I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor

  • 89 Replies
  • 16952 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2015, 06:04:54 AM »
I know how reference frames work.

No, you obviously don't.

"Since the surface of the Earth, the aircraft, and the air are all traveling in the same direction at the same speed, there's no relative motion between them, so no airflow above and below the airplane's wings, so the airplane's wings can develop no lift. How does it stay aloft?"

Basically everyone I conversed with said the same thing, a jet plane would not have enough lift to leave the runway and fly above the Earth the same speed as the supposedly spinning Earth, (1000mph). Their belief is the plane would fall out of the sky because they wouldn't be going fast enough to out spin the Earth, so it would fall.

Yep. That would be a plane sitting on a runway. It is "going" 1000mph because the ground is moving that fast (you know, that whole spinning globe thing), but obviously it can't fly without moving forward.

Now my problem is I know that some jets can fly 1000mph, and probly fly W->E going that speed and never or very very seldom fall from the sky.

Yep planes can fly if they move forward. But as soon as a plane moves forward, it's not going 1000mph anymore *shock*.
If the ground is going 1000 mph (you know, that whole spinning globe thing), and your F-14 is going 1000mph FASTER than the ground, (Groundspeed: the horizontal speed of an aircraft relative to the ground), how fast is your F-14 really going? Hint, it's not 1000mph.
.
.
.
Examples
Here is a plane going 1000 mph:


Here is a plane going faster than 1000 mph (pretend it's going W->E):

Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen.

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2015, 07:04:56 AM »
If a plane flies at 500mph west to east then it is travelling at 500mph relative to the surface of the earth. What is important to note is that the aircraft would still be rotating around the centre of the earth at 500mph east to west.

We are surface beings and therefore pretty much everything do is done using the surface of the earth is a point of measurement.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2015, 07:32:13 AM »

Thanks for your support. I pride my reasoning skills with many years of being a design engineer.
You're an engineer?  So all this shit is just play acting, and you do understand stuff like frames of reference?

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2015, 07:55:23 AM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2015, 08:18:31 AM »

Thanks for your support. I pride my reasoning skills with many years of being a design engineer.
You're an engineer?  So all this shit is just play acting, and you do understand stuff like frames of reference?



Morning Jimmy,

Let's say my past over 30 some years have neen as an electrical engineer and a whole lot of mechanical designing. I'm retired now. I'd love to say I'm play acting, but I'm not. The truth of the matter is I just accepted what I was taught so I could pass the tests. I never really thought about physics much only what I needed studing electronics. When I came to this site, I couldn't believe people actually believed the Earth was flat and not spinning. The further I got into it I began to believe there was some merit to all what I read and you know the rest. Tell me Jimmy, do you ever question things you were taught and later belive that can't be true and don't mention it to other people because yuo may be ridiculed ?

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2015, 08:58:59 AM »

Thanks for your support. I pride my reasoning skills with many years of being a design engineer.
You're an engineer?  So all this shit is just play acting, and you do understand stuff like frames of reference?



Morning Jimmy,

Let's say my past over 30 some years have neen as an electrical engineer and a whole lot of mechanical designing. I'm retired now. I'd love to say I'm play acting, but I'm not.
You're either lying about being an engineer, or your lying about play acting - you can't have it both ways.

Quote
I never really thought about physics
Then you haven't being doing engineering.

Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2015, 09:02:44 AM »

Thanks for your support. I pride my reasoning skills with many years of being a design engineer.
You're an engineer?  So all this shit is just play acting, and you do understand stuff like frames of reference?

Not necessarily,   I've worked with electrical engineers who are as dumb as a bag of rocks outside their narrow area of training,  the military training is especially so,  you follow strict fault finding and repair procedures.  Most of the time those board jockeys don't need a brain.    Yendor is sadly one of "those".   

We should have done a fault finding flow chart,  he could probably have followed that..


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2015, 09:17:46 AM »
Well, Yendor had enough brains to notice that the wiring on the ISS (hairspray lol!) wouldn't pass muster in a 3rd-world brothel.

