Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all!!!

Quote

You haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.

What we can't create, we say that it not needed...

Quote

All you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.

OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.

This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.

OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...

Did you think that I picked random airports location?

If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.

Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.

Good night and you know have a nice dream!

And still no proof one is needed.

And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum.  AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.

here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting.  Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?

thus a smaller inertia force

There is no inertia force, just inertia.

Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.

When landing, the plane is already roughly synchronised to the rotation of Earth. The force that makes the final synchronisation is the friction between the wheels and the ground.

Prior to that you have the air resistance.
The air is moving with Earth.

You are the one claiming you have disproved a spherical Earth. Thus the burden is on you to prove that.
No shifting the burden to use by demanding we draw you a picture.

How about you draw one for this landing:

Then tell us what one you think is missing.

Of course you did vote for Trump. 

Hey don't rope these idiots in with other trump voters. A lot of us new he wasn't going to be a good president. We also just knew that Hillary would have been worse. The choices given to us this election were fucking horrible. Regardless of who you voted for, this country was in for a rough few years. It basically comes down to who you thought was going to do a worse job.

Quote

If I'm on that plane and need a piss, can I go from my seat to the toilet at the front at walking speed? Or will I have to run at 550mph to get there?

If I don't have to run at 550mph does that mean the plane is stationary?

You've typed all that nonsense question as a poor troll attempt - what a waste of time for you.

You are touching the airplane and thus connected to the airplane speed. Not the same with the airplane landing on a runway.
Stop trying to change the subject. Show me your FBD with all forces on the airplane and the ones that keep it in sync with the runway.

If you can’t, then your spinning earth is bogus.
By not answering you prove that the spinning earth is bogus.

Yes, it is a waist of time for you to prove something that is untrue, that much is true.

Show us the science…

The atmosphere is touching the earth (including the runway)

End of story, unless you can prove that the atmosphere is not rotating with the earth. 

Here are others asking that question: Why does the atmosphere rotate along with the earth?

I am trying to explain to you what a free body diagram looks like, since the Spherical Earth Priest have no idea on how to create one since you never took physics in collage...

People who have been to college usually know how to spell it.

since you never took physics in collage...

Sorry, I didn't take Physics 101 in collage. Somehow I didn't seem to fit into this collage: but I did take Physics I at University.

So what?

Just to show kind I am here is a quote from your High Priest in this neo-Flat Earthism Religion that you seem to adhere to:

The Earth is Not Moving

The heliocentric theory, literally “flying” in the face of direct observation, experimental evidence and common sense, maintains that the ball-Earth is spinning around its axis at 1,000 miles per hour, revolving around the Sun at 67,000 miles per hour, while the entire solar system rotates around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 miles per hour, and the Milky Way speeds through the expanding Universe at over 670,000,000 miles per hour, yet no one in history has ever felt a thing! We can feel the slightest breeze on a summer’s day, but never one iota of air displacement from these incredible speeds! Heliocentrists claim with a straight face that their ball-Earth spins at a constant velocity dragging the atmosphere in such a manner as to perfectly cancel all centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces so we do not feel the tiniest bit of motion, perturbation, wind or air resistance! Such back-peddling, damage-control reverse-engineered explanations certainly stretch the limits of credibility and the imagination, leaving much to be desired by discerning minds. If the Earth and atmosphere are constantly revolving Eastwards at 1,000 mph, how is it that clouds, wind, and weather patterns casually and unpredictably go every which way, often travelling in opposing directions simultaneously? Why can we feel the slightest Westward breeze but not the Earth’s incredible supposed 1,000 mph Eastward spin!? And how is it that the magic velcro of gravity is strong enough to drag miles of Earth’s atmosphere along, but weak enough to allow little bugs, birds, clouds and planes to travel freely unabated in any direction?

There's some more ammunition for your pop-gun!

Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.

Here is the information:

An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.




The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.



The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km

The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.



Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.

Velocity = angular velocity * radius.

If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m

Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5

The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)

The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula

cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)


So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,

value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m

and the velocity at that point will be

Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s


At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get

Velocity = 393.33 m/s.


So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.

Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.

Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!

I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.

Wow what a waste of time to actually bother to read this through. What you're describing is the Coriolis effect, and the difference in linear velocity is something that's under constant correction by the plane.

InFlatEarth The Free Body Diagram of a plane doesn't change if the Earth is moving or stationary. In both cases, the FBD is exactly the same.

If the Earth doesn't move, then the atmosphere doesn't move, and the plane moves through the air.

If the Earth moves, the atmosphere moves with it, and the plane still moves through the air.

So asking for a FBD is completely irrelevant to the motion of the Earth. You can't conclude anything about the motion of Earth by watching an object moving in the atmosphere. You can't conlude that it's in motion, but you can't conclude that it's stationary either.

That is because the atmosphere is firmly attached to the Earth, the same way that the feet of a passenger are attached to the plane : through gravity and friction.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 02:20:50 PM

He is God and he can be everywhere at the same time and helping any person that asks for help!

So he chose to answer your trivial request instead of save a child?

