As soon as we reach the same speed (in counter direction) of the system in motion (earth with rotating atmosphere), we are going to cancel out our initial momentum (which we had before we took off), from this moment on our speed has to be added to the speed of the rigid earth below us, and thus our relative motion becomes the result of two speeds (the speed of an airplane + the speed of the rotating earth below us).
Anyone who says that airplane can keep it's initial EASTWARD momentum (which it had before we took off), even after airplane has reached the same speed of the rotating earth (in counter direction) must be able to repeat Mythbusters' experiment (WITH ELONGATED GLASS CONTAINER) WHICH WOULD YIELD DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT and prove to us that such ridiculous claim has anything to do with reality.
As simple as that.
Not really, once again you completely misrepresent what is happening.
There isn't magic momentum to keep and a ball has completely different aerodynamics to a plane.
If you want to compare it to a plane, make it a piece of paper or the like. However if you make the box large enough in both directions, then the air will have enough time to act and bring the ball back to the speed of the box.
The plane has the initial momentum due to its motion with Earth (even if that is 0). It then has forces applied to it which change its momentum.
If it were to cut its engines, then the air resistance will result in a force to attempt to move the plane with the air. Ignoring winds, that would mean the air resistance will make it move with Earth.
But the same non-issue arises in the GC model. As the plane flies, it has momentum, and it needs to lose that in order to land.
So once again, your position does not go against the HC model.
Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :
Except you are unable to show why it is idiotic, or why it is distinguishable from GC in these cases, now why he is wrong.
He is ignoring the negligible contribution of air resistance.
Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)
Except that is exactly how planes work, using air drag. They fly though the air. In stable flight the entire purpose of the engine is to overcome the air resistance slowing them down.
In the case of planes, it is the fact they fly through the air at speeds relative to the air which makes GC and HC indistinguisable.
If you want to go to a case where they are distinguishable, stop dealing with such pathetically slow things at such low altitudes.
Go to space, go to crafts circling Earth once every 90 minutes. In this case, they are going so fast, that their momentum throws them far enough to the side while gravity is pulling them down that the don't get closer to Earth (on average, ignoring air drag).
But even that doesn't distinguish much. The main difference is that in the time it takes them to orbit, Earth has moved over slightly, so instead of their track following the same great circle over Earth it precesses around.
For the real difference go to a geostationary orbit. In that case in the GC model they should fall straight to Earth. In the HC case, their sideways momentum means they orbit instead, yet remain over the same point.
Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.
No, you did insult him, as you have done yet again.
Again, we are not beleiving it without a single experimental proof.
That would be you. You reject HC and all the evidence for it and instead believe GC with no evidence at all backing it up. (and no, this like your zig-zag BS and all your other crap is not evidence for GC or against HC. They can't distinguish between the 2).
You repeatedly call HC a garbage theory or other crap like that, yet you can't mount a single rational argument against it.
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
And now you are going off onto a completely different topic.
No experiment has ever actually obtained a result of 0 for Earth's velocity. Instead they have either been unable to measure a velocity, or they have measured a velocity relative to some other entity.
This is because there is no absolute reference frame to measure Earth's velocity in.
However, they have been able to measure Earth's angular velocity, with early measurements indicating a period of roughly 24 hours, but with significant error (some over an hour).
More recent experiments have measured it much more accurately, measuring Earth's sidereal day of 23 hours and 56 minutes.
So no, we have measured Earth's motion.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
I notice you left out Sagnac. Why was that? Is it because it showed rotational motion?
As for Airy's failure, no, that still detected motion. It detected motion of Earth relative to the "aether", which also holds as just motion relative to the distant star. It just can't tell which is moving.
But yes, several of those didn't detect Earth's motion.
Do you know something else that they didn't detect? Earth being at rest.
When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!
Nope. It has never been crushed. It has had ignorant crap piled onto it which it has come out from even stronger. It has been verified repeatedly.
Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
Airy's experiment was a complete failure. It didn't prove anything at all.
It was based upon flawed assumptions.
It assumed light would propagate through an aether at a constant direction and merely be slowed down by the water without the water changing the direction at all.
It was a complete failure because it relied upon this completely flawed assumption.
If water is capable of interacting with light in such a way that it will slow it down, then it is capable of interacting with it in such a way as to pull it along with it.
What this means is that once again you would expect the same result for GC and HC.
But an important thing this experiment did rely upon which was shown, that Earth is moving relative to the stars or relative to any aether which exists.
These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):
No. They had a completely different result.
Airy's failure and the experiments leading up to it showed motion. It showed that if aether is real, Earth moves relative to it.
MM showed the exact opposite, that if aether is real, Earth does not move relative to it.
That alone is enough to show the aether model is flawed and that aether does not exist.
But Airys failure still showed motion of Earth relative to something.
So neither of these show that Earth is stationary. Instead it shows there is no aether and you cannot use a simple linear interferometer to measure Earth's motion.
A stationary Earth is not a valid solution.
Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
Which shows how people like you may ignorantly latch onto various experiments and proclaim certain conclusions about their results without adequate analysis, exactly as you have done in claiming they show Earth to be stationary.
As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
No, they didn't. No one has found Earth's velocity to be 0. They have all relied upon some assumption which was flawed, like aether being real.
LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And he is wrong. One of the earliest was Foucault's pendulum. The Sagnac effect also does it.
Now then, if you want to discuss this more, MAKE A NEW TOPIC FOR IT!!!
No more discussing your ignorance of interferometry and light here.
Leave this topic for your ignorance of relative motion and another failure to distinguish GC from HC.
I already did it with these words (post # 18) :
No you didn't. You just repeated the same strawmen. At no point did you address what he had said.
It means that within our SECOND EXP. (WITH GLASS CONTAINER), the ball after reaching spot x (in front of our panel with black and yellow squares) would have to show to us the result (consequence) of alleged conserved initial momentum (we can neglect air drag impact on a ball - which is irrelevant according to you and Jack).
No it wouldn't. It was accelerated relative to the truck.
The only person suggesting it magically keeps it initial momentum is you.
Enclosing the system so the air moves with it will only change the effect of air resistance which would be negligible.
The ball would have to fall to the ground SIGNIFICANTLY FARTHER TO THE LEFT than in Mythbusters' experiment because of the conserved initial momentum, not because of insignificant influence of air drag to the ball.
How was it magically conserved?
The only thing to make it move with the truck after being fired from it would be air resistance and contacting the walls.
So no, if air resistance is negligible it would fall to the same place.
Now, you are better conditioned (i hope) to understand these words (post # 1) :
Nope.
They are still just as wrong now as they were then.
The plane doesn't lose its mass (inertia), nor does it magically fly at double speed.
It is still flying in the air and thus the engines need to exert a force to overcome air resistance which is trying to move the plane with Earth (ignoring wind).