Which is a detail that you somehow neglected to observe, 'evil' Edna (lol!); so I'd say he's definitely a bit sharper on the uptake than yourself.

Now; you got owt to add to any thread, anywhere, ever, that isn't a sneering & unfunny ad-hom or blatant time-wasting derailment attempt?

& Yendor: welcome.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2015, 09:23:57 AM »
Well, Yendor had enough brains to notice that the wiring on the ISS (hairspray lol!) wouldn't pass muster in a 3rd-world brothel.

He hasn't got your family background in third world brothels.    In any case BiJane is kicking your ass over in the other thread.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2015, 09:32:23 AM »
How about you think about how the following things wound be possible on a flat Earth:

  • The southern celestial pole
  • Midnight Sun in Antarctica
  • Sunsets
  • Everyone seeing the Moon from the same angle
  • Boats disappearing below the horizon
  • Seeing the International Space Station flying overhead
  • Satellite communications
  • The constant angular distance between stars

I could go on.

Mr. Mikeman,

I appreciate your time asking me all these questions. However, I simply don't know all the answers to your questions yet and I may never know. I'm taking it one step at a time. I have studied satellites and I half way believe the function of satellites could be accomplished other ways. Just the fact the atmospher has alot of other properties no one mentions. I've been out of the RF world for a while, but the way satellites work really has me wondering. I'm still researching this.

Yendor

The reason aerodynamics is something few people know about is because it's incredibly complicated and it doesn't have many practical applications for the average person.  I have done a bit of research on the topic and it makes orbital physics look easy.  The functions of satellites can be done by ground based towers, but those towers have a very limited range and when covering a large area it's often cheaper and easier to launch just a few satellites into orbit to do it rather then build hundreds of towers.  If you have any questions about satellites, space travel, or round Earth in general feel free to ask me.

Mikeman,

Thank you for being so kind. I would like to talk with you about Iridum satellite system. I've never used one of these satellite phones and I'm having trouble accepting how they work. Maybe you can help me.

1. There are around sixity-six satellites orbit around the Earth.
2. They are approximately 485 mi above the Earth.
3. Orbital velocity of the satellites is approximately 17,000 mph
4. 1616.0 to 1626.5 MHz is the operating frequency
5 The average and peak RF transmitted powers are 0.6W and 7W, of the hand held phones respectively.

My question to you is, do you find it suspicious you can talk to a satellite almost 500 miles away, (that is if it is directly overhead), witha measly 0.6Watts, on average, of RF power and having to go through the atmosphere. Not even thinking about the satellite moving 17,000mph.

I remember I used a data transmitter that was coupled to a 5Watt average power amplifier on a UAV and we could only fly out no more then fifty miles or so before we would lose signal. This is nothing compared to satellite phone. By the was, Th e radio and amplifier were not cheap units. They were only sold of military purposes. All this took place only a few years ago. They still sell the same equipment today.

I would just like to here your thoughts on this stuff.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2015, 09:34:06 AM »
Rayzor: No she isn't; in fact she just admitted that rockets DO push on an outside mass.

LOL!!!

You really do have no connection to reality at all, do you?

Mr. Thought-Policeman troll.

Anyway, enough spamming Yendor's thread; bye-bye, Edna!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2015, 09:54:47 AM »
Jimmy an Rayzor,

Good afternoon fellows. You guys are really mean spirited. I bet you both bite yourselves in the mirror each morning. To keep it simple, what I meant about physics, I was refering to Earth stuff. You know most of the same stuff we discuss on this forum. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Are we better now or are you going to keep on ridiculing me. I'd like to get on with some more Earth's mysteries.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2015, 10:05:11 AM »
Jimmy an Rayzor,

Good afternoon fellows. You guys are really mean spirited. I bet you both bite yourselves in the mirror each morning. To keep it simple, what I meant about physics, I was refering to Earth stuff. You know most of the same stuff we discuss on this forum. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Are we better now or are you going to keep on ridiculing me. I'd like to get on with some more Earth's mysteries.

