INERTIA

  • 127 Replies
  • 10223 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
INERTIA
« on: August 13, 2017, 04:29:22 AM »
Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's put it this way :

STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look it from this perspective :

An airplane flies in counter direction of earth's rotation. An airplane's speed is equal to the rotational speed of the earth. So, by flying (in counter direction) at the speed which is equal to the rotational speed of the earth, our airplane has canceled out INITIAL INERTIA which he had (before he took off) due to the alleged rotation of the earth. Now, let's assume that our plane turns to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), and now his direction of flight is perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation.

What is going to happen?

If the air behaved like a water (as it was described in my last "invisible" post), which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of already completely lost INITIAL INERTIA, then we would have to feel an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry our plane in a direction of earth's rotation.

If the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA), then we would have to be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below us from our left side to the right side of our plane (if we turned to the right), or from the right to the left (if we turned to the left)...

So, what we can conclude from all this is this :

If the air behaved like water any flight towards west (in counter direction of earth's supposed spin) would encounter big difficulties, atmosphere would act like running water which tends to carry the plane in counter direction of it's heading way, and any flight towards east would be peace of cake because atmosphere-stream would carry the plane by it's own power (we would hardly need to rely upon any significant force exerted by plane's engines). So, "inertia" would be nullified while flying towards west and we would need double force of plane's engines to overcome strength of atmospheric forces which act in counter direction of the direction of our flight, however if we were to flying towards east we would fly with double speed by using the same amount of fuel.

On the other hand if an airplane behaved like a gas (an air is a gas) then we would very quickly lose any initial inertia when flying towards west, and the final result would be flying towards west with double speed (speed of an airplane + speed of earth's spin), however, flying towards east would be mission impossible because an airplane would soon lose all of it's initial inertia (no matter in which direction we fly - due to the property of air), again, and the final result would be an incapability of any commercial plane to keep up with the rotational speed of the rigid earth which would be significantly greater than average speed of any commercial aircraft (especially at the equator)...

« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 04:31:03 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 06:14:51 AM »
...Wall of text...

Sigh....Instead of some hypothetical thesis based on faulty knowledge and logic.

Go find a rifle range and fire a rifle east and then fire that same rifle west at targets a mile away and you will find you will hit one target consistently but miss the other consistently.  Why?  Because of the earths rotation. 

Once you do that.  Fire North vs South and you will notice you will miss left when you fire north and miss right when you fire south.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:18:09 AM by petej0 »

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2017, 06:20:59 AM »
Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an utter ridiculous assumption in the first place that a wind with 300km/h velocity would stop all of a sudden. Do you even know what causes something what we call wind?

And just for the record: I stopped reading your pathetic bullshit right after that paragraph, it's just not worth the time obviously.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2017, 07:36:44 AM »
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!


« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 07:41:18 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2017, 07:44:47 AM »
You're confusing yourself again by jumping between various frames of reference.

Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

An object doesn't "lose inertia". Its momentum will change if a force is applied on it. Inertia is constant if mass is constant.

In this scenario, the 300 km/hr east wind [winds are described by the direction they come from] applies a force proportional to the difference in velocity; it's greatest as soon as the balloon is launched, and declines as the balloon's speed decreases wrt the east wind. This causes the balloon to accelerate to the west; it will stop accelerating when it stops moving wrt the air mass it's in.

Quote
Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.

1. is incorrect. It never "lost" its inertia. Its momentum would change due to the force the stationary air mass applies against the initial westward velocity through it. A balloon, with its large surface area (which means large drag [force], when moving in air) but low mass (low inertia, so little force is needed to effect a given change in velocity) would change velocity pretty quick, but not instantly.

You're double-dipping with number 2. If it was moving west at 300 km/hr (wrt the ground) and suddenly entered a different air mass that's not moving (wrt the ground) the force of drag will again change its momentum so that it stops moving wrt to the new air mass. It doesn't start moving eastward (wrt the ground).

The result will be that the balloon quickly (and, no doubt, violently, but not not "instantly") comes to a stop when viewed from the ground.

Pick a frame of reference (FOR) and stay in it. You're confusing yourself.

