INERTIA

  • 127 Replies
  • 9282 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2018, 05:14:57 AM »
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.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2018, 10:20:32 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.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2018, 11:03:06 AM »
Long time no see, cikljamas! How have you been?

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?
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.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???

No, it's another example of you confusing yourself by mixing up frames of reference. Again.

"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)."

No. Using your numbers, relative to the surface of the earth, it's 400 km/h, not 800. In your example, both aircraft and earth are moving east at 400 km/hr before the plane starts its takeoff roll because the plane is stationary relative to the surface of the earth. The aircraft accelerates to 400 km/h relative to the surface in order to take off; the eastward speed of the earth is unchanged (still 400 km/h in an earth-centered inertial frame). In that ECI frame, the aircraft speed is now 800 km/h, but 400 km/h relative to the surface below it, which is also moving at 400 km/h.

There is no problem here other than you getting yourself tangled up.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2018, 11:23:01 AM »
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.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
The airplanes, the atmosphere, and the ground are all traveling 1000 m/h Eastbound when the airplane is on the ground.  This means that with respect to each other, neither the airplane, nor the atmosphere, nor the ground is moving (minus small variations in local windspeed).  This is the easiest way to view and/or calculate the motion.

If you insist on an "'absolute' frame of reference - with respect to the stars", then it makes things more complicated and that's why you're not understanding.  With all the numbers you've provided, an airplane traveling 500 m/h west for 6 hours will have a net change in position of 3000 miles east, but only with respect to the outside frame you've decided to maintain.  At the same time, the Earth will have rotated 6000 miles in the same time frame with respect to the same outside frame.  Although both are traveling east in your absolute frame, the airplane only goes half as far because of it's westward velocity and the net position change on Earth is 3000 miles to the west of where it started.  Exactly where we would calculate if we didn't bother adding in a superfluous reference frame. 

You've calculated the airplane's movement with respect to the outside frame, but you forgot, whether inadvertently or not, to remember the Earth's movement in the outside frame.



?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2018, 11:27:16 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.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???

You're right.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2018, 12:22:09 PM »
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.
Because it does.
Just because the atmosphere is dragging you doesn't mean you can't use the thrust from an engine to move relative to it.
In the case of Cox, their thrust matched the drag so they were able to continue at a constant speed relative to Earth to watch the sun stay put. (note: I have no idea what you are referring to so I am doing this as a hypothetical).

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.
Yes, you do appear to be absolutely mental.
Brian Cox and the pilot flew at a speed to counteract the rotation of Earth. No magic moving sun required.

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.
No they wouldn't.
If they were on a spinning ball (which they were), an observer watching the sun set (depending on the location of the observer and the plane and the sun) would see the plane flying forwards (i.e. west) relative to the plane, flying off towards the sun.
Why do you say such stupid crap like the plane would need to appear to go backwards?

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2018, 12:27:30 PM »
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.
If they started flying in a straight line then they would ascend until their engines failed. If instead they flew level, then they would see Earth appear to fly past below them.

I also notice you have changed the speeds and positions.
Assuming they are still taking off against Earth's rotation (which produces a ground speed of 700 km/hr), at a speed of 400 km/hr relative to Earth, they would be travelling at 400 km/hr relative to Earth, and relative to an Earth centred Earth rotating reference frame they would be travelling at 300 km/hr (700-400). You appear to be making the same mistake as the riddle with the missing dollar.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
Sure, if they are on the equator.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993
Yes, read more of you getting your ass handed to you.

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :
Except there are plenty which can.
We have geostationary and geosynchronous satellites which require Earth to spin, and the observed ground track of other satellites show Earth is spinning.
We have Foucault's pendula which show an apparent precession due to Earth's rotation which varies with latitude.
We have laser ring gyroscopes.
We have the Eotvos effect.

These are all experiments which can detect Earth's motion.
Now stop just repeating the same lies.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???
You mean this is obviously just more ignorant stupidity by people that wish to reject reality (i.e. you).
However you don't doubt that myself or someone else will come and refute your pathetic garbage with a completely rational argument, showing just how easy it is to refute yet another of your "irrefutable" arguments.

I am yet to see you make an argument that doesn't take more than 5 seconds of rational thought to realise it is pure garbage.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2018, 12:30:16 PM »
If I jump up in the air where will I land 2s later?

