Flight Times

when i google north pole flight paths, it appears that there is land at the north pole from a couple of the videos. I was always under the impression that it was water that where the north pole is.

Are you sure it's land? There is an awful lot of floating sea ice in that area. In fact, there's enough to drive on, if you're keen/mad enough!

As for your ball experiment, it's not really representative of what is going on at all, sorry.

well the videos that dont depict the north pole from a satellite appear to be land or weird ice formation.
And my bball experiment I thought was similar to the earth rotating. Earth is supposedly a sphere or ball-shaped and spins in 1 directions. And spins at a certain speed (1000mph) roughly, and like i said earlier i dont understand why it doesnt just keep spinning and go faster and faster since there isnt any friction to slow it down.  But could you explain to me where my bball experiment differs from reality. If i need to look up something let me know and ill research it. But otherwise i dont see where i am missing the picture.     

To constantly accelerate its rotation, the Earth would require a constant supply of energy. There is no such energy supply so it pretty much maintains its current speed. This is pretty off topic though.

To constantly accelerate its rotation, the Earth would require a constant supply of energy. There is no such energy supply so it pretty much maintains its current speed. This is pretty off topic though.

That is like me saying that in order for gravity to constantly accelerate and pull us down, it requires a constant energy supply.  However, the energy for gravity is said to be magical and comes from no where.  You can not dismiss one without dismissing the other. 

The ice in the Arctic Ocean does create some pretty wild formations, so that is most likely what you are looking at in those videos.

The points where your ball demonstration falls down are as follows:
- It is not to scale. Your model planes are too big relative to the ball.
- The ball is rotating in an atmosphere, which does not move with the ball, whereas the earth's atmosphere is dragged around with it as it rotates.
- Your model planes do not propel themselves relative to an atmosphere which is bound by friction and gravity to the ball, whereas real planes do.

You're right in saying there is no drag or friction being applied to the rotating earth, and this is why the atmosphere can move with the earth the way it does. The part where you are confused is thinking that the earth would accelerate in it's rotation. This would require an external force to be applied to the earth in a manner to increase it's rotation speed, which there isn't.

Does that help?

To constantly accelerate its rotation, the Earth would require a constant supply of energy. There is no such energy supply so it pretty much maintains its current speed. This is pretty off topic though.

Well maybe, but if there is no true representation of the earth it would stand to reason that making a map of it would be difficult.  Why would it need energy to accelerate if its already moving and i was taught that since there is no friction there is nothing to stop it from going faster and faster. Also I dont understand how it can maintain a constant speed.  And I dont understand why the earth would need a constant supply of energy let alone what kind of energy are you referring 2? Like rocket fuel?  What made it spin in the first place? And so I dont understand any of the points you made and they dont seem to follow basic understanding I have been taught in public..

Quote from: Rama Set on September 07, 2013, 04:45:17 AM

To constantly accelerate its rotation, the Earth would require a constant supply of energy. There is no such energy supply so it pretty much maintains its current speed. This is pretty off topic though.

That is like me saying that in order for gravity to constantly accelerate and pull us down, it requires a constant energy supply.  However, the energy for gravity is said to be magical and comes from no where.  You can not dismiss one without dismissing the other.

Awesome challenge Jroa thank you!

I am no expert, but I read on the CERN website that interactions with gravitational fields like photon red-shifting provides energy. I imagine there could be other sources of energy to the field as well. This conservation of energy can apparently be demonstrated by Noether's theorem. Here is the link I was reading:

http://www.lhcportal.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=581

I don't think there is any mechanism that would drive the acceleration of the Earth's rotation upwards.

I will say though that I will probably never ask about energy requirements for UA again, since there is no reason it could not be provided energy in a similar fashion.

Ok are you ready for relevance of my posting? You are asking the FE's why the flight patterns dont match the representation of there FE maps. You give examples of how flight patterns would take longer or shorter to get to certain destination according to certain Fe maps. And you waited patiently for answer and havent got one yet. Well I ask you to explain the discrepancy in the flight patters that arises when you have airplanes that fly above  sphere that spins in 1 direction . You just say that my example is not true to how things are, well I dont think any less of your argument than i do any more of it.  I think what they are saying is its pretty irrelevant to think that a lack of an explanation to your question in a post doesnt take away from there theory. But i would like to know off hand how I can get a understanding of where i am wrong with my bball experiment. I worked hard on that. But anyways you do produce some very valid points and I say that this world has alot of mystery to it and I will take your point of view in consideration. please excuse more poor grammar , english is my 2nd language

I don't think there is any mechanism that would drive the acceleration of the Earth's rotation upwards.

