Globe Earth Debunk Why a particul on the air don't move with 1.000 mph ?

Quote from: İntikam on April 20, 2016, 12:15:11 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 19, 2016, 02:48:00 PM

Why doesn't the air in a moving air collect in the back? Because the air is moving with the car. It's the same with earth.

The air moves with car when the car's up closed. If it is a drophead like the earth, the air hits in your face.

The earth's rotation causes friction to the surrounding air causing the air to moved be with it. If you ever put your hand close to a spinning object you'll feel the air moving with it.

Does it work like that coming back from the moon? You know, as you get closer to earth a very slight breeze until you move into the cyclonic region.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 20, 2016, 12:13:23 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 20, 2016, 12:15:11 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on April 19, 2016, 02:48:00 PM

Why doesn't the air in a moving air collect in the back? Because the air is moving with the car. It's the same with earth.

The air moves with car when the car's up closed. If it is a drophead like the earth, the air hits in your face.

The earth's rotation causes friction to the surrounding air causing the air to moved be with it. If you ever put your hand close to a spinning object you'll feel the air moving with it.

Does it work like that coming back from the moon? You know, as you get closer to earth a very slight breeze until you move into the cyclonic region.

Haven't looked the landing procedure (those with more knowledge on this will correct or confirm what I'm about to say) but logically speaking they didnt go straight in but instead parallel with the earth and entered that way. Even if you're right that doesn't negate that the earth is spinning and round.

Space shuttles usually launch with the earth's soon so they most likely land with it too.

Space shuttles usually launch with the earth's soon so they most likely land with it too.

I thought they would return at the north pole where there would be no wind.

Quote from: sokarul on April 21, 2016, 10:06:27 AM

Space shuttles usually launch with the earth's soon so they most likely land with it too.

I thought they would return at the north pole where there would be no wind.

You have heard of blizzards at the poles! Hardly no wind. Sometimes there is a lot of wind.

In case you hadn't heard, there are wind systems almost all over the globe, and guess what? Most have something to do with the rotation of the earth!

No, they are not at 1000 mph, but some are caused be the gradual reduction of the earth's surface velocity from the equator to the poles.

Yes, and satellites are usually launched from west to east (and preferably close to the equator) to take advantage of the extra 1000 mph (a bit under in Florida) in getting to orbital velocity.

Quote from: sokarul on April 21, 2016, 10:06:27 AM

Space shuttles usually launch with the earth's soon so they most likely land with it too.

I thought they would return at the north pole where there would be no wind.

It should also be pointed out that the Apollo missions traveled in excess of 20,000 mph. They had to slow way down to match the Earth's rotation, regardless of where they landed.

"the north pole where there would be no wind."

I am talking about your 1600kph cyclonic wind spin and hitting it at 27,000 kph in a beer can.
Makes sense to me to land up with santa in the north pole where there is minimal rotational speeds thus no cyclonic winds coming from the moon. But no lets hit the earth where its spining very fast and as we feel the breeze kicking in we will turn the steering to the right a little to catch the wind. Smooth sailing.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 06:15:18 AM

"the north pole where there would be no wind."

I am talking about your 1600kph cyclonic wind spin and hitting it at 27,000 kph in a beer can.
Makes sense to me to land up with santa in the north pole where there is minimal rotational speeds thus no cyclonic winds coming from the moon. But no lets hit the earth where its spining very fast and as we feel the breeze kicking in we will turn the steering to the right a little to catch the wind. Smooth sailing.

If that's the level of your understanding of the Globe, it's no wonder you believe in a Pancake Planet!

Replace xxxxx by:

• Globe
• Physics
• Gravitation
• mathematics

Take your pick - ever thought that it just might be your own understanding.

Quote from: tappet on April 22, 2016, 01:29:31 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 06:15:18 AM

"the north pole where there would be no wind."

I am talking about your 1600kph cyclonic wind spin and hitting it at 27,000 kph in a beer can.
Makes sense to me to land up with santa in the north pole where there is minimal rotational speeds thus no cyclonic winds coming from the moon. But no lets hit the earth where its spining very fast and as we feel the breeze kicking in we will turn the steering to the right a little to catch the wind. Smooth sailing.

If that's the level of your understanding of the Globe, it's no wonder you believe in a Pancake Planet!

"I don't understand xxxxx, so the earth must be flat!"

Replace xxxxx by:

• Globe
• Physics
• Gravitation
• mathematics

Take your pick - ever thought that it just might be your own understanding.

An once again, I never said it was flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 19, 2016, 01:50:05 AM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 12:32:59 AM

Hello mister and miss satanists and the others.

There is no reason a particul follow the spinning of the earth. Newton is crying now 

  Don't worry, Newton is doing fine, and so is Einstein with the detection of Gravitational Waves. 

 By the way it is "particle" not "particul".

