Spherical Earth disproved for once and for all!!!

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.

As the plane flies south, the plane would gradually fly through an atmosphere that rotates faster and faster with the Earth until it is at the speed above the Israeli airport. Pilots don't really have to adapt to this too much because it happens automatically, extremely gradually, and naturally. In addition to the little airplane thrust/lift/drag/gravity doodle, we need to add this crossways force that brings the plane up to speed with the rotation of the Earth.

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 02:55:47 AM

Your increasingly erratic ranting gets you no nearer passing high school physics...

Though it does give me a good laugh.

Here's a nice man explaining how it's done:

You mean using a cartoony picture showing all the forces involved?

So you didn't understand him?

Knew you wouldn't.

It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...

Hope the pay's worth it.

Try again, REtards:

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm

Getting it yet?

Or is high school physics forever beyond you?

Scepti!  Where you been?  Good to see you back.

Probably was off conducting some super accurate experiment (that no one will ever see the results of ) utilizing extremely high powered lasers only available through his government connections and funding that prove (with elevendy hundred percent certainty, and of that he is certain) that Earth is flat. 

Quote from: JackBlack on August 24, 2017, 04:04:00 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 02:55:47 AM

Your increasingly erratic ranting gets you no nearer passing high school physics...

Though it does give me a good laugh.

Here's a nice man explaining how it's done:

You mean using a cartoony picture showing all the forces involved?

So you didn't understand him?

Knew you wouldn't.

It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...

Hope the pay's worth it.

Try again, REtards:

http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm

Getting it yet?

Or is high school physics forever beyond you?

Yep, jokes on you. Every RE'er gets paid 60k a year just to say we know the world is round. You get paid jack shit to look like a dumb ass.

Sucks to be you, eh?

Not as hard as it sucks to not understand how a free body diagram is created...

Then go round posting sneering triumphant bullshit proving how ignorant you are on a mad flat Earth forum nobody gives a fuck about...

Yeah, you're a real class act!

And you failed high school physics.

Lol.

So you didn't understand him?
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?

Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.

Once again, your link shows free body diagrams, using cartoons and arrows to show the forces.

So once again I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT??
Can you point out anything sepcific or just continually assert it is wrong and link to various sources which show you to be either a complete fucking imbecile or a lying piece of shit?

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 11:16:17 AM

So you didn't understand him?
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?

Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.

Once again, your link shows free body diagrams, using cartoons and arrows to show the forces.

So once again I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT??
Can you point out anything sepcific or just continually assert it is wrong and link to various sources which show you to be either a complete fucking imbecile or a lying piece of shit?

Your insane ranting is noted.

Please note that it does not change the fact you know nothing about free body diagrams, refuse to learn how they work, & would fail high school physics very, very badly indeed.

A normal person in your shoes would likely drop dead of shame...

Your autism, however, sadly prevents that, so we must put up with your overweening bullshit forever.

Now carry on raging...

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 11:16:17 AM

So you didn't understand him?
Knew you wouldn't.
It takes hard graft to be as ignorant as you REtards...
Hope the pay's worth it.
Try again, REtards:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH1/free_body_diagrams.htm
Getting it yet?
Or is high school physics forever beyond you?

Except we get it. You are the one that doesn't.

Once again, your link shows free body diagrams, using cartoons and arrows to show the forces.

So once again I ask, WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT??
Can you point out anything sepcific or just continually assert it is wrong and link to various sources which show you to be either a complete fucking imbecile or a lying piece of shit?

Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.

Lol fail.

And I'm not a flat Earther...

Nice try though, sounds almost plausible!

You'd still fail high school physics though...

You REtard.

Lol fail.

And I'm not a flat Earther...

Nice try though, sounds almost plausible!

You'd still fail high school physics though...

You REtard.

I can see that you earned high marks in Name Calling but never took a course in logic or debate. Do you have anything specific to say that is relevant or useful?

Your insane ranting is noted.

You mean me repeatedly refuting your crap?

Please note that it does not change the fact you know nothing about free body diagrams, refuse to learn how they work, & would fail high school physics very, very badly indeed.

You mean it doesn't change the fact that I know plenty about them, how they work and would easily pass high school physics; unlike you who continually spouts pathetic crap about them and provides links to prove yourself wrong.

A normal person in your shoes would likely drop dead of shame...
Your autism, however, sadly prevents that, so we must put up with your overweening bullshit forever.
Now carry on raging...

So is that your problem? You are autistic and feel no shame, so you continue to post pure stupidity and prove yourself wrong?

Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.

That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.

You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.

You are clearly mental....

And shameless,

That is because you are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

"So smart that science is unnecessary"...

Classic!

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 24, 2017, 02:39:45 PM

Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.

That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.

Understandable, but the OP specifically wanted clarification about how the plane could land perpindicular to the Earth's rotation given that it started with a much smaller lateral vector. (Using my high school physics words to impress.) Just trying to address that piece. Icing on your cake.