I will say though that I will probably never ask about energy requirements for UA again, since there is no reason it could not be provided energy in a similar fashion.

I don't know what you mean by Earth's rotation upwards.  Care to explain? 

Quote from: Rama Set on September 07, 2013, 04:45:17 AM

To constantly accelerate its rotation, the Earth would require a constant supply of energy. There is no such energy supply so it pretty much maintains its current speed. This is pretty off topic though.

That is like me saying that in order for gravity to constantly accelerate and pull us down, it requires a constant energy supply.  However, the energy for gravity is said to be magical and comes from no where.  You can not dismiss one without dismissing the other.

Let me put it using a simple term for you. Try to imagine gravity like magnetism. No extra energy is required to keep magnetism. It is just its nature. As simple as that.

well the videos that dont depict the north pole from a satellite appear to be land or weird ice formation.
And my bball experiment I thought was similar to the earth rotating. Earth is supposedly a sphere or ball-shaped and spins in 1 directions. And spins at a certain speed (1000mph) roughly, and like i said earlier i dont understand why it doesnt just keep spinning and go faster and faster since there isnt any friction to slow it down.  But could you explain to me where my bball experiment differs from reality. If i need to look up something let me know and ill research it. But otherwise i dont see where i am missing the picture.   

Why would Earth spin faster? A basket ball cannot spin faster on its own. It can only spin slower due to friction. Earth doesn't have friction.

Fair enough I will try and explain.

Well maybe, but if there is no true representation of the earth it would stand to reason that making a map of it would be difficult.  Why would it need energy to accelerate if its already moving and i was taught that since there is no friction there is nothing to stop it from going faster and faster.

It is true that there is nothing to resist a potential acceleration of the Earth however, according to Newtonian mechanics, it does take energy to change the direction and/or velocity of something. For example, when my son is swinging, if he wants to go higher I have to provide energy by pushing him. The force required will be directly tied to the amount of mass of the object, and the amount if resistance. There is nothing substantial resisting the Earth's motion but it has a lot of mass.

Also I dont understand how it can maintain a constant speed.

Energy is also required to slow something down otherwise an object will continue moving in the way it was moving. There is no energy to resist the Earth's rotation so it continues to rotate.

  And I dont understand why the earth would need a constant supply of energy let alone what kind of energy are you referring 2? Like rocket fuel?  What made it spin in the first place? And so I dont understand any of the points you made and they dont seem to follow basic understanding I have been taught in public..

Kinetic energy would probably be the most likely candidate. Maybe a massive asteroid?  The sun exploding?  The Earth's spin was imparted a long time ago as it was forming and has been conserved for billions of years for the reasons I mentioned above.

I hope this helps.

Well I ask you to explain the discrepancy in the flight patters that arises when you have airplanes that fly above  sphere that spins in 1 direction .

Imagine you are in a bus moving in a straight line at a constant speed 50mph. How do you move from the front to the back side of the bus? Can you move to the back side of the bus by just jumping up?

Quote from: Rama Set on September 07, 2013, 05:26:32 AM

I don't think there is any mechanism that would drive the acceleration of the Earth's rotation upwards.

I will say though that I will probably never ask about energy requirements for UA again, since there is no reason it could not be provided energy in a similar fashion.

I don't know what you mean by Earth's rotation upwards.  Care to explain?

Sorry. I meant driving the magnitude of the Earth's acceleration increases, not a change of direction or something. Here is another link explaining the conservation of energy of a moving body in a gravitational field:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy121/lecturenotes/Chapter08/Chapter8.html#Heading5

Jroa:

"Maintaining" a force does not consume energy. Moving something against a force requires energy.

From http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=682601

This thread isn't even about gravity, its about real life examples of where aircraft fly.