He did both, but you on the other hand or your wolf pack can't draw a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and place "THE" force that keeps it in sync with the supposed earth rotation.

Just admit that the Earth is stationary, that the Heliocentric Hypothesis is wrong, that we are motionless and thus are in a flat plan and the God created everything.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 02:00:32 PM

I am trying to explain to you what a free body diagram looks like, since the Spherical Earth Priest have no idea on how to create one since you never took physics in collage...

People who have been to college usually know how to spell it.

People who have been to college don't make dumbass, über retarded grammatical errors such as this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71317.msg1931018#msg1931018

That difference is the generally result of experience, planning, preparation and sometimes more than just a bit of luck.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 02:18:00 PM

Quote

You haven't yet proven one is needed and been given multiple replies how it is not.

What we can't create, we say that it not needed...

Quote

All you've succeeded in doing is showing how you don't understand relative motion and momentum.

OK, know this is what I expected from the wolf pack, just state nonsense.

This is physics 101, relative motion has nothing to do with forces.

OK, show me the momentum equation that can explain how the airplane is synchronized with the earth movement...

Did you think that I picked random airports location?

If the Earth was spinning, the momentum that the airplane would of had when it leaves the airfield would be much smaller than the landing field, plus it would be in the direction that the plane would be taking off.

Momentum is not the magic rabbit out of the hat this time.

Good night and you know have a nice dream!

And still no proof one is needed.

And still no understanding of relative movement or momentum.  AGAIN the difference in angular velocity changes gradually during the flight.
But thanks for proving that your claim to be an engineer on another thread was a lie.

here's a tip by the way, if you click the "quote" button in the upper right of the post you are wanting to quote, then it will show in the quote who you quoting.  Unless you WANT to make your posts harder to read?

In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.

F = ma

All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.

If there is such a force, it would have to make a 90 degree shift. Also if would have to overcome the inertia of the airplane with the 90 degree shift.

The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.

Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong

The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.

Friction of the air. The plane is in the air, the air moves with the Earth, so the plane moves with the Earth.

This kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams because it makes no difference on a plane if the Earth moves or not.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:00:47 AM

thus a smaller inertia force

There is no inertia force, just inertia.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:00:47 AM

Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.

When landing, the plane is already roughly synchronised to the rotation of Earth. The force that makes the final synchronisation is the friction between the wheels and the ground.

Prior to that you have the air resistance.
The air is moving with Earth.

You are the one claiming you have disproved a spherical Earth. Thus the burden is on you to prove that.
No shifting the burden to use by demanding we draw you a picture.

How about you draw one for this landing:

Then tell us what one you think is missing.

If order for the airplane to get synchronized with the rotation of the Earth, there has to be a force that is applied to it. Remember the airplane takes off from a runway that faces East to West, with the supposed spin of the earth which by the way at that location was 94 m/s and then it land on a runway the is facing North to south with a supposed spin of the earth of 393.33 m/s

Somewhere in between the flight, there was a force acting on the airplane that caused the airplane to get synchronized with the new earth velocity which my the way, overcame the airplanes inertia.

All that I am asking is for you to place this force on a Free Body Diagram.

If I would have said that there is no gravity and a block slides on a plain is do to God. If I would also challenge to draw me a Free Body Diagrom of the block and to place the force of gravity on it, you would have no problem in doing it.

But in the airplane example, how can you place a nonexistent force on the FBD!!!

As for your video, there was a side wind (pressure) that pushed the airplane to the side. This force can be calculate by multiplying the airplanes Surface Area that was perpendicular to the wind with the Pressure, but you must be consistent in your units.

Are you saying that air resistance causes the airplane to get synced with the earth supposed rotation?

Are you also saying that

The air is moving with Earth.

Talk about a big blow job!!!!

Now how about you draw me the Free Body Diagram of the Forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth spinning.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 06:47:32 AM

Quote

If I'm on that plane and need a piss, can I go from my seat to the toilet at the front at walking speed? Or will I have to run at 550mph to get there?

If I don't have to run at 550mph does that mean the plane is stationary?

You've typed all that nonsense question as a poor troll attempt - what a waste of time for you.

You are touching the airplane and thus connected to the airplane speed. Not the same with the airplane landing on a runway.
Stop trying to change the subject. Show me your FBD with all forces on the airplane and the ones that keep it in sync with the runway.

If you can’t, then your spinning earth is bogus.
By not answering you prove that the spinning earth is bogus.

Yes, it is a waist of time for you to prove something that is untrue, that much is true.

Show us the science…

The atmosphere is touching the earth (including the runway)

so the atmosphere is moving at the same velocity as the earth (apart from local winds) and the plane is flying in the atmosphere.

End of story, unless you can prove that the atmosphere is not rotating with the earth. 

Here are others asking that question: Why does the atmosphere rotate along with the earth?

OK, with your logic, the Wind velocity on the earth will be a gradient that will have a constant increase from the one airport to the second airport do to that at one location the earth velocity is 94 m/s and in the second location the earth velocity is 393 m/s, but this is not true.