Yendor

No problem here,   I'm happy to answer your questions as best I can.    I thought you were just playing dumb before,  I'm still not convinced. 

The iridium link budget is a simple calculation of free space path losses,  it's a LOS system.  All you need to know is the transmit power and receiver sensitivity,  maybe allow a few db for rain and antenna alignment.  I'm sure you could find the link budget calculations on line if you were really interested.   

The UAV control range issue you raised is simply a case of knowing what frequencies are being used and look at the propagation characteristics of those frequencies.   If it was VHF or more likely UHF,   even with gain antennas  you won't get reliably much past line of sight,  sometimes atmospheric ducting can extend propagation for VHF to hundreds of miles.   There are few ionospheric modes that work with VHF UHF, sporadic E is one,  but very rare.    So simply put, your UAV flew over the horizon and out of range.


PS  Iridium Link Budget  http://ijltet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/12.pdf
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 10:11:29 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2015, 10:08:20 AM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.

A plane speedometer works by measuring the speed of the air going passed it, so if it's staying still relative to the air it would always read 0.  The air spins with the Earth because the air's friction with the ground and it's self causes it to accelerate while there is no force causing it to slow down.  The Earth has been around for a few billion years and that's more then enough time for the atmosphere to be accelerated so it spins with the Earth.  The rotation of the Earch actually causes things like jetstreams and it's responsible for many weather patterns like huricanes.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2015, 11:14:20 AM »
Jimmy an Rayzor,

Good afternoon fellows. You guys are really mean spirited. I bet you both bite yourselves in the mirror each morning. To keep it simple, what I meant about physics, I was refering to Earth stuff. You know most of the same stuff we discuss on this forum. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Are we better now or are you going to keep on ridiculing me. I'd like to get on with some more Earth's mysteries.

Yendor




No problem here,   I'm happy to answer your questions as best I can.    I thought you were just playing dumb before,  I'm still not convinced. 

The iridium link budget is a simple calculation of free space path losses,  it's a LOS system.  All you need to know is the transmit power and receiver sensitivity,  maybe allow a few db for rain and antenna alignment.  I'm sure you could find the link budget calculations on line if you were really interested.   

The UAV control range issue you raised is simply a case of knowing what frequencies are being used and look at the propagation characteristics of those frequencies.   If it was VHF or more likely UHF,   even with gain antennas  you won't get reliably much past line of sight,  sometimes atmospheric ducting can extend propagation for VHF to hundreds of miles.   There are few ionospheric modes that work with VHF UHF, sporadic E is one,  but very rare.    So simply put, your UAV flew over the horizon and out of range.


PS  Iridium Link Budget  http://ijltet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/12.pdf


Rayzor,

I keep forgetting you guys are REers and you look at life as over the horizon. Okay, below  I've listed the link to the radios I used for both uplink and downlink. Keep in mind they are not exactly the same because the ones were for military applications and the specs were a little different. The uplink radio had the 5 Watt amp connected to it and the downlink did not.

http://www.freewave.com/products/allproducts/mm2.aspx

Look up specs for the MMT-LV-2

It has good sensitivity, actually the ones we used would pull out of the mud -120 DBm signals. The downlink antenna was a sinple omni whip antenna cut for not exactly 900Mhz but close. The Freq. is secret. The UAV flew 10,000 ft. so, at that height we  could expect 50 or so mlies from it with the bird flying 10,000 ft. I just have my doubts about a little hand held radio putting out 0.6W and using a small antenna that may have a gain of less then 2.0DB and reaching a satellite over 200 miles in the sky. I'm not saying it is impossible, i'm just a little skeptical.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2015, 11:51:26 AM »
I just have my doubts about a little hand held radio putting out 0.6W and using a small antenna that may have a gain of less then 2.0DB and reaching a satellite over 200 miles in the sky. I'm not saying it is impossible, i'm just a little skeptical.

