HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???

  • 144 Replies
  • 6836 Views
*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2016, 10:53:22 AM »
Can you walk to the front and rear of a plane while it is moving?

If the plane is traveling at 500 mph and you can only walk at about 4 mph what happens when you walk from the front to the back of the plane?

You are decelerating and moving at 4 mph less relative to the ground speed of the aircraft.

What you are seeing in the videos is a ball traveling at 100 km having enough force applied to it to cancel its momentum.

So, your choice is INERTIA? Congratulations! - In that case you can't fly westbound! See my previous post! :)

So on the last flight I took how did I make it from my seat to the restroom and back?  I certainly can not walk faster than the plane was flying.

FALLING ELEVATOR EXAMPLE :
If the elevator has been falling for a while, then it’s probably moving very fast. If you jump up, then you’ll change your velocity just a little bit. So you’ll be going a tiny bit slower when you hit the ground. So, technically speaking, you would probably not be hurt quite as much. But this difference would probably be so small as to not be noticeable. In particular, if you’re falling so fast as to be killed in the fall, jumping would most likely not make enough of a difference to save your life. But what if the roof of the elevator were 100 m high and you were able to jump 50 m up in the air, would that make a big difference? What do you think?

WTF are you talking about? Why are you ignoring my replies and why are you talking about random elevator stuff?

Forget your example, forget my elevator example, forget mythbusters soccer ball shot from truck example, just concentrate on this :

The only way how you can fly westbound on the spinning earth is if you (an airplane) gradually lose your impetus (inertia), but if you lose your impetus (at any point of time) then you lose your argument because in that case you have to add the speed of the earth to the speed of an airplane (which flies westbound), and you have to subtract the speed of an airplane (which flies eastbound) from earth's rotational speed and the result would be this :

- An airplane which flies 500 m/h westbound would actually fly 1500 m/h in a desired direction (westbound)!
- An airplane which TRIES TO FLY 500m/h eastbound wouldn't be able to fly in that direction at all, and would be actually forced to fly 500 m/h WESTBOUND!

So, by taking into account INERTIA you can't fly westbound!
If you give up INERTIA excuse, then you can't fly eastbound!

Feel free to make your choice! :)

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?

Of course it is so, but Huston we have got a problem...

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!

So, if your basic-starting speed is 1000 m/h then as i said in my first post :

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?

"- An airplane which flies 500 m/h westbound would actually fly 1500 m/h in a desired direction (westbound)!
- An airplane which TRIES TO FLY 500m/h eastbound wouldn't be able to fly in that direction at all, and would be actually forced to fly 500 m/h WESTBOUND!
"

OH MY GOD!!! WHAT A GREAT DISCOVERY!!! NOBODY BEFORE YOU NOTICED THAT THAT HAPPENS!!!

Only you don't understand that it doesn't matter if the airplane doesn't move eastbound relative to the stars or the sun or whatever you're using as a frame of reference for the rotation of earth, all it matters is that it moves eastbound relative to the GROUND. That's why we keep telling you about the example of walking inside the airplane. Say the airplane is moving really fast to the left, relative to the ground. If you try to walk to the right, the result will be that you'll still be moving left relative to the GROUND, but you will be moving to the right relative to the SEATS of the airplane, and you will reach the back of it every bit as fast as you'd reach it if the airplane was still. Is this so complicated??
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2016, 11:05:29 AM »
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 :
Mythbusters - Soccer Ball Shot from Truck :

REFERENCE POINT VIDEO - JAPANCI - :


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

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.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2016, 11:14:21 AM »
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 :
Mythbusters - Soccer Ball Shot from Truck :

REFERENCE POINT VIDEO - JAPANCI - :


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

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 don't have to imagine anything. You can fucking see it in the videos he posted. It's right in front of your fucking face. The ball in these videos stays still relative to the GROUND, but it moves relative to the TRUCK. The kind of shit one has to deal with in this site is worse than what Kermit had to deal with in Sesame Street.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2016, 11:20:36 AM »
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 :
Mythbusters - Soccer Ball Shot from Truck :

REFERENCE POINT VIDEO - JAPANCI - :


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

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 don't have to imagine anything. You can fucking see it in the videos he posted. It's right in front of your fucking face. The ball in these videos stays still relative to the GROUND, but it moves relative to the TRUCK. The kind of shit one has to deal with in this site is worse than what Kermit had to deal with in Sesame Street.