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2018, 01:57:39 PM »
Hi Alpha, nice to hear from you again! I live one day at a time (day by day)...If you live each day as it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right! :)

As for my argument, i am not sure if you are 100 % sure that i am right, but i am sure that you can't be less than 99 % sure about it.

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

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?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

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 after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???

HOW????????????

Don't play dumb again, please!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

frenat

  • 3549
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2018, 02:04:24 PM »
Planes fly in relation to the Earth not some outside absolute.  You're trying to change the frame of reference for your hypothetical person on the train.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2018, 02:18:11 PM »
As for my argument, i am not sure if you are 100 % sure that i am right, but i am sure that you can't be less than 99 % sure about it.
I am 100% sure that you are wrong.
I am fairly confident that he is as well.
So it would be closer to 0% sure that you are right.

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).
How about we do it inside, so the air is moving with the train rather than outside.

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the [inside] of a stationary train, for a change?
No, it wouldn't.
The same applies when the train is in motion.


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?
Our walker would be walking, not flying.
But lets move them back inside the train.
As the air is moving with the train, there would be no difference in time for them flying forwards or backwards from one end of the train to the other.

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth)
Well at least you are now starting to label your own crap as a myth.

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 after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???
You don't seem to understand momentum at all.
It starts with a particular momentum, which is dependent upon the reference frame used.
In an Earth Centred Earth Rotating frame, this would be the momentum of Earth.
As it starts its take-off (i.e. accelerating along the run way) in a direction against the rotation of Earth it is losing this initial momentum, but not all of it.
So it doesn't keep it's entire initial momentum.

Now how about you address what actually happens rather than repeated strawmen?

Don't play dumb again, please!
You are far too good at that for either us to have a chance.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2018, 03:40:32 PM »
Hi Alpha, nice to hear from you again! I live one day at a time (day by day)...If you live each day as it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right! :)

Can't argue with that.

Quote
Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?
Quote

It would take the same amount of time to walk the same length of train, whether the train was moving or not, if your speed relative to the train is the same. That should be obvious.

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

The frame of reference is the train, right?

Quote
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?

IN the previous step you had a walker. Now you describe flying. 10 km/h relative to the moving train, or 10 km/h relative to the earth?

Quote
Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

Momentum is conserved in a closed system. If you're in a stationary or moving train and start walking, your change in momentum (mass times velocity, mv) is balanced by a change in the opposite direction of train's momentum (if it were free of friction or, more likely, transferred to the earth through friction between the train's wheels and the earth). Since a train (and even more so for the earth) is vastly more massive than a person, its change in momentum is hard to detect, but it's there. If you start flying by pushing against the air, your change in momentum is balanced by the change in momentum of the air you moved, which is eventually transferred, through friction, to the earth.

Quote
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 after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???

HOW????????????

It transfers momentum to the earth, or gains it from the earth, when it accelerates (which depends on the direction it's accelerating). The earth is so massive that its change in momentum is vastly too small to measure, but it's there, but its speed does change infinitesimally. The momentum of the Concorde changes; the momentum of the closed system (earth, atmosphere, Concorde) is conserved.

You're making this way more complex than it needs to be and you're confusing yourself in the process.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

sokarul

  • 17636
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2018, 07:55:27 PM »
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.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :


The first video miss represents the Michelson Morley experiment. It also seems to exclude the Foucault Pendulum, but I didn't get too far in.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Macarios

  • 2035
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2018, 09:45:33 PM »
Balloon carried by 300 km/h wind westwards would lose initial angular momentum.
When wind stos blowing, it means air now rotates with Earth again, carrying the balloon just like before the wind.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 26383
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2018, 11:06:46 PM »
NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1: 

Let's just start with you claim that, "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION".
I agree that no experiment can detect any absolute linear motion of the earth, but there are numerous experiments that can measure absolute rotational motion.

I can present more material on absolute rotational motion being detectable while absolute linear motion is not.

The earliest demonstration of the earth's rotation were Léon Foucault's gyroscope, but he had no means of keeping it spinning, so was not "convincing".
Then came the Foucault Pendulum, which would swing for long enough to show rotation, though modern ones are kept in motion by a small magnetic impulse.