Yendor

Did you read the iridium link budget?     It says the hand held uplink is 10W with a 3db antenna,   not  0.6W,   in any case the satellite is line of sight,  straight up, and no atmospheric ducting effects that you would be getting with the UAV on 900 Mhz.    Even with high gain tracking yagis pointing at the UAV,  hot summer days you will get atmospheric effects.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #46 on: June 21, 2015, 12:43:09 PM »
I just have my doubts about a little hand held radio putting out 0.6W and using a small antenna that may have a gain of less then 2.0DB and reaching a satellite over 200 miles in the sky. I'm not saying it is impossible, i'm just a little skeptical.

Yendor

Did you read the iridium link budget?     It says the hand held uplink is 10W with a 3db antenna,   not  0.6W,   in any case the satellite is line of sight,  straight up, and no atmospheric ducting effects that you would be getting with the UAV on 900 Mhz.    Even with high gain tracking yagis pointing at the UAV,  hot summer days you will get atmospheric effects.



Rayzor,

This is the link I was going by:

http://www.nalresearch.com/NetRef_IridiumSubscriberUnit.html

It must be a miss print. I have to trust you about the antenna because I can't find any information that list the gain.
Thanks for the info.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #47 on: June 21, 2015, 03:11:38 PM »
Okay, that sound reasonable. I will admit that objects traveling at different speeds are not traveling at the same speed. I don't remember saying they did.

Here ya' go.
You must have missed it when I said the plane was going the same speed as the Earth, around 1000 mph. In other words the plane was staying in sync with the Earth. Similar to a  DirecTV satellite, only in Earth's atmosphere. By matching Earth's speed and direction and because the atmosphere is going along with the Earth's spin, it should feel no different on the back of the plane as it does standing on Earth any normal calm day.
"Since the surface of the Earth, the aircraft, and the air are all traveling in the same direction at the same speed, there's no relative motion between them, so no airflow above and below the airplane's wings, so the airplane's wings can develop no lift. How does it stay aloft?"

I certainly agree with you, there would be no relative motion. the plane would definitely not stay aloft. infact it wouldn't get off the ground.

However I'm still a little confused. I've see planes take off and land my whole life and I'm pretty sure some of them have gone the same speed as the earth, (1000 mph), the same direction as the Earth spinning and in the same Earth's atmosphere and I'm very sure their wings develope lift because I see them land.

So is there no relative motion between the airplane and the surface, or 1000 mi/hr? In the first quote you stipulate there's none. The last paragraph in the second quote says there's 1000 mi/hr difference between them. No wonder you're confused. You need to decide on one or the other since they're not the same. Which is it?

Quote
I believe I said if a jet plane was flying 1000mph, going the same direction as the Earth supposedly spins, to would not fall out of the sky. I base this on the fact I've never heard of a plane falling because it can't go as fast as the Earth spins. Your belief is  the plane would fall out of the sky because it would be, in essence, standing still so it would fall out of the sky.

Well, yes you did, but you earlier required that the plane be static (that is, not moving) with respect to the surface of the Earth, yet you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two cases. Maybe if you can describe your scenario in a consistent way, like specifying what the 1000 mi/hr you mention in the last quote is measured relative to, we can answer it in a way that even you can understand. As long as you insist on mixing different frames of reference, you're not going to get anywhere.

Let us know when you're ready to pick one frame of reference or the other. Until then, there's not much else anyone can do. If you don't know what a frame of reference is (you say you do, but demonstrate that you don't), don't worry, we understand, and we can just leave it at that if you want.

Quote
By the way, thanks for not calling me dumb again, I'm starting to get a complex. Even thouhg you think I am.

I never said you were dumb. I've said I hope you're not as dumb as you act.

Still no hard evidence that you're not dumb, plenty of evidence that you are, but no proof either way. We're still waiting for you to say something intelligent.