In convention heat transfer we can calculate the thermal layers and motion layers of air do to a moving plate. These boundary layers have a finite height of impact and over height the effect gets lost. Let’s say that I was in the metro dome and I placed a walker in the center of the field. I then jacked up the speed of the walker to 10 m/s, would the air on the top of the dome which was located right over the walker go the way the walker was working. NO

End of story, unless you can prove that the atmosphere is not rotating with the earth. 

Convection heat transfer disproves this notion that the atmosphere is rotating with the earth.

But if you still want to insists in this, then I would ask you, to draw me the Free Body Diagram of the air molecule and place the forces that sync it with the supposedly speed of the earth.

You still have the same problem!!!! You can’t draw a free body diagram, because there are no forces because the earth is stationary



Even your own article stated

Force is needed either to make something change its speed, or to make its motion point in a new direction. 

Place the force that keeps the airplane in sync with the ground on the Free Body Diagram

In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.

F = ma

No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied.
It is F=ma, not F=mv.

All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.

You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram?
It is simply air resistance.

Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong

No. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.

If order for the airplane to get synchronized with the rotation of the Earth, there has to be a force that is applied to it. Remember the airplane takes off from a runway that faces East to West, with the supposed spin of the earth which by the way at that location was 94 m/s and then it land on a runway the is facing North to south with a supposed spin of the earth of 393.33 m/s

And guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary.
The plane takes off in one direction and has to land in another.

Do you know the force responsible for it? AIR RESISTANCE, or a combination of air resistance, thrust, weight and lift.

I even asked you to draw a free body diagram, but you didn't. I guess that means you accept Earth is round?

Somewhere in between the flight, there was a force acting on the airplane that caused the airplane to get synchronized with the new earth velocity which my the way, overcame the airplanes inertia.

Do you mean during?
If so, yes, there was a force acting for the entire duration of the flight. It is called AIR RESISTANCE (or more technically a combination of air resistance, thrust, lift and weight). What magic extra force do you think you need?

For the most part, the atmosphere moves with Earth. That means when the plane takes off with Earth moving at (just using your numbers) 94 m/s, the air is moving at that speed.
As the plane travels around Earth to a spot where Earth is moving at 393.33 m/s, the atmosphere is also changing speed and as the plane is in the air, it will experience air resistance to make it travel at that speed.

All that I am asking is for you to place this force on a Free Body Diagram.

And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane?

You even have that in your diagram to some extent labelled "drag".
Guess what? That drag force is dependent upon the plane's velocity through the air. It can point in any direction (however if it is pointing forwards you will have a problem flying).

If I would have said that there is no gravity and a block slides on a plain is do to God. If I would also challenge to draw me a Free Body Diagrom of the block and to place the force of gravity on it, you would have no problem in doing it.

The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it.
Even then I likely wouldn't draw you one.

But in the airplane example, how can you place a nonexistent force on the FBD!!!

The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?

As for your video, there was a side wind (pressure) that pushed the airplane to the side. This force can be calculate by multiplying the airplanes Surface Area that was perpendicular to the wind with the Pressure, but you must be consistent in your units.

And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.

Are you saying that air resistance causes the airplane to get synced with the earth supposed rotation?
Are you also saying that

Quote

The air is moving with Earth.

Yes I am.
The air moves with Earth for the most part. There is some minor wind as the friction is not infinite.
The plane is moving through this air, which results in friction AKA air resistance AKA drag causing the plane to match the speed of the air and thus the speed of Earth.
In the case of winds, the thrust component as well as the lift component can be manipulated to fine tune the matching as occurs in the crosswind landing I provided.

Again, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MISSING?
WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CAN'T SYNC THE PLANE?

Now how about you draw me the Free Body Diagram of the Forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth spinning.

Here one is:

Tell me what's missing?
Remember that this is just a generic one not showing any specific direction.
The drag component will be in the direction of the air's velocity relative to the plane.
Assuming it is a simple plane without thrust vectoring thrust will be forwards.
Weight will be down.
Lift will be complex based upon the specific orientation of the flight surfaces and the speed (and direction) of the airflow over it.


The force you are looking for is predominately that drag force.

So happy, you have your diagram. Now going to admit there is no issue for a spinning RE?

OK, with your logic, the Wind velocity on the earth will be a gradient that will have a constant increase from the one airport to the second airport do to that at one location the earth velocity is 94 m/s and in the second location the earth velocity is 393 m/s, but this is not true.

No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.

In convention heat transfer we can calculate the thermal layers and motion layers of air do to a moving plate. These boundary layers have a finite height of impact and over height the effect gets lost. Let’s say that I was in the metro dome and I placed a walker in the center of the field. I then jacked up the speed of the walker to 10 m/s, would the air on the top of the dome which was located right over the walker go the way the walker was working. NO

Is this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No.
How about this:
Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air.
Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.

Convection heat transfer disproves this notion that the atmosphere is rotating with the earth.