From the FOR of the earth:

Balloon launched vertically into 300 km/hr east wind.
Balloon quickly accelerates westward to 300 km/hr.
While traveling west at 300 km/hr, balloon enters body of still air.
Balloon quickly stops.

From the FOR of inertial space:

Balloon is launched from ground that is rotating eastward at 300 km/hr into air that's stationary.
Balloon quickly accelerates (decelerates from this FOR, but deceleration is still an acceleration) to match non-moving air.
Body of air moving eastward at 300 km/hr intercepts balloon.
Balloon accelerates to move eastward until it matches the speed of the new air mass.

From the FOR of the balloon:

Balloon is launched from ground into the teeth of a hurricane-force, 300 km/hr, east wind.
Balloon quickly accelerates westward to match the speed of the air it's in.
Balloon, while being blown westward at 300 km/hr relative to the ground, the surrounding air is still, since it's moving with the air.
Air abruptly starts moving 300 km/hr relative to us.
Balloon accelerates until it matches the speed of the new air mass.
Since the balloon is again moving with the air it's in, the surrounding air is still.

Does this help you untangle all your confusion that followed?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2017, 07:58:11 AM »
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!

Nahh, I'm just here for yet another bitchslapping and the lulz the moment any of alpha or jack show up and curbstomp your crap into pieces, I can't be bothered with your delusion anyway tbh.
Enjoy.  :D
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 07:59:50 AM by Sentinel »
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2017, 11:07:33 AM »
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!




In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2017, 11:56:17 AM »
In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.
It's typical with cikljamas.  He doesn't understand a particular subject, and proceeds to throw out scenarios that are hampered by his lack of understanding of other subjects, to try to disprove the initial misunderstood subject.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2017, 01:05:42 PM »
So I take it this means you have realised your complete failure with your zigzag BS and are now trying to move/on cover it up rather than admit you were wrong like a rational adult would?

Note: Don't just post a similar wall of spam again. If you want to try acting like a rational adult, pick one of your several topics/hypothetical situations to discuss.

And when you do, make sure you discuss it using either relative motion, which would hold in the case of both a stationary Earth and spinning Earth, or you analyse both, a stationary and spinning Earth.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.
What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?
We can assume two solutions :
1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.
Do you know why no one has ever experienced the second option?
Because you have never had the wind magically stop instantly.

I also notice how you leave out the stationary Earth scenario.
It works exactly the same:
You have wind blowing the balloon west.
It suddenly stops.
We can assume two solutions:
1. The balloon is going to instantly lose it's inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience instant blow of 250 km/h fast eastward wind due to its motion through the now stationary atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomenon.


Do you know why? Because the wind doesn't magically stop in an instant, not going from 250 km/hr (or 300) to 0.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).
The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.
No, it wont.
The boat is moving, it has inertia and that needs to be removed.
As soon as you turn off the propeller, you have a boat which is going at 30 knots (that is nautical miles per hour, knots per hour would be acceleration not speed) in stationary water.
It will keep going at 30 knots initially and the water will exert a force due to the relative motion resulting in the boat matching the speed of the water after some time.

The boat still has pre-existing initial inertia.
The inertia is simply its mass, its resistance to motion.

Do you know the formula/law F=ma?

M is the inertia. It is the resistance in motion which requires a force to act upon the object to accelerate it.

What you are likely thinking of is momentum.
Instead of gaining momentum in this situation, you need to lose it and the boats inertia will act against that, requiring a force to do so.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.
No it doesn't. The boat propeller opposes the water resistance which is trying to make the boat move with the river. It is not magically cancelling the inertia.
If the river stopped flowing then the boat would start moving (in your absolute space).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.
Not really. The water resistance will act to make the boat move with the water. It will result in a force which acts to oppose the relative motion of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.
No. It isn't going to be instant and it isn't going to magically produce a force.

At all times when the boat is moving relative to the water, the water will be exerting a force on the boat to try to have the boat match the speed of the water.
While the prop is spinning, it is exerting a force on the boat which oppose that water resistance force to keep the boat moving at a constant speed relative to the water.
When the prop is turned off, that force is lost, and the water resistance will cause the boat to match the speed of the water.

