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.