that Earth is not at rest.
And the results don't tell you dishonest flat earthers anything, as you just ignore them/reinterpret them.

The prosperity of heliocentrism was ceased a by talented objection, that all dropped objects should land behind their starting positions because the turning Earth leaves them behind. Unfortunately, the objection of the talented people was refuted because of a dead law in air atmosphere – the law of inertia.
Inertia has nothing to do with the air. That isn't a talented objection, it is one of ignorance.

The law of inertia cannot be applied in air atmosphere under any conditions. Galileo demanded that, the law of inertial is valid only in the absence of air.
Pure bullshit.
Inertia is valid everywhere.
What you need to note is that in the presence of air, velocity relative to that air will result in a force affecting your momentum.
That doesn't mean inertia magically doesn't exist, it simply means there is another force.

he will realize that the airplane is ahead of him and he is left behind in air because the inertial motion is terminated by the presence of air.
No. It isn't terminated. Both him and the plane are experiencing a force from the air pushing against them due to their relative speed in the air. This results in them being slowed down. The plane has engines to combat this.

Argue or not, it is well-known fact since the ancient civilizations. In the presence of air atmosphere, the law of inertia does not function. If you threw an object aloft several meters, it will come back to your hand; not because of the law of inertia but because the Earth is stationary.
No. It isn't a fact.
The law holds.
It comes back to you because of inertia and the absence of other (significant) forces.

Let's use my favorite airplane flight example to crunch this "original motion" factor. Yes, a plane could be said to be rotating at the 600 mph speed of O'Hare airport in Chicago when it departed. And then, as the plane left the surface of the ground, it separated from what was its obvious "engine" or "original motion carrying force" and was definitely running head on into major drag, the air. Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.
No. You don't need an engine or original motion carrying force. The object keeps the same speed unless another force acts upon it.

Yes, when it takes off it runs head on (notice, never tail on, as you would imply from your bullshit for a westbound flight) into major drag due to it moving relative to the atmosphere. But it has engines to compensate, otherwise it wouldn't be able to move at all.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going?
It doesn't need anything to keep it going. That is how inertia works. Until a force acts upon it, it will keep it.

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas. (Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)
Do you understand anything about physics at all?
Yes. It is a gas. That means it is composed of a bunch of tiny particles flying around at high speed bumping into things.
If you are travelling to the right relative to the gas (as a whole, no the individual particles), then you will have more particles hit you per unit time on the right than on the left. This results in a net force pushing you to the left.
But it is a finite force that doesn't just stop the plane from moving.

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion"
No one gives a shit because that is pure fantasy. The plane will maintains its "original motion" until a force acts to strip it of it.
So no, it won't lose it entirely because it uses its engines to slow down a bit and fight the drag from travelling relative to the atmosphere.

is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below. And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.
Only if it goes into space and keeps on boosting away.
In the atmosphere it has the atmosphere of Earth, rotating with Earth, continually pushing against it trying to keep it matched to the rotation of Earth.


22620
Flat Earth Debate / Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« on: December 19, 2016, 10:15:49 PM »
Nice post.

These yahoos are not going to understand. They will remain blindfully ignorant to anything you post. They will trot out all the BS analogies. They will ignore the fact the car is moving + the rotation and the will try and trot out, "imagine you are in..." argument.

Good work. Goes along quite nicely with the "Catching up with the Sun," video.
You seem to have left out quoting one of the rational people trying to remove cikljamas from his wilful ignorance and unwillingness to understand.
According to his argument, the ball couldn't possible stop, it needs to keep moving with the car.

A stationary Earth explains the OP video, no problem.
Almost any Earth explains the OP video.
As long as it isn't accelerating by something which acts solely on Earth instead of all the objects on Earth, and it isn't spinning at extremely fast rates, it is explained.
So a moving, rotating, orbiting Earth explains the OP just as well as a stationary one.

Pages: 1 ... 752 753 [754] 755 756 ... 767