I have a brilliant idea Rather than you answering him in English why don't you try answering him in Turkish? Then I would like for him to spend a few minutes pointing out all your grammatical and spelling errors for yours, and our, edification.  Or perhaps rather than being childishly and ridiculously pedantic why don't you try understanding that English is not his mother tongue and applaud him for painstakingly translating his ideas into English for your benefit? But that would require insight, introspection and a willingness to take just a moment to think about larger issues, tasks for which, I regret to report, seem far beyond your ken.

It's not unreasonable when he is attempting to engage in debate on an English speaking forum to expect him to speak English effectively! How are we expected to make any sense of his ramblings when basic words like "particle" are misspelled?!

Yes, it's impressive that he can piece English words together in mixed up sentences that we've all politely tried to understand up until now, but if he has a problem with constructive criticism then he can discuss his mad-cap ideas on a Turkish forum!

I know many people who live in England of whom English is not their native tongue and most are grateful of polite corrections as it helps them to improve their English.

Quote from: İntikam on April 20, 2016, 12:19:47 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:25:50 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 06:41:07 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 05:55:20 AM

If the fluid inside a blender can move with a rotating solid the atmosphere can move with the earth.

Amen.

We can't see the blender surrounding the earth!

Yeah, because on the other side of the atmosphere is nothing. It's frictionless. Thus making it easier to rotate with the earth. Thanks for playing.  I await your next crappy thread.

Ahahah you have some ideas just are nonsence.

Can you explain what happens  at the intersection surface on the air and the space? Where is your famous the "diffusion" working to? 

Well space is nothing so nothing happens. Towards the edge of the atmosphere atoms are kilometers apart. They don't hit each other enough to do anything.

you are in contradiction.

Because when i asked why the atmospher turning with earth because there is no horizontal force; then other troll asked me that the motion of the atmospher caused by friction.

Now for explain to what happens on the outside of the atmospher, you are answering me that there is no friction on the atmospher.

How many science exist in one matter? Have science a consistent response about the atmospher movement?

additionally the space isin't nothing. Space like a vacuum tube. There was a lot of times , try. Air moves to space.

Is space is nothing, where are the  stars? Is the populer science is a nonsence or you are talking nonsence.

I'm going to ask a lot please; one of you draw a friction diagram on the atmospher depends on high, so the diagram starts from 0 point to end of the atmospher. One of you draw it and the others confirm, then we continue. Now  it began to thoroughly ridiculous these issues.

Fun factoid: Intikam is actually Sir Richard using Google translate to transliterate from English to Turkish, then from Turkish back to English.

I have equally as much proof of this, and am equally as convinced, as any FE'er is of a pancake planet.

Quote from: sokarul on April 20, 2016, 07:05:00 AM

Quote from: İntikam on April 20, 2016, 12:19:47 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 01:25:50 PM

Quote from: İntikam on April 19, 2016, 06:41:07 AM

Quote from: sokarul on April 19, 2016, 05:55:20 AM

If the fluid inside a blender can move with a rotating solid the atmosphere can move with the earth.

Amen.

We can't see the blender surrounding the earth!

Yeah, because on the other side of the atmosphere is nothing. It's frictionless. Thus making it easier to rotate with the earth. Thanks for playing.  I await your next crappy thread.

Ahahah you have some ideas just are nonsence.

Can you explain what happens  at the intersection surface on the air and the space? Where is your famous the "diffusion" working to? 

Well space is nothing so nothing happens. Towards the edge of the atmosphere atoms are kilometers apart. They don't hit each other enough to do anything.

you are in contradiction.

No.

Because when i asked why the atmospher turning with earth because there is no horizontal force; then other troll asked me that the motion of the atmospher caused by friction.

Because it does rotate by friction.

Now for explain to what happens on the outside of the atmospher, you are answering me that there is no friction on the atmospher.

You asked for the interaction between outerspace and the air. So like I said, nothing happens.

How many science exist in one matter? Have science a consistent response about the atmospher movement?

Yes science has a consistent response.

additionally the space isin't nothing. Space like a vacuum tube. There was a lot of times , try. Air moves to space.

No, high pressure moves into low pressure.

Is space is nothing, where are the  stars? Is the populer science is a nonsence or you are talking nonsence.

Stars are around. They are not right next to the atmosphere.

I'm going to ask a lot please; one of you draw a friction diagram on the atmospher depends on high, so the diagram starts from 0 point to end of the atmospher. One of you draw it and the others confirm, then we continue. Now  it began to thoroughly ridiculous these issues.

The only external force acting on the atmosphere is from the earth.

Fun factoid: Intikam is actually Sir Richard using Google translate to transliterate from English to Turkish, then from Turkish back to English.

I have equally as much proof of this, and am equally as convinced, as any FE'er is of a pancake planet.

I've never laughed so much.

I'm on a Turkish forum since 2004 about this forum created. For see it look my signature. I have tousands of post that posted on Turkish. What about Sir Richard?