The original movement according to all of you relativity experts IS THE GROUND!!! So yeah, like your ignoring the truck is also moving "relative," to the allegedly already "moving," ground.

The Earth is a stationary plane. This video proves it.

Take your magical unicorns with you and go play.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

sokarul

  • 16762
  • Discount Chemist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2016, 11:32:17 AM »
Totallacking a brain. The ball moves away from the truck. Planes move on earth. Nothing more.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2016, 11:40:36 AM »
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 :
Mythbusters - Soccer Ball Shot from Truck :

REFERENCE POINT VIDEO - JAPANCI - :


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.

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 don't have to imagine anything. You can fucking see it in the videos he posted. It's right in front of your fucking face. The ball in these videos stays still relative to the GROUND, but it moves relative to the TRUCK. The kind of shit one has to deal with in this site is worse than what Kermit had to deal with in Sesame Street.

The original movement according to all of you relativity experts IS THE GROUND!!! So yeah, like your ignoring the truck is also moving "relative," to the allegedly already "moving," ground.

The Earth is a stationary plane. This video proves it.

Take your magical unicorns with you and go play.

Again, WTF DOES THAT MEAN?

There is no "original movement"! I don't know what kind of bullshit thinking process led you to this conclusion, but "original movement" is not a thing.

"So yeah, like your ignoring the truck is also moving "relative," to the allegedly already "moving," ground."

WTF?? What is so hard to comprehend? The phenomenon is RIGHT IN YOUR FACE (the ball is moving away from the truck, just like the airplane is moving away from the point where it took off from), and for some reason you can't understand it!!!

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6522
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2016, 11:40:49 AM »
The Earth is a stationary plane. This video proves it.

Do you think this experiment would yield different results if it was performed on a moving aircraft carrier?

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4109
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2016, 11:47:43 AM »
A stationary Earth explains the OP video, no problem.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2016, 12:23:06 PM »
The only way how you can fly westbound on the spinning earth is if you (an airplane) gradually lose your impetus (inertia), but if you lose your impetus (at any point of time) then you lose your argument because in that case you have to add the speed of the earth to the speed of an airplane (which flies westbound), and you have to subtract the speed of an airplane (which flies eastbound) from earth's rotational speed and the result would be this :

- An airplane which flies 500 m/h westbound would actually fly 1500 m/h in a desired direction (westbound)!
- An airplane which TRIES TO FLY 500m/h eastbound wouldn't be able to fly in that direction at all, and would be actually forced to fly 500 m/h WESTBOUND!

So, by taking into account INERTIA you can't fly westbound!
If you give up INERTIA excuse, then you can't fly eastbound!

Feel free to make your choice! :)

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)!

Firstly, it looks like you are using the term 'inertia' where mostly you mean momentum.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, velocity (and hence also momentum) is relative. There's no absolute velocity. Depending on your choice of reference frame, a body can have a starting momentum of 0, 1000, or a billion kg.m/s. The physics works out just fine whatever reference frame you choose.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6522
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2016, 12:24:04 PM »
A stationary Earth explains the OP video, no problem.

As does a non-stationary earth.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2016, 12:43:08 PM »
This is how we can test whether the airplane keeps up it's alleged impetus or not :

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).

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.

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!!!

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. It is the Galileo’s law and the first law of Newton. Their common reply is that: all dropped objects have inertia, and thus, the rotating Earth will not leave them behind. 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 but the Helios fellows extended the inertial law in air atmosphere. We would gratefully appreciate Galileo if his law were situated in air, since it will save our Earth from the pollutions of the fossils. Consider one of their fellows in airplane and during its motion in air atmosphere he left the airplane with a parachute. According to the inertial law; the fellow and the airplane are supposed to move side-to-side with the same speed. He must feel proud to his superpower; the airplane is consuming propellers and he is not! In reality, and in the first moment, 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. 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. You cannot breathe oxygen from air atmosphere and speak about the law of inertia. Dump the law of inertia in space.

Noone of round-earth fuckers didn't refer to my post above...accidentally?
No, you fuckers didn't miss that post, you just can't respond to this, because this is the method which would yield conclusive result : the earth is at rest, am i right? Of course i am right!

There is more to it :

When we are talking about orbital paths of planets and moons and the sun, relative motion can be said to be valid (and this is completely discounting any aether). But what about when we are talking about motion within a medium such as air? There is obviously a difference the two mediums, space and the air, is there not? How would this affect the calculation of relative motion? Well, the "original motion" component would not be changed, true, but the drag effect sure would. And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

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.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and 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)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" 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.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2016, 01:08:51 PM »
A stationary Earth explains the OP video, no problem.