After that the the Michelson–Morley experiment and numerous later similar experiments have lead the conclusion that linear motion was not detectable.

But the work of Sagnac leading to the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment proved that the earth rotated at roughly once per 23 hours and 56 minutes.
Since that time ring-laser gyroscopes in many forms have become commonplace and prove beyond a dould that the earth rotates once per sidereal day.

This earlier post presents a set of connected (in findings, not in time) experiments:
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you please explain how flat earth can be possible? « Message by rabinoz on July 15, 2017, 01:24:09 PM »

<< Link corrected >>
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 04:35:40 PM by rabinoz »

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2018, 02:37:51 AM »
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2018, 02:48:20 AM »
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#
Exactly correct.

Good to see you back posting scepti...

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #47 on: January 31, 2018, 03:35:24 AM »
I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.
Nope. You are throwing logic and common sense out the window to pretend your delusions are correct.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
i.e. go at the same speed, not the same velocity (which has directionality as well.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.
Yes, SPEED, not velocity.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.
Nope. If you take the time to understand what Brian is saying, you realise they are discussing speed and there is no problem at all.

To compare it to the train, it would be moving at the same speed as the train, but in the opposite direction. That will make the outside appear to stand still. Moving even faster makes it look like the outside is going "backwards".

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #48 on: January 31, 2018, 04:37:41 AM »
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

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).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

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. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him forward at let's say 10 km/h).

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.

You get it now?

Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

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?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

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 after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???


Feel free to play dumb as long as you want... 8)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2018, 11:06:16 AM »
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

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).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

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. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

That's a poor example because a drone needs to be light (so it can fly with the least power necessary) while having a fair amount of surface area (for the airfoils, structure, mechanics, electronics, etc.). Because of this, aerodynamic drag will quickly transfer the drone's inertia to the air around it, which then transfers that momentum to the car. This will bring the drone to a stop with respect to the air inside the train car, and, presumably, with respect to the car itself.

Quote
What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him [it?] forward at let's say 10 km/h).

For the sake of the thought experiment, let's say the drone does maintain its forward velocity imparted by the walker's velocity with respect to the car (perhaps it's so streamlined that it has zero horizontal drag), and the drone keeps pace with our walker.

So now he commands it to move 10 km/h faster than he's walking, in the same direction he's walking. Is that what you mean? I'm assuming that's the case in what follows.

Quote
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.

The walker is moving 10 km/h with respect to the train car and the drone is moving 20 km/h with respect to the car. If they're moving in the opposite direction that the train is moving at 10 km/h, the walker is not moving with respect to the ground, and the drone is moving at 10 km/h wrt the ground in the opposite direction as the train. If  they are both moving in the train in the same direction the train is moving at 10 km/h, then the walker is moving at 20 km/h and the drone is moving at 30 km/h, all with respect to the ground.

Quote
This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.

You get it now?

I guess. The bigger question is, do you?

Quote
Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

So he's moving 10 km/h toward the back of the train and, thus, not moving with respect to the ground. OK.

Quote
Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

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?

Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

In that case he would be hovering over the same spot wrt the ground as the train passes below him at 10 km/h. Is that what you mean?

In either case it would take exactly the same length of time (3.6 seconds) to move 10 m wrt the train.

10 m / (10 km/h) = 10 m / (10,000 m/h) = (1 / 1000) h

(1 / 1000) h * 3600 sec / h  = 3.6 sec.

Why would it be different?

Or, by flying above the train at 10 km/h with respect to the ground in the opposite direction the train is moving at 10 km/h, then he's moving at 20 km/h wrt the train, and it would take half that time to cover 10 m of train. So?

Quote
Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

His momentum changed when he started walking. The momentum of the system (walker, train, earth) stays the same, so he gained momentum from (or lost momentum to) the train and earth (depending on which direction he accelerated in).

Quote
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 after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???[/i]

It doesn't. Its momentum changes when it accelerates. Momentum of the Concorde and the atmosphere and the earth together is conserved.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2018, 12:31:53 PM »
Alpha, forget the ground, because the ground is our inertial frame of reference, which is not so important in our thought experiment.

Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

This is crucial moment in our thought experiment.