This applies to both the stationary water and moving water case. There is no difference. The relative motion is the same, so the analysis is the same.

Let's look it from this perspective :
Why apply so many analyses which are basically the same filled with the same errors?

How about you deal with your boats in water example before moving onto anything else?

An airplane flies in counter direction of earth's rotation. An airplane's speed is equal to the rotational speed of the earth. So, by flying (in counter direction) at the speed which is equal to the rotational speed of the earth, our airplane has canceled out INITIAL INERTIA which he had (before he took off) due to the alleged rotation of the earth. Now, let's assume that our plane turns to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), and now his direction of flight is perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation.
They don't turn instantly. Try again.
It isn't inertia. It's momentum. Try again.

Regardless, you keep making these pathetic strawmen without bothering to compare the stationary Earth example.
So lets also note what would happen with a plane which is flying that fast west (but now actually moving west rather than just west relative to Earth), which then turns left or right.

Guess what? The same thing will happen.

If the air behaved like a water (as it was described in my last "invisible" post), which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of already completely lost INITIAL INERTIA, then we would have to feel an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry our plane in a direction of earth's rotation.
Air does behave like water, but with a much lower drag coeffecient.
It still isn't magic BS regarding inertia. It is still simply the air/water exerting a force due to the relative motion. This applies regardless of if the air is moving with a stationary plane or the plane is moving with stationary air. All that matters is the relative velocity.

If the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA), then we would have to be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below us from our left side to the right side of our plane (if we turned to the right), or from the right to the left (if we turned to the left)...
Once again, it isn't inertia.
You are aware planes need to use air resistance to turn? If the air had no resistance they would be unable to turn. As such, their turn will be based upon the air. So they will start moving with one velocity relative to the air and then turn and go with some other velocity relative to the air.

Again, this applies with both a stationary Earth and rotating Earth.

If you instead turned the plane by magic (where to keep the situations comparable, you simply turned the plane and made it accelerate forwards), then (just considering the sideways component of the velocity) in one case you have stationary air with a moving plane, and in the other you have a moving air with a stationary plane. The 2 both have plane moving relative to the air, at the same velocity which will produce the same effect.

So once again, there is no difference between a stationary Earth and rotating Earth. Not in the sense that you would expect the plane to behave differently.

So, what we can conclude from all this is this :
I would say that you are a moron that doesn't understand relative motion or drag at all, but you have already tried this shit and had all the errors pointed out.
So what we can conclude is that you know your position is full of shit and you are recycling old arguments which you know are wrong in order to pretend your position is correct.

It requires on setting up pathetic strawmen to examine the hypothetical events which never occur in reality and then complain that the consequence of that event doesn't occur in reality.
It also requires completely ignoring the stationary Earth example.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 01:10:09 PM by JackBlack »

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2017, 01:07:42 PM »
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!



We know how relative motion works.
What is your question meant to be here?

Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2442
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2017, 01:11:12 PM »
Balloons float in the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is rotating with the Earth, as a part of the Earth.  The 300 kph wind is in relation to what?  Again, you seem to assume that once something breaks contact with the ground it magically is separate from the Earth at that time. 
Its like the zig zag argument, thinking that the horizon is disconnected from the Earth.  This disconnection from the Earth is something you seem to repeat with the majority of your thought experiments. 

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2017, 01:23:53 PM »
...Wall of text...

Sigh....Instead of some hypothetical thesis based on faulty knowledge and logic.

Go find a rifle range and fire a rifle east and then fire that same rifle west at targets a mile away and you will find you will hit one target consistently but miss the other consistently.  Why?  Because of the earths rotation. 

Once you do that.  Fire North vs South and you will notice you will miss left when you fire north and miss right when you fire south.

That isn't what happens.

If you are in the northern hemisphere, regardless of which direction you fire, you miss to the right.

If you fire north, you fire towards a section of Earth that is spinning slower, that means your bullet moves ahead (to the east) and ends up to the right.
If you fire south, you fire towards a section of Earth that is spinning faster, that means your bullet falls behind (to the west) and ends up to the right.

