How birds fly and defeating the gravity

Pluto and Charon orbiting each other can have one frame in Pluto and another frame in Charon.
Which one of those is "specifice reference frame" and which one is "reality"?
Who is orbiting whom?

Or the only "reaity" is around gallactic core?

Keep insisting on your dogma.
It was nice talking to you.

Neither.
They orbit their common barycentre. That in turn is aso moving through space, moving through the solar system with it all moving through the galaxy.
But importantly, on the scale of their orbit around their common barycentre, the barycentre is approximately an inertial reference frame for that system.

I'm not insisting Dogma, you just ignore reality and treat it all as a simple math equation, where any equation should be equally correct.
And you haven't even admitted your error regarding your claim of centrifugal forces being a reaction force.

By being light and aerodynamic so that they can produce lift. It is similar to how planes work but birds don’t need huge engines to to provide thrust because they are light and use their wings.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 27, 2018, 02:09:38 AM

Quote from: FaKaN on April 27, 2018, 01:38:27 AM

If Gravity exists How birds can fly and easily without power motors??
Please don’t explain the birds biomechanics but explain it from the gravity point of view
I’m Waiting logic/scientific answers

You know how a fan pushes air right, it redirects it with its blades. The bird does the same thing pushing down the air so that it itself will rise.

Compare it with swimming, just in the air where you need more speed.

You have probably heard the saying in physics, that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The bullet firing from a gun pushes just as hard on the gun firing it.

Thanks, but where is the gravity rule here? and there are many birds floating on the air without doing any action (just float)

I’m pretty sure they glide on the wind with their wings. Right?

Quote from: TP@A on April 27, 2018, 01:53:06 AM

Birds are light, they have wings.

Not all are light. These are all flying birds:

• Dalmatian pelican (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Andean condor (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Trumpeter swan (up to 17.2 kg /38 lb)
• Great bustard and Kori bustard (up to 18 kg / 40 lb)

Birds fly by roughly the same means as aircraft except that their wings provide both forward propulsion and lift.

But these birds have bigger wings so they can lift themselves up.

Thanks, yet I wonder how a tiny ballon filled by helium Can beat the Gravity power! I wonder if there is a satellite will not be grabbed to the moon or sun or the earth because of the gravity of all of these objects.

If you feel that Im stupid please stop answer  but if u feel that you need to answer me, so please go ahead

The tiny ballon is less dense when filled with helium. Density is mass over volume

Idk it's late, and I just wanted to comment that REers disrespect birds because they are saying they know how birds work but no one reallyy explained how they "beat gravity" and can fly up. No one understands birds!

Idk it's late, and I just wanted to comment that REers disrespect birds because they are saying they know how birds work but no one reallyy explained how they "beat gravity" and can fly up. No one understands birds!

Us RE are just explaining how birds fly from what we learned from our research. Also what you mean about disrespecting animals, I bet you eat fried chicken or beef and don't think of how it was made.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 27, 2018, 05:40:59 AM

Quote from: TP@A on April 27, 2018, 01:53:06 AM

Birds are light, they have wings.

Not all are light. These are all flying birds:

• Dalmatian pelican (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Andean condor (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Trumpeter swan (up to 17.2 kg /38 lb)
• Great bustard and Kori bustard (up to 18 kg / 40 lb)

Birds fly by roughly the same means as aircraft except that their wings provide both forward propulsion and lift.

But these birds have bigger wings so they can lift themselves up.

My arms are bigger than a sparrows yet they don't do shit for lifting me up in the air no matter how stupid I look flapping them.

Quote from: Viperdude on May 09, 2018, 06:35:04 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 27, 2018, 05:40:59 AM

Quote from: TP@A on April 27, 2018, 01:53:06 AM

Birds are light, they have wings.

Not all are light. These are all flying birds:

• Dalmatian pelican (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Andean condor (up to 15 kg / 33 lb)
• Trumpeter swan (up to 17.2 kg /38 lb)
• Great bustard and Kori bustard (up to 18 kg / 40 lb)

Birds fly by roughly the same means as aircraft except that their wings provide both forward propulsion and lift.

But these birds have bigger wings so they can lift themselves up.

My arms are bigger than a sparrows yet they don't do shit for lifting me up in the air no matter how stupid I look flapping them.

A house sparrow might weigh 30 g and you weigh?

Then the Andean condor has a Wingspan of 2.7 - 3.2 m and a mass of 11 - 15 Kgs.
How do your arms stack up against this?The condor even has nicely feathered wing-tips to minimise vortex drag that plagues large aircraft.