I could say "don't worry - you appear to be too simple to have a complex", but I won't (old joke... couldn't resist).
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #48 on: June 21, 2015, 03:36:57 PM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.
Why would the blood rush to our heads? Do you understand that gravity pulls everything to the centre?
Maybe take a trip to Aus. to see what it is really like.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #49 on: June 21, 2015, 03:48:40 PM »
"I never said you were dumb. I've said I hope you're not as dumb as you act.

Still no hard evidence that you're not dumb, plenty of evidence that you are, but no proof either way. We're still waiting for you to say something intelligent.

I could say "don't worry - you appear to be too simple to have a complex", but I won't (old joke... couldn't resist)."

So now plain simple. Here is something intelligent for you. Do you know chickens lay eggs and excrete waste out of the same hole? Do you know the sun revolves around the Earth? I have to go eat now, I will give you more things soon. I'll have to think for a while. Later dude.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2015, 03:59:23 PM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.
Wow.  Which of the following sentences doesn't make sense to you?

A.  A plane sitting on the runway is moving with the surface and the atmosphere, which in this case is 1000mph, but has a surface speed of 0mph.
 
B.  A plane taking off and accelerating to 1000mph in the direction of Earth's rotation is moving an additional 1000mph (from the perspective of someone in space stationary watching the land below move by at 1000mph), but has a surface speed of 1000mph (hence it stays aloft via lift generated by the air moving past the wings).

C.  A plane taking off and accelerating to 1000mph in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation still has a surface speed of 1000mph, which means air is moving past the wings.  (it would appear stationary to the person in space while the surface below it moves by)

D.  A plane taking off in a north or south direction has a 1000mph surface speed in the direction of travel, and is still moving west to east with the surface and atmosphere, which would be a west/east surface speed of 0mph. 

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2015, 06:11:32 PM »
Here is something intelligent for you. Do you know chickens lay eggs and excrete waste out of the same hole?

That's an interesting process, and your question isn't entirely straightforward. Memorizing and regurgitating random "facts" isn't particularly impressive, and what does this have to do with the shape of or rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere?

I do know enough about raising chickens to know I don't want to raise them.

Quote
Do you know the sun revolves around the Earth?

No.

Not much sign intelligence yet, but lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. I keep hoping.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2015, 09:48:30 PM »
Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen.

Nope, nope, and nope.

You can't "negate" the rotation when it's not in your frame of reference.

Stop mixing up your frames of reference.
Jesus this is too easy. Pick one damn frame and stick to it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2015, 04:09:35 AM »
Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen.

Nope, nope, and nope.

You can't "negate" the rotation when it's not in your frame of reference.

Stop mixing up your frames of reference.
Jesus this is too easy. Pick one damn frame and stick to it.
I've mixed no frame of reference up. I can only realistically go by one frame of reference and that's by me being on the ground.

I'll make this easier for you people.
I'm on the ground and allegedly travelling at approx, 1000mph on your pathetic made up globe.
A plane on the tarmac is doing exactly the same.
I look at the plane and see it standing still.
The pilot of the planes sees me standing still.

 Ok, the plane takes off and flies against the rotation. It reaches a speed of 1000 mph against that rotation. It was already moving at 1000 mph before it took off but by flying at 1000 mph against the 1000 mph speed of the solid Earth, it should by logical reasoning be now hovering over a stationary Earth with it's air speed reading 1000 mph.

By this time in fantasy world, I would be 1000 miles away from it and as long as that jet keeps a constant 1000 mph speed against the Earth's so called rotation, I'll always be 1000 miles away from the jet.

This would be the reality, yet obviously we never see the reality because it's a load of bullshit and the Earth does not spin at all. The Earth is as still as a wax work dummy and the only things that are moving around on it, are us and all other animals and plant life, etc, plus the reflective lights in the sky.


Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2015, 04:56:12 AM »
Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen.

Nope, nope, and nope.

You can't "negate" the rotation when it's not in your frame of reference.

Stop mixing up your frames of reference.
Jesus this is too easy. Pick one damn frame and stick to it.
I've mixed no frame of reference up. I can only realistically go by one frame of reference and that's by me being on the ground.

