MPH can only be measured with respect to what's happening on Earth.
No. It can be measured with respect to many different things.
If you just want to measure speed relative to Earth, in a non-inertial rotating reference frame, then we and Earth are stationary.
But that is just because you are changing the reference frame.
It doesn't matter whether it's told that the Earth spins only once in 24 hours and that makes its rotation very slow.
That depends, are you just focusing on the linear speed, which is undetectable except in reference to another object, or the effects of rotation as well?
If you want to consider the rotation, then you do need to consider our size/just how slow that 1000 MPH is.
The fact we are told about MPH means exactly what it says...to us....so therefore we expect to move at that speed with feet firmly planted on the deck.
Yes, with the deck and the atmosphere moving with us.
The argument of the atmosphere moving in unison with the supposed ball rendering us unable to feel the motion, is total and utter nonsensical clap trap but most people are duped into believing it actually makes sense.
No. It is reality.
If it wasn't, and it was just Earth moving, then friction between the atmosphere and Earth would cause the atmosphere to speed up.
They believe it makes sense because of no other reason than being told about riding in cars, trains, or planes, in supposed sealed units that saunter through atmosphere and yet we supposedly do not feel the motion.
And you are looking at it the wrong way.
It isn't because they are in a shell that they don't feel motion. It is when you are outside the shell, moving relative to the atmosphere, that you do feel it. If the atmosphere is moving with you, you don't feel it.
The reality is, if we were spinning on a ball we would be under what's known as centrifugal force, or would have except that the laws have changed on that and it's basically became a fictional force, where the real force is now, centripetal force, or an inward force.
The centrifugal force is a fictitious force as it is only an apparent force for a non-inertial, rotating reference frame.
It is inertia, not a force, that results in things being flung out of rapidly spinning objects.
The centripetal force is the force that is required to maintain the rotational motion.
And if you bother doing the math, you find out the acceleration required to keep us moving with the surface of Earth, at the equator, is 0.03 m/s^2. Gravity provides over 300 times that force.
As such, we would not expect to be flung off.
Claiming we should be flung off because of centrifugal force is total and utter nonsensical clap trap, because the force is simply far too tiny because of just how slowly Earth rotates.
The changes are due to people using common sense and realising that this outward slinging force should be slinging us off this supposed planet and yet it doesn't because it's changed to centripetal force. An inward force that stops us being slung into so called space.
No. The change is due to people throwing reason and rationality out the window and instead of thinking about it and balancing forces, they just accept this childish bullshit.
The inward force keeping us to the planet is gravity.
People are all too willing to abandon basic common sense and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving a physical,w here this rotation occurs and also the MPH which we all observe as a man made speed.
No. People seem to be all too willing to abandon basic common sense, reason, rationality and clear and observable, repeatable experiments proving that the rotation does occur, all because of childish nonsense.
So instead of adhering to a thought process of a car, train, bus or plane going in a near straight direction, think of it doing a turn around a circular road, track or sky, because we all know that even the slightest movement away from centre results in a force in the same direction for anyone being part of that scenario.
Sure, an extremely gradual turn, such that it takes an entire day to complete a circle. Also, just to complete the comparison to Earth, imagine you are being pulled to the inside of that turn by a force more than 300 times that required to keep you following the circle.
Ok, so the silly arguments are us being spun with atmosphere and also solid ground, as well as water.
We physically know that water and atmosphere do not follow the example of the so called spin rotation but apparently, this is an atmosphere within an atmosphere, if you can get your head around it.
No. We know they do, as friction will result in them matching.
However we know that just like many things, it isn't perfect. So instead of spinning at exactly 1000 MPH to match Earth, it may spin slightly slower or faster, resulting in winds.
Take us outside of the so called ball into so called space with so called satellites being slung around the Earth and following the exact MPH of the Earth spin, as we are told. These so called satellites being around 23,000 miles away from Earth, as we are told. In geo-sync with Earth and yet under no influence of the atmosphere of Earth and yet they are still on the inward centripetal force, or the inward force, or to put it more simpler....they are held by the magical string attached from Earth into so called space orbit of it.