When our walker walks the same distance in the moving train vs stationary train it takes the same amount of time for him to cross that distance, as i already explained few times so far, only the point of his arrival will be the different when viewing from the inertial frame of reference a.k.a. absolute FOR, a.k.a. the ground.

However, his drone will get faster at the back side of the train because his speed will have to be added to the speed of the train, in another words his drone will move independently (because his drone is detached from the base of the train which carries our walker to the front side of the train) of the rigid construction of the train.

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. Of course it wouldn't work in reality, but you have to assume and TO ACCEPT this theoretical construct all the way up until you will be ready to recant your HC religion, because as soon as you start to question this construct your whole theory collapses as a house of cards.

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 :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth.
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
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.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #51 on: January 31, 2018, 12:40:10 PM »
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 :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth.
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
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.
It's not a conundrum.  I explained it to you earlier on this page. 

Relative to the stars, the westbound plane does, in fact, move eastward.  But you're forgetting that relative to the stars, the Earth is moving eastward twice as fast, so the plane's location will always be west of where it started relative to the Earth. 

Which is exactly where it would be if we did the whole problem without a superfluous external reference frame.

There is no conundrum here except why you would use an external reference frame for the plane and then forget to use the same reference frame for the Earth.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #52 on: January 31, 2018, 12:51:47 PM »
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... 8)
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?

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #53 on: January 31, 2018, 04:27:37 PM »
Alpha, forget the ground, because the ground is our inertial frame of reference, which is not so important in our thought experiment.

So we're only concerned with movement relative to the train car. OK.

Quote
Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

This is crucial moment in our thought experiment.

When our walker walks the same distance in the moving train vs stationary train it takes the same amount of time for him to cross that distance, as i already explained few times so far, only the point of his arrival will be the different when viewing from the inertial frame of reference a.k.a. absolute FOR, a.k.a. the ground.

There has never been any issue with that.

Quote
However, his drone will get faster at the back side of the train because his speed will have to be added to the speed of the train, in another words his drone will move independently (because his drone is detached from the base of the train which carries our walker to the front side of the train) of the rigid construction of the train.

Hold it. That makes no sense.

Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?

Quote
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.

That makes no sense, either. What would cause the drone to change from 10 km/h to 20 km/h? Earlier you stipulated that the walker commanded it to accelerate by 10 km/h. Is that still the case?

Quote
Of course it wouldn't work in reality, but you have to assume and TO ACCEPT this theoretical construct all the way up until you will be ready to recant your HC religion, because as soon as you start to question this construct your whole theory collapses as a house of cards.

Will you cut the useless rhetoric and just explain your idea as clearly and calmly as you can, please.

Quote
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 :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND

OK. I take it we're near the equator and the plane's airspeed is 500 mi/h, assuming no wind.

By the way, this is usually referred to as an Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) frame of reference. Inertial means the frame of reference is not rotating, so fixed points on the surface of the earth are moving relative to it because of earth's rotation.

Quote
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all relative to the ground but still flies moves 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND in ECI coordinates due to the rotation of the earth.

OK. Do you agree with the corrections and clarifications made?

Quote
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within the ECI "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

Yes. That's why the sun will still set in the west even though you're flying west, at 500 mi/hr airspeed and no wind, at the equator. It sets more slowly than it would if you weren't moving west at high speed, but it still sets.

Quote
Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?

What's not possible about it? In both cases the airplane is flying nose-first through the atmosphere with 500 mi/hr airspeed.

Quote
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, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it? You seem to want to insist this should happen and get all wrapped around the axle when told it doesn't. You are, quite simply, wrong.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2018, 04:05:53 AM »
Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?

Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?

Our walker (as far as he himself is concerned) also cancels out continually (by every step that he makes) initial inertia which is the result of train's motion in counter direction, however since he is constantly in direct contact with the rigid surface of the base of the train, he can't harness such (canceled out) inertia in order to proceed faster towards the back side of the train.

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

No, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it?

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???

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?

Let's take a look at one another thought experiment :

Imagine one big hall which entire base is rolling 60 km/h in one direction, and in the middle of that big rolling field some biker ride his bike in counter direction. For the observer who stands at grandstand of our big bowl/arena this biker seems as if he is standing still, although his bike is running 60 km/h. Now, our biker fires a rocket (equipped with camera) sideways. What we are going to see in the footage of that camera which is attached to that rocket? It is more than obvious that in the footage of that camera we are going to notice very distinctly how the base of our big hall is rolling perpendicularly to the direction of motion of flying rocket. (left to right if the biker fired rocket to the right, or right to left if the biker fired rocket to the left).