I'll make this easier for you people.
I'm on the ground and allegedly travelling at approx, 1000mph on your pathetic made up globe.
A plane on the tarmac is doing exactly the same.
I look at the plane and see it standing still.
The pilot of the planes sees me standing still.

 Ok, the plane takes off and flies against the rotation. It reaches a speed of 1000 mph against that rotation. It was already moving at 1000 mph before it took off but by flying at 1000 mph against the 1000 mph speed of the solid Earth, it should by logical reasoning be now hovering over a stationary Earth with it's air speed reading 1000 mph.

By this time in fantasy world, I would be 1000 miles away from it and as long as that jet keeps a constant 1000 mph speed against the Earth's so called rotation, I'll always be 1000 miles away from the jet.

This would be the reality, yet obviously we never see the reality because it's a load of bullshit and the Earth does not spin at all. The Earth is as still as a wax work dummy and the only things that are moving around on it, are us and all other animals and plant life, etc, plus the reflective lights in the sky.

You mixed your frames of references again. The plane is travailing 1000mph ground speed.
I'm no rocket scientist, but at least I know the Earth is round, Man went to the Moon, and air exists.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2015, 05:10:31 AM »
How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension.

One step at a time.....

When the plane is sat on the tarmac it is travelling at the same speed as the earth and the atmosphere ie 1000mph. Therefore relative to the air the plane is travelling 0mph. Agree?

Then the plane takes off and travels west at 200mph according to its air speed monitor. Therefore it's speed is 200mph compared to that of the air. Agree?

If the plane takes off and travels west at 200mph according to its air speed monitor it will also be travelling at 200mph compared to the air. Agree?

In both cases the aircraft is subject to the same forces from the air as it is travelling at a speed 200mph different to the air. The only difference is its speed relative to the centre of the earth which is 800mph and 1,200mph respectively.

How is this difficult to understand?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2015, 05:11:06 AM »
This would be the reality, yet obviously we never see the reality because it's a load of bullshit and the Earth does not spin at all. The Earth is as still as a wax work dummy and the only things that are moving around on it, are us and all other animals and plant life, etc, plus the reflective lights in the sky.

That's what you naively think,  the reality is more than you could probably handle,   in fact the entire solar system is moving at 514,000 mph around the galactic center,  and if that doesn't make your little wax brain melt,  then the milky way galaxy is heading toward Andromeda at 250,000 mph.   We should hit in about 4 billion years.   

You don't feel any of these things anymore than you feel the earth spinning at 1000 mph,  or traveling around the sun at  66,000 mph.   

Why not,   why don't you feel any of these incredible speeds?   Simple,  all motion is relative,  relative to the earth you are standing on, you are stationary. 
As far as you are concerned the earth doesn't move.  That's your frame of reference.   You don't need to know anything else.



« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 05:49:48 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2015, 07:19:41 AM »
I've mixed no frame of reference up. I can only realistically go by one frame of reference and that's by me being on the ground.
That's the one where the rotation of the Earth is ignored. OK.

Quote
I'll make this easier for you people.
I'm on the ground and allegedly travelling at approx, 1000mph on your pathetic made up globe.
A plane on the tarmac is doing exactly the same.
I look at the plane and see it standing still.
The pilot of the planes sees me standing still.
So far, so good, except the 1000 mi/hr can be ignored since velocity is measured relative to you. This may be where you're confusing yourself.

Quote
Ok, the plane takes off and flies against the rotation.
What rotation? You were working in your topocentric reference frame (that's the one where the point you're standing is considered stationary and all other motion is relative to that). Remember?

Quote
I can only realistically go by one frame of reference and that's by me being on the ground.
So, we have in the topocentric frame:

I'm on the ground and allegedly travelling at approx, 1000mph on your pathetic made up globe.
A plane on the tarmac is doing exactly the same not moving with respect to me.
I look at the plane and see it standing still.
The pilot of the planes sees me standing still.

No rotation in that reference frame.