That is because of how orbits work.
In the case of Satellites, they are distant enough and/or orbiting fast enough such that the centripetal force required to keep it in an orbit is provided pretty much exactly by the attractive force of gravity. (it being non-exact results in an elliptical orbit).
They don't follow the same MPH spin of Earth. Instead they follow the same degrees per hour of Earth (for a geosynchronous one).
So rather than the path of the equator, with a circumference of 40 000 km to traverse in 24 hours (technically 23 hours, 56 minutes ish), resulting in a speed of ~1666 km/hr, the geosynchronous satellites have an orbit with radius of 42164 km, and thus a circumference of 264924 km, resulting in a velocity of ~ 11 039 km/hr, 7 times as fast.
To make it even easier, we have to believe that a satellite like this, is like a person holding a hammer in the Olympics and swinging it around as he/she follows it around.
The magical string. The invisible nonsense that is battered into people's brains as realistic.
Not quite a string, but quite similar.
Gravity is providing the force which would be provided by the string.
The only nonsense is your rejection of it.
Nobody gives any thought to how they tell us that space crafts that get sent to so called moons and mars do this speed/acceleration around the Earth and then sling shots onto a trajectory towards whatever planet they tell us.
No. FEers don't give it thought, because they can't understand.
People that actually care do.
It is quite simple, they pass close to the planet, enter a hyperbolic or parabolic orbit, use the planets gravity to turn the craft around resulting in a significant change in speed relative to the solar system, but no significant change relative to the planet in question.
The issue is, has anyone ever thought about the sling shot?
We can see it work on Earth with the hammer thrower. We can see when he/she lets go, it takes a set direction.
Yes, plenty of people have.
It is nothing like the hammer thrower.
You can't just let the string go.
What is a rocket doing after being released from the solid deck into the atmosphere and then supposedly through it at an angle?
It's accelerating around a supposed globe and held on by this imaginary string force.
No. It is held by this very real gravity.
It circles the Earth however many times and gains speed.
From this point on it has to snap the imaginary string force keeping it attached to Earth, only this time it's not acting like the hammer thrower and his/her hammer, because it isn't in geo-sync.
It's actually moving many many times faster than the supposed Earth's rotation, as if it's string was attached to Earth in a groove like a so called malfunctioning yo-yo that allows the string to keep circling without being wound in or out.
The issue is, how does the string snap to set the rocket into motion away from Earth?
Does someone tap the brake pedal?
A quick puff of aerosol?
A quick side blast of super fire thrust?
It doesn't, and this is another issue of the string analogy.
The tension in the analogy string gets less and less as the object gets further away until eventually it reaches effectively 0.
The string "snaps" itself as the object moves further away, which is done by either its inertia, or a booster, or some combination of them.
How does this happen that can be thought of as anything even remotely looking like realistic.
By no longer thinking of it as a string and instead accepting it for what it is.
Observable it is not. Repeatable it is obviously not.
No. It is quite observable. You can notice how the craft is accelerated less as it is further away.
It is quite repeatable due to the sheer number of times it has been done.
The story tellers of sci-fi that fools the gullible of which we all are.
No. Not us all.
You might be a gullible fool that has fallen for the FE bullshit, but not me.
I actually understand these things that have been used to so easily con you.
The strongest people are those that are willing to eradicate some of their naivety for sucker stories.
The way to do that is to actually go through each story told and look for potential flaws in it.
Which is what I did with FE. I found so many flaws it isn't funny.
All people have to remember is, the magical stuff that we see in so called space and what not, were all the imagination of sci-fi writers/story tellers and brought to life by the special effects teams and narrators.
Not all. Some was brought to life by real scientists.
Are you going to say cell phones are all just special effects and the like as well?
To find out the difference between star trek and star wars, or Apollo to the moon or spaceX to mars, you need to re-read the story-lines and you need to look into your own mind to actually set it to a comfortable stance of seeing the bigger picture after every re-read.
Well Apollo was based entirely upon technology that they had at the time. It was a real program which actually happened.
Star trek is fictional, it contradicts itself, it is based in the future and has technology we simply don't have.