Now, you can argue that such result would be the consequence of carrying out our experiment inside non-moving hall. O.K., then feel free to carry out the same experiment inside the moving train and see how much different the final result would be. I assure you that even though there would be some minor differences, the final result of such experiment would prove my point, without the shadow of a doubt.

EDIT :

Another part of an experiment above would be as following :

Our biker holds his little drone which initial inertia has been canceled out already due to the motion of our biker (60 km/h) and now our biker releases the drone which also flies 60 km/h.

What would be the result of it?
The drone would fly away towards another end of our big hall while our biker will still stay apparently (for the observer who stands at grandstand of our big hall) at rest.

Now, imagine that our biker rides a bike in the same big hall, but this time entire base is at rest.
When he arrives in the middle of the hall he reaches 60 km/h, and in that same moment he also puts in forward motion his little drone.

What would be the result of it?
The drone will keep the pace with our biker by hanging over his head all the way to the end of the riding field of our big hall.

If we conducted such experiment inside running train, we could expect somewhat different result (with respect to the test with rolling field), due to the air flow (air drag) inside the train, but such result would still be much closer to the result yielded in a "rolling field" experiment than in a "stationary field" experiment.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 09:45:00 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2018, 10:25:50 AM »
Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?
<rather confused explanation>

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

Now there's a clearer explanation of what you, incorrectly, seem to think happens.

You think that removing the physical connection between an object and a moving train would immediately cause the object to cease traveling at the velocity of the train. That is wrong. Period.

You can test this for yourself by traveling on a train and, while it's not accelerating (i.e. not speeding up, slowing down, or turning) drop something like a tennis ball. If the train is traveling at, say, 36 km/h (36 makes the math easy) and it takes the dropped ball a half second to fall to the floor (dropping it from 125 cm will be close to that), then the train moves

d = 36 km/h * 1000 m/km * (1/3600) h/s * (1/2) s
 = 36,000 m / (3600  s) * (1/2) s
 = 10 m/s * (1/2) s
 = 5 m

in the time it takes the ball to drop.

That's a fairly slow train. A train traveling at twice that speed (72 km/h) moves 10 meters in that time.

Do you really think that if you hold a ball about 125 cm above the floor of a moving train and release it, it will land several meters toward the rear of the train? Of course it won't. Yet this is what you surmise would happen.

That should be very easy to test, without the need for a drone or running down the aisle of a moving train.

Quote
This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

Just try the dropped-ball experiment instead of rambling any more about effects that you think should happen but don't.

Quote
No, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it?

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???

Did you mean 1,000 mi/h instead of 100?

At any rate, no. I don't agree with that. Why do you think I would?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2018, 12:34:20 PM »
Our walker (as far as he himself is concerned) also cancels out continually (by every step that he makes) initial inertia which is the result of train's motion in counter direction, however since he is constantly in direct contact with the rigid surface of the base of the train, he can't harness such (canceled out) inertia in order to proceed faster towards the back side of the train.
And there you go ignoring the air again.
As the air is moving with the train, the drone which moves through the air will move relative to the train. (Assuming you are using some of the simpler flight modes rather than the GPS lock one).

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result?
Inside the train, NO!
The only difference will be in the time taken.

Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train
10 km/hr relative to the train is still 10 km/hr relative to the train.

Yes. Why?
No he wont.

He wont magically start running faster when going towards the back of the train.

Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.
No more so than he will fly past the based of the train when running forwards.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.
Yes, runners move faster than walkers. But the running running 10 km/hr forwards or backwards will still take the same time going forwards or backwards.

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???
Why 100 miles/hr?
What would majically make it lose it?

Let's take a look at one another thought experiment :
How about you deal with your repeated failures first?
You get your ass handed to you, with a clear explanation of the massive flaws in your claims, and rather than try any rational response you ignore it and move on to another BS analogy?

Imagine one big hall which entire base is rolling 60 km/h in one direction
And yet again, you intentionally make the comparison dishonest. This does not match how Earth should behave. For it to match Earth you need the entire hall moving.