Quote from: JackBlack on August 24, 2017, 03:30:48 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 24, 2017, 02:39:45 PM

Jack, I know what's missing. First of all, the gravity/lift/drag/thrust diagram is quite good and accounts for most of it (though maybe our FE joker wants specific numbers added to each force). The one thing that I would add is the additional lateral force on the aircraft. Since the rotational velocity of the Earth and atmosphere is greater in Israel than Norway, as the aircraft flies south, the air will be pushing the plane east faster and faster until it reaches the rotational velocity of Tel Aviv. This acceleration would be so slight compared to other air currents that they would never feel it. However, it answers the problem.

That would actually be covered by drag, which doesn't always point directly behind the aircraft.

Understandable, but the OP specifically wanted clarification about how the plane could land perpindicular to the Earth's rotation given that it started with a much smaller lateral vector. (Using my high school physics words to impress.) Just trying to address that piece. Icing on your cake.

Nice try with the sockpuppet spam, but you didn't provide the OP with a correct free body diagram either...

Because you don't know how to make one...

As you have now proven for page after page...

You mental shill.

Again, here you are:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

"So smart, science is unnecessary"...

Lol.

You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.

You are clearly mental....

And shameless,

That is because you are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

"So smart that science is unnecessary"...

Classic!

If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that what we've already explained is quite adequate to answer your questions. We cannot possibly provide a more detailed diagram because we'd have to know the mass of the aircraft (constantly changing as fuel is consumed), the thrust of the engines (varying by pilot adjustments), rolling friction during takeoff, wind speed and direction, rate of ascent and descent, cruising altitude, drag (varying with atmospheric conditions throughout the flight), and so forth. We would need to draw dozens of diagrams to represent different conditions at different phases of the flight. And what would we be drawing in each of those? LIFT, DRAG (push and pull of the air), THRUST, and GRAVITY

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 04:01:22 PM

You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.

You are clearly mental....

And shameless,

That is because you are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

"So smart that science is unnecessary"...

Classic!

If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that what we've already explained is quite adequate to answer your questions. We cannot possibly provide a more detailed diagram because we'd have to know the mass of the aircraft (constantly changing as fuel is consumed), the thrust of the engines (varying by pilot adjustments), rolling friction during takeoff, wind speed and direction, rate of ascent and descent, cruising altitude, drag (varying with atmospheric conditions throughout the flight), and so forth. We would need to draw dozens of diagrams to represent different conditions at different phases of the flight. And what would we be drawing in each of those? LIFT, DRAG (push and pull of the air), THRUST, and GRAVITY

No, you'd have to know how to draw a free body diagram.

Which you don't.

Which you've proved by not actually providing one for pages...

Just saying you have.

Why are you so mental?

Oh right, cos you're these:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

" So smart, science is unnecessary"...

Sums you up in a nutshell.

Now fuck off.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on August 24, 2017, 04:21:26 PM

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 04:01:22 PM

You all seem to be just saying you understand how to make free body diagrams, without actually proving it.

You are clearly mental....

And shameless,

That is because you are these people:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

"So smart that science is unnecessary"...

Classic!

If you knew what you were talking about, you would understand that what we've already explained is quite adequate to answer your questions. We cannot possibly provide a more detailed diagram because we'd have to know the mass of the aircraft (constantly changing as fuel is consumed), the thrust of the engines (varying by pilot adjustments), rolling friction during takeoff, wind speed and direction, rate of ascent and descent, cruising altitude, drag (varying with atmospheric conditions throughout the flight), and so forth. We would need to draw dozens of diagrams to represent different conditions at different phases of the flight. And what would we be drawing in each of those? LIFT, DRAG (push and pull of the air), THRUST, and GRAVITY

No, you'd have to know how to draw a free body diagram.

Which you don't.

Which you've proved by not actually providing one for pages...

Just saying you have.

Why are you so mental?

Oh right, cos you're these:

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/

" So smart, science is unnecessary"...

Sums you up in a nutshell.

Now fuck off.

Why so rude? All we want is for you to tell us what's missing from our diagram. I'm willing to grant you the possibility that we've forgotten something. Please tell us. My understanding is that we need to illustrate all of the force vectors acting on the object. What else do you want? Specific numbers? If you won't answer, then you're a troll. If you can't answer, then you're a poser. Three options: tell us what's missing, you're a troll, or you're a poser. Your move.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B2E1TCj8y1rVa0ZWSWNUbTRfakE

I don't know why this is turning into a bunch of bashing and name calling.

The plane and the runway are still having an identical normalization applied to them which represents the movement of the planet. The plane is still inside the planet, slicing through the atmosphere. While the runway is resting between the atmosphere and the rocky surface below it.

The atmosphere of earth is just as much a part of the planet at the atmosphere of other planets. It is like an ocean of gas. Until you have exited the atmosphere you will have the normalization force applied.

You don't see fish having any problems with swimming, which is just like flying in a very dense gas.

Congratulations!

Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.

Care to tell me what creates the applied force, though?

It can't be a force exerted by the body like the gas from the engines...

No, it must be from an object external to the body.

Please name the applied force for Legba!

Begin dancing now!

BTW there's a big clue in the 2nd paragraph of this link:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

The applied force is the repulsion of the atmosphere behind the jet engines caused by the rapid expansion of the air leaving the engine.