So does a rotating earth, what's your point?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6522
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2016, 01:28:29 PM »

Noone of round-earth fuckers didn't refer to my post above...accidentally?
No, you fuckers didn't miss that post, you just can't respond to this, because this is the method which would yield conclusive result : the earth is at rest, am i right? Of course i am right!

Are you?

This is how we can test whether the airplane keeps up it's alleged impetus or not :

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).

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.


Parallax?  Okay, so you know how when you're driving down a highway, the side of the road looks like it's flying by really quickly, and trees nearby seem to move somewhat slower, and a mountain way off in the distance barely seems to move at all?  It's like that, except the star is billions of times farther away than the mountain.  You're not going to see any difference.


*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2016, 01:30:42 PM »
This is how we can test whether the airplane keeps up it's alleged impetus or not :

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).

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.

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!!!

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. It is the Galileo’s law and the first law of Newton. Their common reply is that: all dropped objects have inertia, and thus, the rotating Earth will not leave them behind. 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 but the Helios fellows extended the inertial law in air atmosphere. We would gratefully appreciate Galileo if his law were situated in air, since it will save our Earth from the pollutions of the fossils. Consider one of their fellows in airplane and during its motion in air atmosphere he left the airplane with a parachute. According to the inertial law; the fellow and the airplane are supposed to move side-to-side with the same speed. He must feel proud to his superpower; the airplane is consuming propellers and he is not! In reality, and in the first moment, 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. 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. You cannot breathe oxygen from air atmosphere and speak about the law of inertia. Dump the law of inertia in space.

Noone of round-earth fuckers didn't refer to my post above...accidentally?
No, you fuckers didn't miss that post, you just can't respond to this, because this is the method which would yield conclusive result : the earth is at rest, am i right? Of course i am right!

There is more to it :

When we are talking about orbital paths of planets and moons and the sun, relative motion can be said to be valid (and this is completely discounting any aether). But what about when we are talking about motion within a medium such as air? There is obviously a difference the two mediums, space and the air, is there not? How would this affect the calculation of relative motion? Well, the "original motion" component would not be changed, true, but the drag effect sure would. And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

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.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and 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)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" 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.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

No, that's not the reason nobody replied to this PARTICULAR post. You didn't say anything new. The only new thing was the stupid idea to take a photo of a star from an airplane, but you fail to realize that you don't actually have to do this-time zones already did the job for you. You can check the take off and arrival times of flights and then account for the time zones.

Oh, and air moves mostly with the earth (that's why it's not constantly windy), so that point is irrelevant. And no, air is not solid, where do you get these ideas?

There is no such thing as "original motion", I don't know how you came up with it.

Finally, no, objects don't  need an "impetus" to retain their velocity for the same reason that if you drop something inside a non accelerating bus, it won't automatically fly to the back of the bus, even though no significant force is applied on it.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #44 on: December 19, 2016, 04:07:55 PM »
Noone of round-earth fuckers didn't refer to my post above...accidentally?
What?  This doesn't make sense.  Noone?  Peter Noone from the band Herman's Hermits? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Noone  What does he have to do with this?  It looks like Intikam typed that sentence.


Quote
No, you fuckers didn't miss that post, you just can't respond to this, because this is the method which would yield conclusive result : the earth is at rest, am i right? Of course i am right!
No, as usual you're just completely wrong, but I'll go ahead and comment on your 'copy and paste' paragraph.

.............According to the inertial law; the fellow and the airplane are supposed to move side-to-side with the same speed. He must feel proud to his superpower; the airplane is consuming propellers and he is not! In reality, and in the first moment, 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. 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.............
He would move "side to side" with the same speed, but only for a moment.  What you may or may not realize (the latter of the two being my guess) the person jumping out does have inertia, but the air resistance starts to slow him immediately.  The airplane however is able to propel itself through the air.  It's pretty simple to understand.  Yes, the law of inertia functions just fine in the presence of air.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16810
  • Or should I?
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #45 on: December 19, 2016, 06:08:13 PM »
Inertial FoR /thread.

Also,

Quote
HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???

