Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all!!!

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?

Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.

Quote from: kennykirklan on July 22, 2017, 07:00:52 AM

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?

Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.

Please provide evidence that the earth and airplanes exist. Photos and hearsay won't do.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 06:56:18 AM

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.

Wrong, the earth makes 1 revolution per 24 hours where this motor make 12,000 revolutions be minute or 17,280,000 revolutions per day.

So you have to scale up your result of 75 micron and the new value will become to 1296 meters.

Like I said

The heliocentric theory is debunked.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 07:07:37 AM

Quote from: kennykirklan on July 22, 2017, 07:00:52 AM

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?

Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.

Please explain in what you want.

Please provide evidence that the earth and airplanes exist. Photos and hearsay won't do.

Please explain what you want.

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.

This is not a Free Body Diagram but a diagram of the projectile in motion.

I have asked for a Free Body Diagram will all forces labled.

But this is a start...

Please read the text also. Again, you would not like the physics you're asking for. Pretty sure that if someone did this for you, you would just answer : LOL no.

Please read the text also. Again, you would not like the physics you're asking for. Pretty sure that if someone did this for you, you would just answer : LOL no.

I read it, its wrong. read my previous post about the spinning motor at 12,000 rpm and how if this hypothesis is true, then the air for 1000 meter should get affected, but they don't.

Draw the FBD, but you can't

If I drew the FBD of a plane in a referential outside of Earth, it would show the atmosphere rotating. The plane would be in it with its forces from the classical FBD, plus the force the atmosphere applies on it to correct its inertia. You would say it's wrong. That's why your question has nothing to do with the FBD. Showing the FBD doesn't help.

If I drew the FBD of a plane in a referential outside of Earth, it would show the atmosphere rotating. The plane would be in it with its forces from the classical FBD, plus the force the atmosphere applies on it to correct its inertia. You would say it's wrong. That's why your question has nothing to do with the FBD. Showing the FBD doesn't help.

If you did that, then you would also need to have a direction on the force, since forces are vectors. This directional force must remain constant in direction and would then have to explain how to calculate it accurately. You will also need to provide documentation of how to calculate the force. In all the physics classes I took, we never even talked about this imaginary force. Oh by the way, does it have an “i” component,

but I would love to see your work!

Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..

Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..

did you ever talk a micro-mechanical devises class?
If you did, you would know that scalling up or down, is needed.
They had micro-mechanical pumps that could isolate at a rate of 1,000,000 time a second, but you will not believe me.

So basically, you are saying that we don't need to scale our results do to the RPM of the motor when compared to the earth, because it has has on effect on its environment?

If yes, then you agree with me that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the atmosphere?

Draw the FBD!!!

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 07:50:58 AM

Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..

did you ever talk a micro-mechanical devises class?
If you did, you would know that scalling up or down, is needed.
They had micro-mechanical pumps that could isolate at a rate of 1,000,000 time a second, but you will not believe me.

So basically, you are saying that we don't need to scale our results do to the RPM of the motor when compared to the earth, because it has has on effect on its environment?

If yes, then you agree with me that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the atmosphere?

Draw the FBD!!!

The Earth has more than 500 millions km² to drive the atmosphere along with it. Although it doesn't need to, because the atmosphere has its own inertia. But it helps calm down the wind.

Your motor is tiny, it can drive the air around it up to a few microns maybe, but it will have no effect on the air a meter from it, no matter its speed.

Look at it this way : if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside. That tells you that the only way the classical model works, is that the atmosphere follows the Earth. Do you agree ?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 08:02:32 AM

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 07:50:58 AM

Does it have an i component as in complex numbers ? You've been making so little sense throughout this thread (again with the 12.000 rpm motor) that it's very hard to believe you took physics classes, or maybe by failing all of it..

did you ever talk a micro-mechanical devises class?
If you did, you would know that scalling up or down, is needed.
They had micro-mechanical pumps that could isolate at a rate of 1,000,000 time a second, but you will not believe me.

So basically, you are saying that we don't need to scale our results do to the RPM of the motor when compared to the earth, because it has has on effect on its environment?

If yes, then you agree with me that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the atmosphere?

Draw the FBD!!!

The Earth has more than 500 millions km² to drive the atmosphere along with it. Although it doesn't need to, because the atmosphere has its own inertia. But it helps calm down the wind.

Your motor is tiny, it can drive the air around it up to a few microns maybe, but it will have no effect on the air a meter from it, no matter its speed.

Look at it this way : if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside. That tells you that the only way the classical model works, is that the atmosphere follows the Earth. Do you agree ?

You are trying so hard to convince yourself that the earth is spinning, without you don't look at the facts.

You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",

but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.


OK, let me put it to you this way, you have two identical motor in two identical boxes, with identical air conditions in space, zero gravity.

One rotates at 17,280,000 revolutions per day and the other at 1 revolution per day, which box will have the greater velocity gradient, or would they be identical

I am not trying to convince you that the classical model is true. I am not asking if you believe in it. I am asking if you understand it.