And I suspect you weigh a little more even than 15 kg.
 

I weigh 80kgs. Considerably lighter than a fully loaded Antonov An-225 at 581000kgs and those wings don't even flap!!

I weigh 80kgs. Considerably lighter than a fully loaded Antonov An-225 at 581000kgs and those wings don't even flap!!

The gross take-off weight of the Antonov An-225 is 600000 kg, its wing area is 905 m² and its take-off speed is roughly 280 km/hr.
So its maximum wing-loading is 663 kg/m².
If you "wing area" exceeds 0.22 m² you might be OK on that score as long as you can run at 280 km/hr.

On the thrust side, the Antonov An-225 expels enough hot air to deliver 1380 kN or about 141 tonnes.
Of course the lift to drag ratio of your muscly armx might not match the aerofoil of the Antonov's wings.

Should be no problem for one of your calibre!

PS Probably lots of errors.

The earliest dinosaurs sported ornate feathers that were primarily used for visual communication and mating. However, their function changed as evolution ran its course.

It is no coincidence that the downfall of Laramidia coincided with advent of larger theropods to the outer continents.
In fact, flight arose as much from an evolution of dexterity and cardiovascular strength out of necessity due to these earlier seas of antiquity. Isolated tribes of hadrosaurs in New Mexico were physiological freaks (Some even close to twice the mass of a generic parasaurolophus or edmontosaurs) which only felt competition or danger from descendants from archaeopteryx which now entered a novel adaptation into play with non-ceremonial serving but functional feathers. Evolution and our fossil record supports as much with landlocking and our current phylogenetic trees. Current phylogenetics does not support the RET history of land movement. Particularly the dispersal of sauriscians.

It is important to remember that as dinosaurs evolved into the birds we see today characteristics such as: a lack of teeth, lighter skeleton and dispersal of digital organization is amazing to see. However, in the FE model flight cannot be sustained indefinitely, just as in the RE model. When discussions of these creatures arise it is more important to analyze their evolution and our history of lost continents to see that only FET is supported by paleo history and biology.

Remember, birds are dinosuars!

However, in the FE model flight cannot be sustained indefinitely, just as in the RE model.

And what is the basis of such a claim?

When discussions of these creatures arise it is more important to analyze their evolution and our history of lost continents to see that only FET is supported by paleo history and biology.

And are we expected to6 accept that on your word?

Remember, birds are dinosuars!

Is it "birds are dinosuars" or birds were dinosuars! And if believe the evolution of species, are you one if these?And how is this relevant to the topic "How birds fly and defeating the gravity".

I would say that the short answer to "How birds fly and defeating the gravity" is essentially the same as aircraft and there's not much mystery there.

Current phylogenetics does not support the RET history of land movement.

only FET is supported by paleo history and biology.

Prove it.

Remember, birds are dinosuars!

Only if you think humans are fish and eukaryotes are prokaryotes.

I reject that stupid form of taxonomy.

If we are throwing out the explanations of flight that has been thouroughly explained, tested, and refined over years of study and experimentation.  How do birds or airplanes fly on a flat Earth? 
Remember you are throwing out air pressure manipulation. 
If you have no fully fledged explanation to replace the one you are tearing down then you have to work harder to even question it.  I.e. you have to have much more than "you don't understand gravity or air pressure and you want it to be a problem for gravity that birds fly".  Currently you have offered nothing but things like something weighs too much for your limited minds to understand the physics of flight. 
Start smaller, don't make yourself look so stupid right out of the gate.  People lose respect for you and just don't listen to your objections when you do this.  I would worry for your long term social and mental well being if you actually believe the stuff you have typed.  You base everything on your personal incredulity.  That's not healthy for your growth as a person.  If you don't understand it, learn about it, don't scream it isn't possible just because you don't know how. 

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 10, 2018, 09:14:58 PM

However, in the FE model flight cannot be sustained indefinitely, just as in the RE model.

And what is the basis of such a claim?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin

When discussions of these creatures arise it is more important to analyze their evolution and our history of lost continents to see that only FET is supported by paleo history and biology.

And are we expected to6 accept that on your word?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin

Remember, birds are dinosuars!

Is it "birds are dinosuars" or birds were dinosuars! And if believe the evolution of species, are you one if these?

And how is this relevant to the topic "How birds fly and defeating the gravity".

I would say that the short answer to "How birds fly and defeating the gravity" is essentially the same as aircraft and there's not much mystery there.

