@ rabinoz
Read this short exchange of thoughts (between one heliocentrist and me) and try to learn one very important lesson :
If your myth of inertia contained a shred of truth, then this scenario (IN WHICH EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE IS TREATED AS A VACUUM) would also be true : Just imagine one small-slow airplane which max speed is not higher than 100 mi/h, now let's attach our small plane below the wing of B-52 which max. speed is 650 mi/h, now B-52 is taking off, reaching his max. speed and dropping our small-slow plane so that he could fly independently...THE QUESTION IS THIS : Which airplane should fly faster in accordance with HC utterly stupid myth of inertia??? THE ANSWER IS THIS : Our small plane should fly faster because his max. speed is the sum of the next factors :
1. Initial inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the spin of the earth before taking off
2. Inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the max. speed of B-52 before dropping small plane so that he could fly independently
3. It's own max. speed : 100 mi/h
However, max speed of B-52 is the sum of the next factors :
1. Initial inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the spin of the earth before taking off
2. It's own max. speed : 650 mi/h
--------------------------------------------
BALLTARD'S ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO THIS CHALLENGE :
>>>>>>>>>>The thrust is no longer greater than the drag and the airplane slows down....<<<<<<<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU'S (that's me
) RESPOND TO ABOVE STUPIDITY : So, you admit that air drag can counteract inertia, but you can't retain both premises :
1. Air drag has no impact on inertia (myth of inertia in which ball-earthers believe and how they promote it)
2. Air drag has an impact on inertia (when you have to find stupid excuse for why small plane can't retain (not even for the moment) it's inertia gained by the max. speed of B-52, but can PERMANENTLY retain inertia gained by the alleged spin of the earth...LOL...LOL...LOL...FACEPALM...FACEPALM...FACEPALM... You guys are so deluded that it's really beyond imagination...How somebody can be so intellectually dishonest towards himself it will always be mystery to me...THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is important to note that much of the resistance to what we call the Copernican Revolution derived from the fact that for some time it left many important questions unanswered - in particular, how the planets and stars moved and cohered without the celestial spheres. One central insight was the switch from Aristotle's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving, to the modern concept of INERTIA, in which a moving object keeps moving unless stopped by wind drag or something else. So, Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces.
AS YOU CAN SEE IF WE APPLIED MY EXAMPLE TO THE CONTEXT OF SPACE (AS IT IS DEPICTED BY MODERN SCIENTISTS BUT WHICH DOESN'T EXIST AS SUCH), THAT IS TO SAY TO THE CONTEXT OF VACUUM-ENVIRONMENT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT REALITY DOESN'T CORRESPOND WITH YOUR IMAGINARY LAWS OF PHYSICS (BECAUSE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE ISN'T VACUUM, AND HASN'T GOT SIMILAR PROPERTIES OF VACUUM. HOWEVER, IF YOU GIVE UP FROM TREATING EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE AS A VACUUM (IN THE CONTEXT OF INERTIA MYTH), THEN YOU HAVE TO FACE ONE ANOTHER SET OF PROBLEMS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS :
When we free our small-slow airplane from B-52, B-52 is going to leave behind our small airplane so RAPIDLY that it would seem as if our small airplane has jumped from B-52 with parachute....Air drag would do it, wouldn't it? So, our airplane would be RAPIDLY slowed down almost to the point of total immobility. In your HC fairytale such point of total immobility actually means continuation of movement due to the imaginary spin of the earth. If we jumped from an airplane without a parachute, our bodies would be eventually smashed after hitting the ground with great velocity, but before we hit the ground we are going to enjoy falling towards the earth and while we are falling down towards the earth we will feel air resistance caused by passing through the air which is placed below us, but we wont feel any east-west air drag. Exactly the same thing that would happen to our bodies (right after jumping from an airplane) would have happened (long time ago) to every single molecule of air. Every single molecule of air would be "glued" to the correspondent latitudinal point on the earth. What would that mean? Plain and simple : it would mean absolute absence of any wind anywhere within our atmosphere, there is no way around it.
So, if what you believe in were true there would be :
no windsno jet streamsno known effects of "coriolis force" (which is the consequence of the motion of the sun above the motionless earth -
wind patterns match sun's path above the earth 100 %)
no ocean currents (because alleged "big G" is not strong enough to overcome centrifugal force in order to keep oceans from flying off into space!!! On the other hand
if gravity ("big G") were strong enough to overcome centrifugal force so that oceans could stick to the earth then the flow of ocean currents wouldn't be possible, people wouldn't be able to walk or even breathing (we would be literally nailed/smashed to the surface of the earth right away), not to mention how it would be impossible for insects and birds to fly in an atmosphere which couldn't even exist in it's present form, in the first place...Is the Amount of Gravity (pressure or invisible force) over the Ocean the same "Amount of Gravity" over us humans here on earth? If it's "not" then why? If it is then why are we not "squashed" like a bug?
)Another thing that you have to deal with (which demands your ludicrous belief system) is a necessity to figure out and postulate one completely new definition of inertia because this is exactly what your inertia turns out to be :
An air is trapped by gravity, a plane is trapped by air, and as the earth turns an air turns with the earth, and as an air turns with the earth, an airplane (trapped by an air ) turns with the earth too, and voila, this is your inertia. Is it not?
This is not inertia, at all, this is old Aristotle's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving...
Your ludicrous inertia could hypothetically work in above described manner while airplanes fly eastbound or westbound, but what would happen if airplanes tried to fly towards north or towards south in a straight line?
Any attempt to fly towards north would produce enormous lateral deceleration force!
Any attempt to fly towards south would produce enormous lateral speedup force!
Nobody has ever felt or detected - by any means - such a force!
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.
@ Canadabear