Engines, usually.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #46 on: December 19, 2016, 09:23:24 PM »
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 :
Yes, it moves 500 mph eastbound. Meanwhile, the Earth below it is moving 1000 mph eastbound. This means the Earth below it moves faster, and results in the plane appearing to move west relative to Earth.


So, you dug your own grave by using your famous tool/ all mighty excuse : INERTIA in order to explain how aviation could work above spinning earth at all....

That is to say : trying to explain how come that an airplane which flies 500 miles/h can reach any eastern destination since the earth rotates twice faster (above the equator), you have to use some excuse, and that excuse is INERTIA.

Well, you can't use that excuse any more, since taking into account INERTIA in the context of the spinning earth idiotic assumption (theory), you have to admit that no westbound flight would be possible due to the impact of the same force which you use for decades to explain how is possible to fly eastwards above the spinning earth.
Nope. The same reasoning is used in both. Inertia isn't the only issue, that is what means it starts at the same speed as Earth and doesn't need to speed up. The other issue is that their speed is then relative to the air, which is why in some places they go faster in one direction due to jet streams.

This doesn't change the fact that relative to Earth, they can fly east or west (or any other direction). Yes, they would still be moving East, but Earth is moving faster.

Will you admit you are wrong this time, or just come up with more crap?

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #47 on: December 19, 2016, 10:13:00 PM »
Parallax?  Okay, so you know how when you're driving down a highway, the side of the road looks like it's flying by really quickly, and trees nearby seem to move somewhat slower, and a mountain way off in the distance barely seems to move at all?  It's like that, except the star is billions of times farther away than the mountain.  You're not going to see any difference.

Because our movement is rotational rather than linear that doesn't hold. You can see quite a large difference. It is why after a long flight the time zone is all out of wack.

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #48 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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2016, 10:28:53 PM by JackBlack »

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #49 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.


Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #50 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?

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #51 on: December 19, 2016, 11:15:52 PM »
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 :
Yes, it moves 500 mph eastbound. Meanwhile, the Earth below it is moving 1000 mph eastbound. This means the Earth below it moves faster, and results in the plane appearing to move west relative to Earth.
Nuff said.

*

rabinoz

  • 24851
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2016, 12:01:41 AM »
This is how we can test whether the airplane keeps up it's alleged impetus or not :

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).

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.

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!!!

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.,"

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #53 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.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2016, 02:55:39 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

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) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

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

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2016, 07:09:12 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

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) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

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

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!

Please specify, what should be the proper annual motion of the stars in arcsecond if the earth and sun was moving with the official speeds, with calculations ? Last Time i checked it was very minuscule

So your just gave  the null hypothesis (motionless earth) and dont explained any methods to test it.

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2016, 07:11:53 AM »
Also the op confused about and mixed up the concept of inertia and momentum also acceleration with velocity, did somebody enlightened him yet ?

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2016, 07:50:12 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

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) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

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

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!
STAR TRAILS XXX :

STAR TRAILS XXX 2 :
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 07:51:54 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2016, 08:19:32 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

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) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

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

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!
STAR TRAILS XXX :

STAR TRAILS XXX 2 :


The apparent position of light changed in both instance in the same way, so what is your point ?

Oh because you KNOW when you pushed the light and when the camera moved :D so you can mark the "source"

Now try this with a low light led and an empty dark room, and ask on of your friend to A rotate the cam B move the led

Can you possibly decide from the footages which is which ?

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: HOW COME PLANES CAN FLY TOWARDS WEST???
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2016, 08:41:26 AM »
We can consider these three different situations :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

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) " :



Another big difference will be seen in a drastically different lengths of star trails comparing the photographs that are going to be taken in three different circumstances regarding the difference in absolute speeds of our EASTBOUND motions!

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

1. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" (see my video)
2. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "A" but for a different reason than in the case 1. (see my video)
A BRIEF EXPLANATION :
In 1. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by our EASTBOUND motion
In 2. case star trails direction "A" will be caused by Star's/Sun's WESTBOUND motion

3. case (see above) : star trails will be directed in direction "B" and caused by our local WESTBOUND motion (see my video)

CASE CLOSED!!!
STAR TRAILS XXX :

STAR TRAILS XXX 2 :


The apparent position of light changed in both instance in the same way, so what is your point ?

Oh because you KNOW when you pushed the light and when the camera moved :D so you can mark the "source"

Now try this with a low light led and an empty dark room, and ask on of your friend to A rotate the cam B move the led

Can you possibly decide from the footages which is which ?

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