Quote
It reaches a speed of 1000 mph against that rotation. It was already moving at 1000 mph before it took off but by flying at 1000 mph against the 1000 mph speed of the solid Earth, it should by logical reasoning be now hovering over a stationary Earth with it's air speed reading 1000 mph.
Oopsies.

Quote
I've mixed no frame of reference up.
Nope. Sorry. It wasn't already moving at 1000 mph before it took off in the reference frame you selected. Remember?

Quote
I can only realistically go by one frame of reference and that's by me being on the ground.
Quote
I look at the plane and see it standing still.
The pilot of the planes sees me standing still.
You're the one that said that. Are you sure you know what a reference frame is? You can't tell if you're mixing them up if you don't know what they are!

Quote
By this time in fantasy world, I would be 1000 miles away from it and as long as that jet keeps a constant 1000 mph speed against the Earth's so called rotation, I'll always be 1000 miles away from the jet.
So not only do you get your reference frames confused, you also don't know the difference between distance and velocity. A plane traveling 1000 mi/hr will always be 1000 miles from you? Really? If someone standing next to you walks away at 3 mi/hr and you don't move, you think that means they're always 3 miles from you if they keep walking at that pace? Surely you jest! Maybe you just want to see if anyone actually reads what you write.

We already knew you were baffled by the distinction between velocity and acceleration from your "the Space Shuttle must accelerate at 5 mi/sec2 to reach 17000 mi/hr in 8 minutes" fiasco. Remember that one? Lots of people aren't exactly sure how those relate to each other, so that's not quite so surprising.

Quote
This would be the reality, yet obviously we never see the reality because it's a load of bullshit and the Earth does not spin at all. The Earth is as still as a wax work dummy and the only things that are moving around on it, are us and all other animals and plant life, etc, plus the reflective lights in the sky.
Maybe you don't see the obvious reality and "retaliate" by calling it BS and making up something else entirely. We can only hope it makes you feel better about yourself because, frankly, reality don't give a damn what you think.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2015, 07:27:01 AM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.
Why would the blood rush to our heads? Do you understand that gravity pulls everything to the centre?
Maybe take a trip to Aus. to see what it is really like.


Scroto Gaggins,

I'd love to visit Aus. But you have all those bad ass snakes there, i'm a little afraid. So, you are saying that living on a ball and people living on the top is right side up and people living on the bottom of the ball is right side up too. That sounds like we all may be living on some kind of flat plane right side up. Please don't tell me there is no up or down on Earth.

Yendor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: I'm convinced, FET is right - Yendor
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2015, 07:35:10 AM »
Quote from Scepti:

"Yes and if that plane that going 1000 mph with the rotation as it sits on the tarmac, then decides to fly against that rotation at 1000 mph, it has then negated the 1000 mph rotation of the Earth, so realistically speaking in this fantasy world of your and your global peers, this jet should be hovering above a stationary Earth but showing 1000 mph on its speed indicator, yet we know this doesn't happen."

I agree with what Scepti says. How can anyone believe that if the atmosphere is being draged along with a spinning Earth going 1000mph and a plane can fly in this atmospher and not notice any difference wherer going east or west is beyond my comprehension. Please don't tell me it is like throwing a ball up in a car and catching it. Try throwing the ball up in a convertable with the top down and catch it while the car is moving 1000mph. The result is the same kind of effect as a spinning 1000mph Earth. I bet if you guys were taught that when you started school and all the way through college you would believe it. For the people living down under, doesn't the blood rush to your heads while spinning like a top upside down? Just wondering.
Why would the blood rush to our heads? Do you understand that gravity pulls everything to the centre?
Maybe take a trip to Aus. to see what it is really like.


Scroto Gaggins,

I'd love to visit Aus. But you have all those bad ass snakes there, i'm a little afraid. So, you are saying that living on a ball and people living on the top is right side up and people living on the bottom of the ball is right side up too. That sounds like we all may be living on some kind of flat plane right side up. Please don't tell me there is no up or down on Earth.

Yendor
Who said there isn't?  Up is away from the ground, down is towards the ground.