Of note that the normal force is also applied to the atmosphere around the craft identically just like it does to every other thing on the planet.

The applied force is the repulsion of the atmosphere behind the jet engines caused by the rapid expansion of the air leaving the engine.

Of note that the normal force is also applied to the atmosphere around the craft identically just like it does to every other thing on the planet.

Well done!

However, Wikipedia claims it is NOT the repulsion of the atmosphere, and that the applied force is created by the exhaust gasses themselves.

They call this a reaction mass, rather than an action mass, thus interpreting N3 as f1=-f1 rather than f1=-f2...

Look:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_engine

Someone is wrong - please state who.

Both are correct. The force is created by the reaction/repulsion of the forces being applied from the exhaust of the engine.

The action (cause): Expell a mass of compressed and heated air to push against another mass. The air behind the engine, and the engine itself.

This does apply force produced by the expansion of the air at the nozzle, and the repulsion of the air behind the engines. Imagine a balloon being inflated between two masses. It applies equal push force in both directions.

The reaction: Repulsion of the pushed air, and the pusher (the jet engine)

This is a simplified model still since it does not take into consideration the pull force the engine applies to the air at the intake.

At the end of the day you are talking about a controlled explosion of rapid expansion, in the case of a commercial jet, applying push in two directions (assuming you are in a working mass like the atmosphere).

The applied force is the repulsion of the atmosphere behind the jet engines caused by the rapid expansion of the air leaving the engine.

Of note that the normal force is also applied to the atmosphere around the craft identically just like it does to every other thing on the planet.

The atmosphere does not "push back" on the escaping gas (which in turn pushes the plane). It is the escaping gas that "pushes back" on the engine (which in turn pushes the plane). Jets need air for combustion, and they heat and compress air to create propulsion.  However, they don't need air behind the engine for something to push against. Rockets create their own oxidizing and propulsion gases and can therefore fly without an atmosphere.

Both are correct. The force is created by the reaction/repulsion of the forces being applied from the exhaust of the engine.

The action (cause): Expell a mass of compressed and heated air to push against another mass. The air behind the engine, and the engine itself.

This does apply force produced by the expansion of the air at the nozzle, and the repulsion of the air behind the engines. Imagine a balloon being inflated between two masses. It applies equal push force in both directions.

The reaction: Repulsion of the pushed air, and the pusher (the jet engine)

This is a simplified model still since it does not take into consideration the pull force the engine applies to the air at the intake.

At the end of the day you are talking about a controlled explosion of rapid expansion, in the case of a commercial jet, applying push in two directions (assuming you are in a working mass like the atmosphere).

No, both are not correct.

This nice man will help you understand why:

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

And let's assume you are NOT in a working mass such as the atmosphere...

Would any form of hot gas jet propulsion still be able to provide motive power via N3 whilst surrounded by zero working mass?

I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.

In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f¹ = -f² because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.

I don't see where you are going with this. We have already established that the problem is an airliner in a working mass of the earths atmosphere.

In any case you can apply the same to rocket engines as f¹ = -f² because they supply their own working mass in the form of fuel.

LOL!!!

So you didn't read this:

https://physicsparsimony.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/confusion-regarding-newtons-third-law-of-motion/

And you also believe that in the case of shpayze rokkitz, N3 is f1=-f1...

Knew you were just another talking horse shill right from the start...

Joined the forum solely to gatekeep NASA bullshit.

Do you not realise how many of your sad ilk I have come across in my time here?

You'll never get voodoo past Legba!

There is no voodoo here.

F net = m * a
Where m = mass
Where a = acceleration

In the case of air breathing engines you are accelerating a mas of atmosphere.

In the case of rockets you are accelerating a mass of fuel which is carried on board.

Congratulations!

Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.

Care to tell me what creates the applied force, though?

It can't be a force exerted by the body like the gas from the engines...

No, it must be from an object external to the body.

Please name the applied force for Legba!

Begin dancing now!

BTW there's a big clue in the 2nd paragraph of this link:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

Your link is good, but it is a bit confusing when it says that jets "push on the air itself." The jet pushes on the air INSIDE the engine, not behind the engine. It is the action of pushing the air out that gives it thrust.

There is no voodoo here.

F net = m * a
Where m = mass
Where a = acceleration

In the case of air breathing engines you are accelerating a mas of atmosphere.

In the case of rockets you are accelerating a mass of fuel which is carried on board.

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing N2 from  N3...

I get a lot of that here.

Now fuck off, shill, we're done.

This is just embarrassing.

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 24, 2017, 11:40:08 PM

Congratulations!

Someone has finally supplied a free body diagram.

Care to tell me what creates the applied force, though?

It can't be a force exerted by the body like the gas from the engines...

No, it must be from an object external to the body.

Please name the applied force for Legba!

Begin dancing now!

BTW there's a big clue in the 2nd paragraph of this link:

http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/textos/jet.htm

Your link is good, but it is a bit confusing when it says that jets "push on the air itself."

No it isn't.

You just want it to be...

Because embarrassing shill.

Now fuck off.