No it doesn't.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 05:00:47 AM

Ok you Flat Earth Deniers, you have been proven wrong once and for all unless you can draw me a Free Body Diagram of an Airplane that is land on the airport of Tel Nov Air Base in Tel-nof, Israel.

Here is the information:

An airplane, takes off from the airport of Svalbard in Longyear, Norway. This is a real airport where in 2014 154,261 passengers used it. It is has a Latitude of 78.246111 Degrees and a Longitude of 15.465556 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LYR”. The runway is 2,483 meters long and is made of asphalt. It is facing East to West with an angle of 16.4 degrees from the horizontal axis.




The airplane travels to the airport of Tel Nov Air Base which is located in Tel-nof, Israel. This is also a real military airport of the Israeli air force. It is has a Latitude of 31.839472 Degrees and a Longitude of 34.821844 Degrees. It’s symbol is “LLEK”. The runway is 2,402 meters long and it is made of asphalt. It is facing North to South with an angle of 3.24 degrees from the vertical axis.



The distance that the airplane traveled is 5,251.2 km

The airbus A330-200 has a range of 13,450 km so the distance is realistic.



Know if the earth is a sphere and it spins, that means that at the equator is 40,075 km. It needs 24 hour a rotation which means that its speed is 1,670 km/hr or 463 m/s.

Velocity = angular velocity * radius.

If the radius of the earth is 6,371 km or 6,371,000 m

Then the angular velocity of the earth is 463 / 6,371,000 => 7.267 x 10^-5

The velocity in a specific location on the earth is the (angular velocity of the earth) * (the radius from the spin axis)

The radius of the spin axis can be calculated from trigonometry with the formula

cos(θ) = value / (earths radius)


So for Svalbard Airport with a latitude of 78.246111 degrees,

value = (earth radius) * cos (78.246111) = 6,371,000 m * cos (78.246111)
value = 1,297,825 m

and the velocity at that point will be

Velocity = 7.267 x 10^-5 * 1,297,825 m = 94.31 m/s


At the Tel Nov Air Base, if you do the same math, you will get

Velocity = 393.33 m/s.


So you are traveling from a location that will have a smaller ground velocity and thus a smaller inertia force which just so happens to be in the direction that the airplane is taking off and you are landing in a location where the ground velocity is much greater in a direction which is perpendicular to the earth rotation.

Now show me your free body diagram of the airplane landing and label all the forces on the airplane and show me the forces that synchronize the airplane with the ground speed. The airplane is landing perpendicular to the earths rotation.

Either show me the forces or admit that the earth is stationary!!!!!

I would like to wise a nice day to the wolf pack of heliocentric priests.

Wow what a waste of time to actually bother to read this through. What you're describing is the Coriolis effect, and the difference in linear velocity is something that's under constant correction by the plane.

Coriolis Effect are negligible when considering the scale of the Earth, but if you want to play the Coriolis Effect, then lets play the Coriolis Effect.

First have a group meeting with the High Heliocentric priest and decide if the Coriolis Effect is negligible or not on the Earth.

If it is negligible, then you are wrong, but if it is not, then you open up Pandora’s box.

But if you still want to talk about the Coriolis Effect, show me you equation that disproves me.

In science we make a statement that we can back up with equations and diagrams.

With religion we make statement and pray that the people will believe in our con job. If somebody try's to challenge our beliefs we say that he does not know what he is talking about and make fun of him. If he continues, we send a wolf pack on him to discourage him, if this false, we find other means to deal with him so we will never have to hear from him again.

Coriolis Effect are negligible when considering the scale of the Earth, but if you want to play the Coriolis Effect, then lets play the Coriolis Effect.

No. It is negligible when considering just a small section of Earth, without something that will enhance its effects.

In science we make a statement that we can back up with equations and diagrams.

Something you are yet to do.

With religion we make statement and pray that the people will believe in our con job. If somebody try's to challenge our beliefs we say that he does not know what he is talking about and make fun of him. If he continues, we send a wolf pack on him to discourage him, if this false, we find other means to deal with him so we will never have to hear from him again.

Something you have done repeatedly, except the wolf pack part, which you seem unable to command. Maybe see if your high priests can help.

InFlatEarth The Free Body Diagram of a plane doesn't change if the Earth is moving or stationary. In both cases, the FBD is exactly the same.

If the Earth doesn't move, then the atmosphere doesn't move, and the plane moves through the air.

If the Earth moves, the atmosphere moves with it, and the plane still moves through the air.

So asking for a FBD is completely irrelevant to the motion of the Earth. You can't conclude anything about the motion of Earth by watching an object moving in the atmosphere. You can't conlude that it's in motion, but you can't conclude that it's stationary either.

That is because the atmosphere is firmly attached to the Earth, the same way that the feet of a passenger are attached to the plane : through gravity and friction.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


So you are telling me that their is no force on the airplane that syncs it with the Earths velocity, which by the way at airport 1 was at 94 m/s and at airport 2 it was 393 m/s

If the Earth moves, the atmosphere moves with it, and the plane still moves through the air.

You know nothing about convection heat transfer and boundary layers...