If you fire east or west, then your target rotates with Earth and once again, you miss to the right.

So it doesn't matter which way you fire, you continually miss to the right.

If you are in the southern hemisphere, you continually miss to the left.

The closer to the pole, the more significant the miss.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2017, 03:58:21 PM »
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!




In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.

Jack has offered to us right answer :

"Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel."


But this is what i really intended to ask :

If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?

Let's assume that thus elongated box is transparent (made of glass for example) so that we can observe in the background the same panel with black and yellow squares while we are conducting our second experiment.

Now, our truck rushes again (pulling this time transparent box attached to the barrel), everything is the same (same speed of the truck, same speed of the bullet (soccer ball)), except this time soccer ball is going to be fired within closed system (into transparent box attached to the barrel).

The question is this :

Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???

If yes, why?

If no, why?

EDIT : at the same distance means this :
- in the same moment and at the same place (in the middle of our panel with black and yellow squares), that is to say in the moment when the truck will be at the same distance from the ball as it was the case while Mythbusters performed their experiment...
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 04:08:44 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2017, 02:51:30 AM »
But this is what i really intended to ask :
If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?
Assuming it is a box, it will act just like you fired a cannon in the box. The only difference is the entire system will be moving sideways.
So, from the reference frame of the box, the ball is fired, until it moves with the box the air resistance will now be trying to accelerate the ball to make it match the speed of the box and gravity is pulling it down.
The ball moves to the right, hits the bottom of the box, which results in it being accelerated (and likely starting to spin), with it then bouncing along the ground.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box.

Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.

The exact same would happen if the box was stationary.

The question is this :
Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???
It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect.

Again, are you trying to make a point with this?

*

napoleon

  • 905
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2017, 03:41:17 AM »
A boat floating in water displaces water.
The boat floats because the weight of the displaced water is equal to the weight of the boat.
If you would make the boat heavier by putting some load in it, the boat would go some deeper in water, but even then, if it floats....the weight of the displaced water is equal to the weight of the boat + load.

The same with balloon and gas. (let's assume we have a balloon which is strong and will not burst.
the balloon displaces air. the weight of the balloon is lighter than the weight of displaced air, so, it gains height.
at higher altitudes air is less dense, so eventually it will reach a height where the weight of the displaced air equals the weight of the balloon and it will stay at that height.
(normally that would be the height where the balloon expands so bad it will burst, but let us ignore that by saying it is a strong balloon).

So, a balloon floats in air. if the balloon is not ascending nor descending anymore we could say the density of the air at that height is the same as the average density of balloon + content.

so, the balloon now moves towards the same direction wherever the air-mass or "wind" moves.
wind moves to west --> balloon moves west
wind moves to east --> balloon moves east
wind stops suddenly --> balloon stops suddenly


Jack has offered to us right answer :

"Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel."


But this is what i really intended to ask :

If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?

Let's assume that thus elongated box is transparent (made of glass for example) so that we can observe in the background the same panel with black and yellow squares while we are conducting our second experiment.

Now, our truck rushes again (pulling this time transparent box attached to the barrel), everything is the same (same speed of the truck, same speed of the bullet (soccer ball)), except this time soccer ball is going to be fired within closed system (into transparent box attached to the barrel).

The question is this :

Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???

If yes, why?

If no, why?

EDIT : at the same distance means this :
- in the same moment and at the same place (in the middle of our panel with black and yellow squares), that is to say in the moment when the truck will be at the same distance from the ball as it was the case while Mythbusters performed their experiment...
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck.
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2017, 04:31:40 AM »
Again, are you trying to make a point with this?

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.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 04:42:31 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2017, 04:36:24 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

napoleon

  • 905
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2017, 05:23:32 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2017, 06:01:53 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

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.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2017, 06:20:33 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

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.

show us in an experiment that proves your claims.

not only a mind-play (what could happen if something happens), i am talking about a real physical experiment that show that the heliocentric model is wrong.

you would not only prove your claims, you would also get the nobel price for that.


*

napoleon

  • 905
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2017, 06:55:04 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

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.
Sorry, somehow I missed Jacks explanation, but yeah it is pretty accurate.