So this is yet another dishonest failure on your part.
Due to how many of these I have already refuted, I will just skip this pile of crap.

If we conducted such experiment inside running train, we could expect somewhat different result (with respect to the test with rolling field), due to the air flow (air drag) inside the train, but such result would still be much closer to the result yielded in a "rolling field" experiment than in a "stationary field" experiment.
You started off well.
The experiment inside a moving train would match that of a stationary field without wind.
This is because the only difference between the 2 is that one has the entire system translating.
This produces no effect on the relative motions.
The air moves with the train, just like it moves with Earth. Stop ignoring that, and stop ignoring how inertia actually works.

Also note that the kinds of experiments you are suggesting have already been carried out using boats.

When the boat is moving steadily, motion inside the boat is the same as motion when the boat is at a dock or motion on land.
It is only motion outside the boat, exposed to the wind, which is different.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 12:37:22 PM by JackBlack »

*

Macarios

  • 2035
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2018, 05:08:21 PM »
If Concorde turns directly to the north, or to the south, it follows meridian.
How to see then movement of the ground to the left or right?
Without intentional turn airplane lean on air and don't drift aside.
It follows the movement of the atmosphere.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

cikljamas

  • 2091
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #58 on: February 02, 2018, 04:24:32 AM »
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Detecting the aether wind was the next challenge Michelson set himself after his triumph
in measuring the speed of light so accurately.  Naturally, something that allows solid
bodies to pass through it freely is a little hard to get a grip on.  But Michelson realized
that, just as the speed of sound is relative to the air, so the speed of light must be relative
to the aether.  This must mean, if you could measure the speed of light accurately enough,
you could measure the speed of light travelling upwind, and compare it with the speed of
light travelling downwind, and the difference of the two measurements should be twice
the windspeed.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.  All the recent accurate measurements
had used light travelling to a distant mirror and coming back, so if there was an aether
wind along the direction between the mirrors, it would have opposite effects on the two
parts of the measurement, leaving a very small overall effect.  There was no technically
feasible way to do a one-way determination of the speed of light. 
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.  As he
explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on the following
puzzle:

Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both swim at
the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second).  The river is flowing at a steady
rate, say 3 feet per second.  The swimmers race in the following way: they both start at
the same point on one bank.  One swims directly across the river to the closest point on
the opposite bank, then turns around and swims back.  The other stays on one side of the
river, swimming upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the
width of the river, then swims back to the start.  Who wins? 
Let’s consider first the swimmer going upstream and back.  Going 100 feet upstream, the
speed relative to the bank is only 2 feet per second, so that takes 50 seconds.  Coming
back, the speed is 8 feet per second, so it takes 12.5 seconds, for a total time of 62.5
seconds.

The swimmer going across the flow is trickier.  It won’t do simply to aim directly for the
opposite bank-the flow will carry the swimmer downstream.  To succeed in going
directly across, the swimmer must actually aim upstream at the correct angle (of course, a
real swimmer would do this automatically).  Thus, the swimmer is going at 5 feet per
second, at an angle, relative to the river, and being carried downstream at a rate of 3 feet
per second.  If the angle is correctly chosen so that the net movement is directly across, in
one second the swimmer must have moved four feet across:  the distances covered in one
second will form a 3,4,5 triangle.  So, at a crossing rate of 4 feet per second, the swimmer
gets across in 25 seconds, and back in the same time, for a total time of 50 seconds.  The
cross-stream swimmer wins.  This turns out to true whatever their swimming speed.  (Of
course, the race is only possible if they can swim faster than the current!
)

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

Now, we have to be smart and inventive as Michelson was.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:

A quick reminder :

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

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

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.

First we have a runner No 1 who runs 20 km/h through let's say 1000 m long interior of the stationary train.

It is going to take 3 minutes for him to cross the entire distance of 1000 m.

Now, our runner No 2 runs also 20 km/h (at least during the first 10th (100 m) of the whole distance) across the interior of slowly moving train in a counter direction of train's motion.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

1. Air drag will be so negligible that we could discount it entirely!
2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance) of our runner NO 2 at the finish line (the backside of our moving train) due to the property of running (see above)!

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 17636
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #59 on: February 02, 2018, 08:00:51 AM »
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 08:04:45 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.