That is because the atmosphere is firmly attached to the Earth, the same way that the feet of a passenger are attached to the plane : through gravity and friction.

I learned in school that forces in the y direction have no impact of forces in the x direction. I was also learned in school that the gravitational forces are always perpendicular to the ground.

So, their is no gravitational forces in the x direction to sync the airplane or the atmosphere to the supposed motion of the earth, but then again you might pull some dark matter and us that to explain this whole mess that I got you in...

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

The Conservation of momentum is a fundamental law in physics which states that the momentum of a system is constant if there are no external forces acting on the system. So what forces acted upon the airplane that made this 90 degree shift that keeps the airplane in sync with the earth rotation.

Friction of the air. The plane is in the air, the air moves with the Earth, so the plane moves with the Earth.

This kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams because it makes no difference on a plane if the Earth moves or not.

Since you stated that “this kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams” means that it can be represented, so please represent it if it exists.

If you can’t them the heliocentric Hypothesis is bogus.

So you are telling me that their is no force on the airplane that syncs it with the Earths velocity, which by the way at airport 1 was at 94 m/s and at airport 2 it was 393 m/s

No, he is telling you there is no magic extra force needed. It is already there.

Since you stated that “this kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams” means that it can be represented, so please represent it if it exists.

Air resistance AKA drag which goes to the side, just like in a crosswind landing.

It is fundamentally a 3D problem so you cannot easily represent it in 2D.
If we provided you a diagram showing it more explicitly you would then complain that lift and weight were missing or that thrust and drag were missing.

That's why I told you to draw a free body diagram of a crosswind landing.
It isn't the nice pretty picture people like imaging.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

In order to have motion, you need to have a force applied to the object.

F = ma

No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied.
It is F=ma, not F=mv.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

All that I am asking is for you to place the force on the FBD that supposedly keeps the airplane is sync with the earth rotation, when it is flying in the sky.

You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram?
It is simply air resistance.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

Write down the equation of the conservation of momentum with all components, x, y and z to prove me wrong

No. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:20:19 PM

If order for the airplane to get synchronized with the rotation of the Earth, there has to be a force that is applied to it. Remember the airplane takes off from a runway that faces East to West, with the supposed spin of the earth which by the way at that location was 94 m/s and then it land on a runway the is facing North to south with a supposed spin of the earth of 393.33 m/s

And guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary.
The plane takes off in one direction and has to land in another.

Do you know the force responsible for it? AIR RESISTANCE, or a combination of air resistance, thrust, weight and lift.

I even asked you to draw a free body diagram, but you didn't. I guess that means you accept Earth is round?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

Somewhere in between the flight, there was a force acting on the airplane that caused the airplane to get synchronized with the new earth velocity which my the way, overcame the airplanes inertia.

Do you mean during?
If so, yes, there was a force acting for the entire duration of the flight. It is called AIR RESISTANCE (or more technically a combination of air resistance, thrust, lift and weight). What magic extra force do you think you need?

For the most part, the atmosphere moves with Earth. That means when the plane takes off with Earth moving at (just using your numbers) 94 m/s, the air is moving at that speed.
As the plane travels around Earth to a spot where Earth is moving at 393.33 m/s, the atmosphere is also changing speed and as the plane is in the air, it will experience air resistance to make it travel at that speed.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

All that I am asking is for you to place this force on a Free Body Diagram.

And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane?

You even have that in your diagram to some extent labelled "drag".
Guess what? That drag force is dependent upon the plane's velocity through the air. It can point in any direction (however if it is pointing forwards you will have a problem flying).

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

If I would have said that there is no gravity and a block slides on a plain is do to God. If I would also challenge to draw me a Free Body Diagrom of the block and to place the force of gravity on it, you would have no problem in doing it.

The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it.
Even then I likely wouldn't draw you one.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

But in the airplane example, how can you place a nonexistent force on the FBD!!!

The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

As for your video, there was a side wind (pressure) that pushed the airplane to the side. This force can be calculate by multiplying the airplanes Surface Area that was perpendicular to the wind with the Pressure, but you must be consistent in your units.

And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

Are you saying that air resistance causes the airplane to get synced with the earth supposed rotation?
Are you also saying that

Quote

The air is moving with Earth.

Yes I am.
The air moves with Earth for the most part. There is some minor wind as the friction is not infinite.
The plane is moving through this air, which results in friction AKA air resistance AKA drag causing the plane to match the speed of the air and thus the speed of Earth.
In the case of winds, the thrust component as well as the lift component can be manipulated to fine tune the matching as occurs in the crosswind landing I provided.

Again, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MISSING?
WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CAN'T SYNC THE PLANE?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:00:06 PM

Now how about you draw me the Free Body Diagram of the Forces that keep the airplane in sync with the supposed earth spinning.

Here one is:

Tell me what's missing?
Remember that this is just a generic one not showing any specific direction.
The drag component will be in the direction of the air's velocity relative to the plane.
Assuming it is a simple plane without thrust vectoring thrust will be forwards.
Weight will be down.
Lift will be complex based upon the specific orientation of the flight surfaces and the speed (and direction) of the airflow over it.