I like Jack's posts because he usually answers patiently, understandible and complete.
this post was no excempion to that, so I agree with what he said.

But I kinda gave you the same answer.

Quote from Jack:
Quote
Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.
which is pretty much the same as performing the mythbusters experiment on a stormy day (as in: wind traveling in trucks direction with same speed as truck). The motion of the truck and the cannon firing the ball cancel each other out. What is left is the air inside the container travelling along with the truck.

I do not know how heavy the ball is, and how fast the truck is traveling. but if it is a plastic ball, and assuming the truck travels about 50mph to the left, the ball would end up somewhere on the left side of spot x.

according to the beaufort scale, windspeeds of 50mph are severe gales (9 on the beaufort scale).

so, basically I am not adding some crazy assumption because I am wrong. It is pretty much the same.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2017, 07:38:10 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

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.

show us in an experiment that proves your claims.

not only a mind-play (what could happen if something happens), i am talking about a real physical experiment that show that the heliocentric model is wrong.

you would not only prove your claims, you would also get the nobel price for that.

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.

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."

When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711 -1787).

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich.

LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU SIR RUĐER BOŠKOVIC : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html

"It is impossible to determine the definitive shape of the earth!!!" - (Ruder Boškovic)

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

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.

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):

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:

“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

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.

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

FLAT EARTH - 130 YEARS HAS GONE BY SINCE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXP. :

LUNACY 3 :
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 07:54:52 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2017, 07:43:05 AM »
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

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 :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

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.
Sorry, somehow I missed Jacks explanation, but yeah it is pretty accurate.

I like Jack's posts because he usually answers patiently, understandible and complete.
this post was no excempion to that, so I agree with what he said.

But I kinda gave you the same answer.

Quote from Jack:
Quote
Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.
which is pretty much the same as performing the mythbusters experiment on a stormy day (as in: wind traveling in trucks direction with same speed as truck). The motion of the truck and the cannon firing the ball cancel each other out. What is left is the air inside the container travelling along with the truck.

I do not know how heavy the ball is, and how fast the truck is traveling. but if it is a plastic ball, and assuming the truck travels about 50mph to the left, the ball would end up somewhere on the left side of spot x.

according to the beaufort scale, windspeeds of 50mph are severe gales (9 on the beaufort scale).

so, basically I am not adding some crazy assumption because I am wrong. It is pretty much the same.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

I already did it with these words (post # 18) :

But the real problem here is this :

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)???

And with these words (post # 15) :

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.

Pay attention to bolded words : DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT

What this means?

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).

What would be that consequence?

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.


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 an insignificant influence of air drag (on the ball).

Now, you are better conditioned (i hope) to understand these words (post # 1) :

On the other hand if an airplane behaved like a gas (an air is a gas) then we would very quickly lose any initial inertia when flying towards west, and the final result would be flying towards west with double speed (speed of an airplane + speed of earth's spin), however, flying towards east would be mission impossible because an airplane would soon lose all of it's initial inertia (no matter in which direction we fly - due to the property of air), again, and the final result would be an incapability of any commercial plane to keep up with the rotational speed of the rigid earth which would be significantly greater than average speed of any commercial aircraft (especially at the equator)...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2017, 01:55:05 PM »
... lots of bla-bla ...


all you are saying is that there where experiments done mostly hundreds of years ago.

with the modern technique you should be able to replicate these experiments and test them if they are correct or if that what you see at these experiments can be explained also in a global earth system.

so, did anyone perform these experiments recently?

the experiments and works that prove a heliocentric model get performed every day.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2017, 01:59:34 PM »
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).

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2018, 02:12:43 AM »
Concorde had a take-off speed of 220 knots (250 mph) or 400 km/h...Now, imagine concorde is rolling in a counter direction of earth's spin somewhere along the Arctic circle (at 400 km/h) where the alleged speed of earth's rotation is about 700 km/h.
So, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2018, 02:53:47 AM »
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2018, 03:06:20 AM »
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23878
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2018, 05:00:38 AM »
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.


If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.



Re: INERTIA
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2018, 05:09:48 AM »
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.


If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.
Where would this observer be?