For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :
To show you are full of shit, yes, it would suffice to those with intellectual honesty and rationality.
However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)
Yes, because you are full of shit. We explained why.
If you were honest you would respond to why.
...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...
We already did. It failed miserably.
So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.
And there you go setting up another pathetic false analogy.
Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward.
Yet another abismal failure from you, being completely incapable of comparing Earth to any rational anaolgy, instead you need to continually lie and isrepresent it.
But nope, you are wrong yet again.
The person is walking relative to the trian.
Yes, initially the drone is moving with him due to the force applied by his hand.
When he removes his hand, yes the drone has a bit of forward momentum.
However, once it has been released you have the drone moving through the air, which is moving with the train.
This produces drag.
You have no force to counter this drag.
This means the drone will slow down.
You have failed to describe reality yet again.
What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.
What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train. This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.
And yet again you lie.
What is there pulling the concorde along the ground?
It's engines.
What is there pulling it through the sky?
It's engines.
In both cases it is the same.
There is no magic addition of speed.
The Concorde starts moving along the ground due to the thrust of its engines pulling it/pushing it through the air. It then leaves the ground and continues moving through the air.
There is no magic addition of extra speed.
You get it now?
I got it from the beginning. Do you get it now, or do you need to go back to school and learn some simple physics?
Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?
Again, WHO GIVES A SHIT?
The air does not move with the train, it moves with Earth.
Your analogy does not acurately represent the situation.
Discuss what happens when you fly inside the train, where the air is moving with the train.
So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum
Why would we need to explain this?
It doesn't happen.
If you want to discuss your fantasy land, go ahead, but we don't need to explain it. We will stay explaining reality.
Feel free to play dumb as long as you want...
Again, you do far too good a job of that.
Another important reason why his drone will move 20 kmh with respect to the train (although our walker will walk only 10 kmh with respect to the train) is the mythical conserved initial momentum.
Yes, you do seem to like discussing this mythical concept of yours, rather than reality, yet you repeatedly pretend it is what reality is meant to be.
You can't discard this theoretical construct in the case of our thought example but in the same time use this same construct when needed to explain away this very issue :
We don't.
You are blatantly msirepresenting how it works.
The momentum doesn't magically get conserved in such a way that nothing can remove it like you pretend.
Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?
Their answer is INERTIA (a.k.a. conserved initial momentum) which is absolutely ridiculous explanation, but that is exactly how they try to explain away this heliocentric conundrum.
NO IT ISN'T!
Stop blatantly lying about us just because you cannot honestly and ratioanly refute what we say.
The reason it works like this is because planes fly through the air. This results in drag of the air significantly affecting their speed and results in the planes speed being relative to the air.
As the air (mainly) rotates with Earth, the plane moves relative to Earth.
That is why that works. Notice how inertia isn't discussed at all?
A key reason why is the ENGINES!!
Planes don't just let their inertia carry them. They have engines to provide thrust.
Now compare that to orbits.
An orbit at a particular altitude is the same velocity in an Earth Centred Earth Rotating reference frame, regardless of if it is going east or west. This results in the speed relative to the ground being significantly different.
While inertia can play into this, the engines used to get them into orbit make it irrelavent except when discussing how much fuel/impulse is required and where is the best location to launch from (the equator is best for orbits going with Earth, the worst for orbits going against Earth or polar orbit).
Now are you going to rationally and honestly address what people have said or continue with these pathetic strawmen and lies?