The force you are looking for is predominately that drag force.

So happy, you have your diagram. Now going to admit there is no issue for a spinning RE?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:46:06 PM

OK, with your logic, the Wind velocity on the earth will be a gradient that will have a constant increase from the one airport to the second airport do to that at one location the earth velocity is 94 m/s and in the second location the earth velocity is 393 m/s, but this is not true.

No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:46:06 PM

In convention heat transfer we can calculate the thermal layers and motion layers of air do to a moving plate. These boundary layers have a finite height of impact and over height the effect gets lost. Let’s say that I was in the metro dome and I placed a walker in the center of the field. I then jacked up the speed of the walker to 10 m/s, would the air on the top of the dome which was located right over the walker go the way the walker was working. NO

Is this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No.
How about this:
Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air.
Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 21, 2017, 11:46:06 PM

Convection heat transfer disproves this notion that the atmosphere is rotating with the earth.

No it doesn't.

No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied. It is F=ma, not F=mv.

How about

F = m * (Vf^2 – Vi^2) / (2 * d)

Or F = (Preasure) * (Cross Surface Area)

You have already been told what that force is, why do you need a diagram? It is simply air resistance.

Force is a vector, it has both magnitude and direction

A resistance to what. By definition resistance is a way of avoiding change, in our case, we have dramatic change, from 94m/s to 393m/s

Also Air resistance causes lift, what are you trying to do, bullshit your way out of the question?

No. You write it down to prove your baseless crap.

I did not bring up the conservation of momentum, some higt heliocentric priest did, so he has to back up his claims.

And guess what? The same is basically true if Earth was stationary. The plane takes off in one direction and has to land in another. Do you know the force responsible for it? AIR RESISTANCE, or a combination of air resistance, thrust, weight and lift. I even asked you to draw a free body diagram, but you didn't. I guess that means you accept Earth is round?

Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.

Do you mean during?If so, yes, there was a force acting for the entire duration of the flight. It is called AIR RESISTANCE (or more technically a combination of air resistance, thrust, lift and weight). What magic extra force do you think you need? For the most part, the atmosphere moves with Earth. That means when the plane takes off with Earth moving at (just using your numbers) 94 m/s, the air is moving at that speed.As the plane travels around Earth to a spot where Earth is moving at 393.33 m/s, the atmosphere is also changing speed and as the plane is in the air, it will experience air resistance to make it travel at that speed.

Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.

And I am saying that is entirely pointless. Are you going to reject air resistance? If not are you going to explain why it can't synchronise the plane? You even have that in your diagram to some extent labelled "drag". Guess what? That drag force is dependent upon the plane's velocity through the air. It can point in any direction (however if it is pointing forwards you will have a problem flying).

Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.

The issue isn't having a problem, the issue is going to the effort of making one for you to just ignore it. Even then I likely wouldn't draw you one.

The Heliocentric Priest are the ones that desperately needs to have this matter closed, or else their whole hypothesis goes out the door.

Oh by the way, I like how you think it is pointless to take the time to draw a FBD, but you take the time to write a detail explanation of bullshit…

The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?

Then place it on the diagram

And guess what? The atmosphere moving with Earth would cause the same effect.

Talk about a big blow job!

The air moves with Earth for the most part. There is some minor wind as the friction is not infinite. The plane is moving through this air, which results in friction AKA air resistance AKA drag causing the plane to match the speed of the air and thus the speed of Earth. In the case of winds, the thrust component as well as the lift component can be manipulated to fine tune the matching as occurs in the crosswind landing I provided. Again, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS MISSING? WHY DO YOU THINK THIS CAN'T SYNC THE PLANE?

Convection Heat transfer disproves your hypothesis, since boundary layers have a finite effect on the environment!!!

Tell me what's missing? Remember that this is just a generic one not showing any specific direction. The drag component will be in the direction of the air's velocity relative to the plane. Assuming it is a simple plane without thrust vectoring thrust will be forwards.Weight will be down. Lift will be complex based upon the specific orientation of the flight surfaces and the speed (and direction) of the airflow over it. The force you are looking for is predominately that drag force. So happy, you have your diagram. Now going to admit there is no issue for a spinning RE?

The drag force only slows you down!!!

The drag forces can’t speed you up.

definition

In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction) is a force acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.

No, that is true. If it wasn't there would be massive friction between Earth and the air causing it to happen anyway.

Only if the earth rotated, but it does not!!!

Is this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No. How about this: Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air. Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.

The earth is a closed system, my example was a closed system.
The scale of the earth to the atmosphere was the same as the walker and the dome height.

You are wrong.

No it doesn't.

You know nothing about heat transfer!!!!

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 12:01:10 AM

Coriolis Effect are negligible when considering the scale of the Earth, but if you want to play the Coriolis Effect, then lets play the Coriolis Effect.

No. It is negligible when considering just a small section of Earth, without something that will enhance its effects.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 12:01:10 AM

In science we make a statement that we can back up with equations and diagrams.