In the classical model, the air moves at the samed speed as the ground. That is the answer to your question.

You said that the velocity of the ground at Svalbard Airport is 94.31 m/s. Then it is also the speed of the air around the airport.

You said that the velocity of the ground at Tel Nov Air Base is 393.33 m/s, and not in the same direction as before. Then in the classical model, it is also the speed and direction of the air around the airport. Any change of magnitude and direction in the velocity of the ground between those 2 points, will have been applied on the plane by the atmosphere during the flight.

Do you understand that this is the necessary answer in the classical model, although you might not agree ? Because if you don't believe that answer, showing it in a FBD will be no different.

I am not trying to convince you that the classical model is true. I am not asking if you believe in it. I am asking if you understand it.

In the classical model, the air moves at the samed speed as the ground. That is the answer to your question.

You said that the velocity of the ground at Svalbard Airport is 94.31 m/s. Then it is also the speed of the air around the airport.

You said that the velocity of the ground at Tel Nov Air Base is 393.33 m/s, and not in the same direction as before. Then in the classical model, it is also the speed and direction of the air around the airport. Any change of magnitude and direction in the velocity of the ground between those 2 points, will have been applied on the plane by the atmosphere during the flight.

Do you understand that this is the necessary answer in the classical model, although you might not agree ? Because if you don't believe that answer, showing it in a FBD will be no different.

Listen; let me put it to you this way.

How stupid were the scientist that believed that the Piltdown Man was real?

If they were stupid enough to believe that, then how do you know that they may not be stupid enough to believe anything that will fit into their narrative.

If what you are saying is true, you can draw a free body diagram of the airplane and place all forces on it.

If you can’t do that, they you were lied to, just like scientist those were lied to about Piltdown Man.

But on the other hand, the Christians, Jews and Muslims, knew that the Piltdown Man was a phony, because we knew our history from the historical book called Bible.

I don't know anything about Piltdown Mal. But I wanted to answer to that :

You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",

but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.

Yes, it may very well be the case. If the Earth is stationary and not rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air doesn't move. If the Earth is moving and rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air moves and rotates with it.

In both cases, planes and balls behave the same. FBDs are the same. That is why you can't conclude anything about the motion of the Earth by observing the motion of an object inside the atmosphere.

It does not tell you that the Earth moves. But it does not tell you that the Earth doesn't move either.

You would have to draw the FBD outside of the Earth referential to see any difference between the two. This would be highly risky though, because if you decide to detach your referential from the Earth movement, you need to define it in another way. Where to stop this detachment ? At the rotation of the Earth only ? That means your referential moves with the Earth as it revolves around the Sun, it just doesn't rotate with it ? That seems fishy and way irrelevant for the study of motion on Earth !

Quote from: frenat on July 21, 2017, 04:27:47 PM

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

Have you ever been in an airplane?  Notice how if you throw a ball up it comes, pretty much, straight down?  And yet it has also travelled many meters in the direction of flight.  It's momentum carries in that direction even though it is no longer touching the plane. 
Kind of the same thing.

I don't know anything about Piltdown Mal. But I wanted to answer to that :

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 08:27:28 AM

You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",

but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.

Yes, it may very well be the case. If the Earth is stationary and not rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air doesn't move. If the Earth is moving and rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air moves and rotates with it.

In both cases, planes and balls behave the same. FBDs are the same. That is why you can't conclude anything about the motion of the Earth by observing the motion of an object inside the atmosphere.

It does not tell you that the Earth moves. But it does not tell you that the Earth doesn't move either.

You would have to draw the FBD outside of the Earth referential to see any difference between the two. This would be highly risky though, because if you decide to detach your referential from the Earth movement, you need to define it in another way. Where to stop this detachment ? At the rotation of the Earth only ? That means your referential moves with the Earth as it revolves around the Sun, it just doesn't rotate with it ? That seems fishy and way irrelevant for the study of motion on Earth !

But the only thing is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment did tell us that the earth was stationary with the help of the Sagnac experiment.

You may try to discredit the idea, but you will be nothing more than the scientist that believed in the Piltdown Man?

You believe in a lie

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 09:02:18 AM

I don't know anything about Piltdown Mal. But I wanted to answer to that :

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 08:27:28 AM

You even said " if the Earth was rotating, and the atmosphere was not, then you would have terrible winds each time you stepped outside",

but why can't the opposite be try, that the Earth is not rotating that is why when you step outside their are no terrible winds.

Yes, it may very well be the case. If the Earth is stationary and not rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air doesn't move. If the Earth is moving and rotating, there is no terrible wind because the air moves and rotates with it.

In both cases, planes and balls behave the same. FBDs are the same. That is why you can't conclude anything about the motion of the Earth by observing the motion of an object inside the atmosphere.

It does not tell you that the Earth moves. But it does not tell you that the Earth doesn't move either.