The most efficient routes are depicted near the start of this thread and what I'm asking the FE'ers is why aren't they straight across the earth in a way a FE'er would expect? My answer would be "its because the earth is a sphere" and I want a FE'er to prove me wrong with some respectable science.

From what I've seen they can't because they're trolls who are just on this website for a wind up.

What I'm trying to show is that the real life examples that FE'ers say are empirical and are better than calculated theory, actually show in this case that the earth can't possibly be flat.

 

On qantas.com.au one can book flight from Sydney to Santiago (Chile). It goes through Auckland (NZ).
According to timetable on flightradar24.com planes from Auckland to Santiago fly every day 16:15 NZST - 12:35 CLT (12 hrs). The code of flight is QF321.
The problem is that this flight is probably virtual, I have never seen any plane going this way over south pacific.

On qantas.com.au one can book flight from Sydney to Santiago (Chile). It goes through Auckland (NZ).
According to timetable on flightradar24.com planes from Auckland to Santiago fly every day 16:15 NZST - 12:35 CLT (12 hrs). The code of flight is QF321.
The problem is that this flight is probably virtual, I have never seen any plane going this way over south pacific.

The 'flight is probably virtual'?   Qantas operate a direct flight between Australia and Chile that does NOT go through Auckland. I should know, I'm an air traffic controller based in Christchurch, New Zealand that handles these flights as they cross through our controlled airspace.  So actually, there is no problem at all.  Sorry to debunk your claim so easily.

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

Quote from: jroa on August 13, 2013, 10:27:59 AM

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

Every "round Earth map" I have seen if flat. 

Quote from: chtwrone on September 04, 2015, 01:05:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 13, 2013, 10:27:59 AM

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

Every "round Earth map" I have seen if flat.

Most round earth maps I've seen have creases.....

Quote from: chtwrone on September 04, 2015, 01:05:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 13, 2013, 10:27:59 AM

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

Every "round Earth map" I have seen if flat.

Every "round Earth map" I have seen is flat. Very true ! It was made that way from a projection of the globe. There is usually a notation on the map of which projection was used in the making of that particular map. You can fold up one of these maps. That's why you see creases in them as Mainframes pointed out. Lot easier than carrying around a globe.

I have never seen a "flat earth map" made from a "flat earth map." Why not ?  Because there is  no "flat earth map" to make a copy of a "flat earth map." LOL. It's not "a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard." It is apparently too hard to make an accurate flat earth map when you don't have a flat earth to begin with.

PS-Here is some more ammunition for the FES. They need all the help they can get. I am glad to supply this. :
Have you ever wondered why all you see in class rooms are Globes ? Why there is never a flat earth map on a stand ? The answer is simple. "The Round Earth Conspiracy" stole all the flat earth maps and replaced them with Globes to hide the truth that the earth is flat. Just one more example of the conspiracy.

Quote from: chtwrone on September 04, 2015, 01:05:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 13, 2013, 10:27:59 AM

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

Every "round Earth map" I have seen if flat.

A round earth map is produced on a suitably flat surface, ie a paper map, for ease of carrying, or folding into a smaller space. Did you not realise this? Or do you think every round earth map, should be reproduced on a globe, which doesn't fit into a small space too well?

Quote from: jroa on September 04, 2015, 03:31:21 AM

Quote from: chtwrone on September 04, 2015, 01:05:02 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 13, 2013, 10:27:59 AM

I thought I gave an answer???

I would have thought that a very accurate flat earth map would have been produced by now. Why is it that a round earth map can be produced with great accuracy, but a seemingly simple task of producing a map of the flat earth is apparently too hard?

A round earth map is produced on a suitably flat surface, ie a paper map, for ease of carrying, or folding into a smaller space. Did you not realise this? Or do you think every round earth map, should be reproduced on a globe, which doesn't fit into a small space too well?

Every "round Earth map" I have seen if flat.

How hard is it to explain to flat earthers that "round earth maps" are flat because they were made from orojections of a globe. Do flat earthers even know the meaning of "map projections." ?

Example.: One of the so-called flat earth maps of the entire earth - the one with the north pole at the center and the so-called "ice ring" around the rim is simply the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. Look it up, flat earthers.