Something you are yet to do.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 12:01:10 AM

With religion we make statement and pray that the people will believe in our con job. If somebody try's to challenge our beliefs we say that he does not know what he is talking about and make fun of him. If he continues, we send a wolf pack on him to discourage him, if this false, we find other means to deal with him so we will never have to hear from him again.

Something you have done repeatedly, except the wolf pack part, which you seem unable to command. Maybe see if your high priests can help.

If we are going to talk about Coriolis Effects, then it will be on a global level! Do you really want to open up Pandora’s box?

You are the ones that are stating that the airplane gets sync with the a rotating earth model, but fail to draw a free body diagram

DRAW THE FREE BODY DIAGRAM IF YOU CAN!!!!!

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 12:12:42 AM

So you are telling me that their is no force on the airplane that syncs it with the Earths velocity, which by the way at airport 1 was at 94 m/s and at airport 2 it was 393 m/s

No, he is telling you there is no magic extra force needed. It is already there.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 12:18:17 AM

Since you stated that “this kind of force is usually not represented in Free Body Diagrams” means that it can be represented, so please represent it if it exists.

Air resistance AKA drag which goes to the side, just like in a crosswind landing.

It is fundamentally a 3D problem so you cannot easily represent it in 2D.
If we provided you a diagram showing it more explicitly you would then complain that lift and weight were missing or that thrust and drag were missing.

That's why I told you to draw a free body diagram of a crosswind landing.
It isn't the nice pretty picture people like imaging.

Maybe the below procedure would be a better way to convince people that there are forces that synchronize the airplane to the supposed ground speed.


" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote

No, in order to change motion, you need to have a force applied. It is F=ma, not F=mv.

How about
F = m * (Vf^2 – Vi^2) / (2 * d)
Or F = (Preasure) * (Cross Surface Area)

Yes, there are other forms as well. So what?

Force is a vector, it has both magnitude and direction

And that direction will change depending upon the scenario.

A resistance to what. By definition resistance is a way of avoiding change, in our case, we have dramatic change, from 94m/s to 393m/s

No, resistance is not always about avoiding change.
It is effectively opposing something.
In the case of air resistance, it is opposing a relative velocity.
i.e. if you have an object in the air, and the air is moving relative to that object, air resistance will result in a force (drag) which will act to accelerate the object so there is no motion relative to the air.

Also Air resistance causes lift, what are you trying to do, bullshit your way out of the question?

No it doesn't, at least not directly.
The more commonly associated force is drag.

You are the one bullshitting here. I have addressed the question, even gave you a diagram.

I did not bring up the conservation of momentum, some higt heliocentric priest did, so he has to back up his claims.

You are the one coming on here trying to disprove a spherical Earth spouting crap which completely ignores it.

But if you would like it backed up, then go and get a nice frictionless (or very low friction) rail, and slide something along it, when you let go of it (or stop pushing it) does it magically stop straight away? No. It keeps going. Thus inertia.

Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.

No. It also causes drag, typically slowing you down, and it can blow you sideways.

See, this is why I told you to draw the free body diagram for the crosswind landing.
It contains a component of air resistance going sideways.

Can you draw that diagram?

Air resistance is only to cause lift so you can fly.

Stop repeating the same BS.

Quote

The force exists. It is already in yours. Why do we need to make another?

Then place it on the diagram

IT'S ALREADY THERE!

Convection Heat transfer disproves your hypothesis, since boundary layers have a finite effect on the environment!!!

No it doesn't.
If you wish to claim it does PROVE IT!

The drag force only slows you down!!!

The drag forces can’t speed you up.

So you have never seen an object being pushed by wind?

definition

Quote

In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction) is a force acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.

Yes, note the RELATIVE MOTION!!
Not absolute.
So if you put a plane going at 94 m/s into an environment were the air was moving at 393 m/s what would happen?
Well (assuming it is the same direction), the motion of the plane relative to the air is -299 m/s.
That will mean drag would provide a force to accelerate the plane, or to make its velocity match that of air.

Quote

Is this anything like the situation you are attempting to discuss? No. How about this: Just have your walker and a small amount of air around them. Don't have anything else like a stationary dome or the like to trap the air. Then the air at the top will eventually start moving with the walker.

The earth is a closed system, my example was a closed system.
The scale of the earth to the atmosphere was the same as the walker and the dome height.
You are wrong.

No, you are wrong.
The walker is the object moving which would thus represent Earth.
Earth is not some tiny object sitting in a dome.

So no, it was nothing like it.

Quote

No it doesn't.

You know nothing about heat transfer!!!!

No. I know a fair bit.

You are the ones that are stating that the airplane gets sync with the a rotating earth model, but fail to draw a free body diagram

DRAW THE FREE BODY DIAGRAM IF YOU CAN!!!!!

I have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.
I have also provided a free body diagram along with an explanation.
Your only "rebuttal" amounts to calming wind can't blow objects.

I have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.

No you have not, and have you not read, that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Did mommy take away your crayons and maybe that is why you can't draw a Free Body Diagram?