You would have to draw the FBD outside of the Earth referential to see any difference between the two. This would be highly risky though, because if you decide to detach your referential from the Earth movement, you need to define it in another way. Where to stop this detachment ? At the rotation of the Earth only ? That means your referential moves with the Earth as it revolves around the Sun, it just doesn't rotate with it ? That seems fishy and way irrelevant for the study of motion on Earth !

But the only thing is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment did tell us that the earth was stationary with the help of the Sagnac experiment.

You may try to discredit the idea, but you will be nothing more than the scientist that believed in the Piltdown Man?

You believe in a lie

Perhaps you have a quote from any of those scientists stating that.

Quote from: kennykirklan on July 22, 2017, 07:00:52 AM

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?

Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.

You'll never get laid saying stuff like that

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

Quote from: frenat on July 21, 2017, 04:27:47 PM

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

Have you ever been in an airplane?  Notice how if you throw a ball up it comes, pretty much, straight down?  And yet it has also travelled many meters in the direction of flight.  It's momentum carries in that direction even though it is no longer touching the plane. 
Kind of the same thing.

Thank you for given me the information that I needed to once and for all debunk your logic

First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.

How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?

The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.

In order  to have a movement of an object, then a force must be applied to it.

End of story.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 07:07:37 AM

Quote from: kennykirklan on July 22, 2017, 07:00:52 AM

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?

Their is no force that synchronizes the airplane to the earth rotation, because the earth is stationary.

You'll never get laid saying stuff like that

My wife will disagree about that

You know your experiments and how to interpret them for FET, I'll give you that. Although in the classical model, the Michelson-Morley experiment disproves the existence of aether once and for all, and the Sagnac effect can be used to prove the Earth rotates (Michelson and Gale, 1925).

First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.

How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?

The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.

That's the thing, the Earth doesn't make any hard left dive. Its rotation (angular speed) is constant. Just like a plane has a constant inertia as long as it does not make a hard left dive.

You know your experiments and how to interpret them for FET, I'll give you that. Although in the classical model, the Michelson-Morley experiment disproves the existence of aether once and for all, and the Sagnac effect can be used to prove the Earth rotates (Michelson and Gale, 1925).

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 09:18:35 AM

First of all, the ball is indirect contact with the airplane, from take off, so it gets the momentum.

How about if while I throw the ball in the air and at that instance the plane make a hard left dive. Will the ball return to my hand or will it land somewhere else in the plane? Why did not the momentum carry the ball to my position?

The same thing applies to the earth and atmosphere.

That's the thing, the Earth doesn't make any hard left dive. Its rotation (angular speed) is constant. Just like a plane has a constant inertia as long as it does not make a hard left dive.

But our airplane did, it changed direction and for an instance it had to deal with stresses that would break it apart.

As your your spherical earth motion

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

Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.

Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.

The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.

If all you want to remember is that planets in orbit make fancy helicoids when their star moves, then yes that is true.

But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4

Join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, you can see the angle I was talking about.

Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.

Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.

The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.

If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.

But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4

If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.

In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.

There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.

After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.

This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.

This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.

When I find the video, I will post it.

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 09:39:59 AM

Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.

Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.

The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.

If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.

But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4

If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.

In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.

There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.

After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.

This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.

This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.

When I find the video, I will post it.

You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?

In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.

Citation needed ?

Early century was the time of Einstein and Bohr. They had hot air balloons figured out.

But yes, early aviation spawned a lot of stupid comments. Idiots have always existed.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 10:07:07 AM

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 09:39:59 AM

Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.

Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.

The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.

If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.

But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4

If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.

In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.

There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.

After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.

This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.

This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.

When I find the video, I will post it.

You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?

I will agree with you that the Sun rotates above the earth as described in the book of Enoch (Before Noah's Flood)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64293.msg1818354#msg1818354

Quote from: inquisitive on July 22, 2017, 10:11:11 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 10:07:07 AM

Quote from: telsarbg on July 22, 2017, 09:39:59 AM

Again, not making any sense... You were talking about a ball in a plane, that would get back to your hand as long as the plane stayed on its course. The same applies for Earth. Of course if the plane moves abruptly, the ball will not get back in your hand, and then the comparison with Earth ends because it does not move abruptly.

Also, this 3D video of the solar system sporting a vortex has been flagged as wrong many times.

The planets do not drag behind the sun. They sometimes pass in front of it (relatively to its own motion around the center of the galaxy). That is because the solar system (direction of the ecliptic) makes an angle with the direction of the Sun. So planets are sometimes in front of the Sun, sometimes behind.

If all you want to remember is that orbits make fancy helicoids when their star is moving, then yes that is true.

But in reality it looks more like this :
http://i.imgur.com/rLr8Swh.mp4

If you join the planets with a line to draw the ecliptic, then you can see the angle I was talking about.

In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.

There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.

After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.

This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.

This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.

When I find the video, I will post it.

You would agree the earth revolves relative to the sun?

I will agree with you that the Sun rotates above the earth as described in the book of Enoch (Before Noah's Flood)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64293.msg1818354#msg1818354

As per current observations?  Measurements show the earth to be round.