You can't draw one because your forces are non-existing.

Your religion has been destroyed.

Go to your supervisors and ask for guidance, because you have failed them miserably.

I just hope that they don't punish you too much!!!

Quote

I have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.

No you have not, and have you not read, that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Did mommy take away your crayons and maybe that is why you can't draw a Free Body Diagram?

I have. I explained air resistance, aka drag and what it actually does.

Or are you going to claim wind can blow objects around?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 06:45:06 AM

Quote

I have explained it without the need of a free body diagram.

No you have not, and have you not read, that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Did mommy take away your crayons and maybe that is why you can't draw a Free Body Diagram?

I have. I explained air resistance, aka drag and what it actually does.

Or are you going to claim wind can blow objects around?

Will an open motor that spins at 12,000 rpm, affect the room environment with its rotation?

Will it create tremendous pressure gradients in the closed room

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The earth is supposedly a giant motor!

I have just debunked your argument, so DRAW the FREE BODY DIAGRAM!!!!

I prayed to God and he told me to ask if you agree the plane sitting stationary on the tarmac is synchronised with the movement of the earth? If so, in your mind, what force is at work to cancel this synchronisation when the plane becomes airborne?

Will an open motor that spins at 12,000 rpm, affect the room environment with its rotation?

Will it create tremendous pressure gradients in the closed room

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The earth is supposedly a giant motor!

I have just debunked your argument, so DRAW the FREE BODY DIAGRAM!!!!

You debunked nothing.
Your example is not merely a giant motor, it is a small motor in a giant room.
And that has the spinning component housed in something else.

Compare this to Earth:
Earth has a radius of 6471 km (roughly), and the atmosphere is roughly 100 km thick (before it starts getting quite thin). But we don't need the entire atmosphere, we just need the altitude planes fly at.

That is roughly 35 000 ft or 10 km.
That is roughly 0.0015 times the radius.

So for a valid comparison, forget the motor, forget the vast majority of the room (although it will effect it and I will discuss that in a second):
You have a spinning axle, lets say it is 10 cm wide, so a radius of 5 cm.
Are you saying this spinning wont effect the air that is 5*0.0015 cm = 75 micron further out?
If so, I would like some evidence of that.

As for the rest of the room, Earth is in space, a fairly friction-less environment. That means there is nothing trying to stop the air from moving with Earth.
Meanwhile your motor is in a room full of air. This room will exert friction on the air stopping it from moving with the motor.

So no, you have debunked nothing, and again, you already have your diagram unless you want to try claiming that wind can't blow things.

You need to understand something about FBD, they are always drawn in a given referential. In particular, for FBD of objects moving in the air (such as a ball or an airplane), the referential is always the Earth. That means your referential doesn't move relative to the ground, your referential IS the ground. If the Earth moves, your referential moves with it. If the Earth spins, your referential spins with it. Just like the atmosphere.

That's why you don't see your ball or airplane drifting into all kinds of crazy directions as the Earth revolves on itself, then around the Sun, then around the center of the galaxy, etc. Look at this FBD of a ball thrown into the air :


Its referential IS the Earth. The origin of this referential, O, is an actual physical location. If the Earth moves, O moves. And the FBD stays exactly the same. This applies for a plane too. You can't show the motion of the Earth on an object that is moving within the Earth !


Considering only Earth's rotation, yes the velocity of the ground near the Equator is greater than the velocity of the ground near the pole. It is the same for the atmosphere. The Earth rotates => the atmosphere rotates. Where the Earth rotates faster, the atmosphere rotates faster. But if you want to see these velocities, you need to draw a diagram in a referential that is NOT the Earth.

Yes the plane takes off with an inertia given by the ground, corresponding to the latitude of the airport. The air around the airport has the same speed as the ground. Then, for every tiny change of latitude during the flight, the air of this new place applies a corresponding tiny force on the plane to correct its inertia from the previous place.

If the flight is very fast, you get a big Coriolis effect. That means friction of the atmosphere was too weak and didn't have enough time to correct the inertia of the object. Although, you would need something as fast as Superman to notice this effect.

If the flight is realistic, like the one of a subsonic plane which lasts a few hour, then the atmosphere has enough time to carry the plane in its inertia like a current. This actual current force exists. It doesn't need to be strong, but applied continuously over enough time.


I have spent some time reflecting on your question. I think it would be very interesting to explain thoroughly. But it would take quite some time. Actually, it would take a physics lesson. I am not sure that you are looking for physics lessons, if that was the case you would find better teachers than us.

Also, if you had studied FBDs, you would know that the referential is important. Earth isn't the only possible referential, of course. But it is the easiest one for the study of objects moving on its surface. The atmosphere is indeed an extension of its rocky surface, just like the ocean.

Drawing the motion of an object on Earth in a referential that is outside the Earth, is a lot more complicated. For one thing, it could not be drawn to scale. You would also need to understand the use of this referential in the case of a ball, or a stationary helicopter, like previously proposed. It would be a lot to chew on. And it would not convince you that the atmosphere moves, if you refuse to believe so.