1. Indefinite flight is impossible in either model. At some point machine/animal will deteriorate or energy will run out. I don't think you are in argument with me on this first point.
2. Riv Biol. 2009 Jan-Apr;102(1):20-2.
Molecular evidence for the hadrosaur B. canadensis as an outgroup to a clade containing the dinosaur T. rex and birds.
Huang S.

Naturwissenschaften. 2014 Jun;101(6):505-12. doi: 10.1007/s00114-014-1183-1. Epub 2014 May 24.
A new chasmosaurine from northern Laramidia expands frill disparity in ceratopsid dinosaurs.
Ryan MJ1, Evans DC, Currie PJ, Loewen MA.

3. I am simply saying the natural history of the world and biology we observe is more damning than to RET than watching and considering that mankind has invented mechanical dinosaurs for temporary flight fueled by a large energy source. And YES. I would consider myself a primate but not a monkey.

Just as a cardinal is a dinosaur but not a T-rex.

Remember, birds are dinosaurs!

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 10, 2018, 09:14:58 PM

Current phylogenetics does not support the RET history of land movement.

only FET is supported by paleo history and biology.

Prove it.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 10, 2018, 09:14:58 PM

Remember, birds are dinosuars!

Only if you think humans are fish and eukaryotes are prokaryotes.

I reject that stupid form of taxonomy.

Humans are not fish. Your comparison is nonsensical. Humans however, are vertebrates just like fish because of a shared common ancestor.

"I reject that stupid form of taxonomy". Then you reject evolution, the field of biology, and do not understand the significance of a common ancestor vs divergence of species. Very peculiar since this shouldn't really be a RE vs FE issue.

Remember, birds are dinosaurs!

2. Riv Biol. 2009 Jan-Apr;102(1):20-2.
...
3. I am simply saying the natural history of the world and biology we observe is more damning than to RET than watching and considering that mankind has invented mechanical dinosaurs for temporary flight fueled by a large energy source.

And how is it more damning to RET?
And no. Planes rae not mechanical dinosaurs, nor mechanical birds.

Humans are not fish. Your comparison is nonsensical. Humans however, are vertebrates just like fish because of a shared common ancestor.

No, my comparison is quite meaningful.
That taxonomy is simply stating that anything that evolved from X is X.
It classifies birds as dinosaurs because they evolved from dinosaurs.
The common ancestor of "fish" and land animals such as humans, was a fish.
That means humans evolved from fish (not the fish we have today, but fish from long long ago). Thus, under that system, humans are fish.

If you reject humans being fish, you reject that form of taxonomy.

"I reject that stupid form of taxonomy". Then you reject evolution, the field of biology, and do not understand the significance of a common ancestor vs divergence of species.

Not in the slightest.
All it means is that I reject using evolutionary history for the purpose of claiming things like humans are fish, where taxonomic ranks and groups would be based upon an evolutionary family tree.
I would say birds are not dinosaurs, they are descendents of them.

This form of taxonomy also has a significant issue with horizontal gene transfer, and interbreeding.
I prefer taxonomy which focuses on what the species is now rather than what its ancestors were.

Remember, birds are dinosaurs!

Remember, only if humans are fish are eukaryotes are prokaryotes.

If you told JackBlack he was right he would disagree with you.

 

If you told JackBlack he was right he would disagree with you.

Lol.

I personally agree with him. Saying birds are dinosaurs is stupid.

1. Indefinite flight is impossible in either model. At some point machine/animal will deteriorate or energy will run out. I don't think you are in argument with me on this first point.

And what is the relevance of that in the question of the FE vs. the Globe?

2. Riv Biol. 2009 Jan-Apr;102(1):20-2.
Molecular evidence for the hadrosaur B. canadensis as an outgroup to a clade containing the dinosaur T. rex and birds.
Huang S.

Naturwissenschaften. 2014 Jun;101(6):505-12. doi: 10.1007/s00114-014-1183-1. Epub 2014 May 24.
A new chasmosaurine from northern Laramidia expands frill disparity in ceratopsid dinosaurs.
Ryan MJ1, Evans DC, Currie PJ, Loewen MA.

And what is the relevance of that in the question of the FE vs. the Globe?

3. I am simply saying the natural history of the world and biology we observe is more damning than to RET than watching and considering that mankind has invented mechanical dinosaurs for temporary flight fueled by a large energy source.

Why is "the natural history of the world and biology we observe is more damning than to RET", If that is what you meant?

Whatever the shape of the earth,  "mankind has invented mechanical dinosaurs for temporary flight fueled by a large energy source."
Again I fail to see any relevance to the question of the FE vs. the Globe. The shape of the earth affects distances and navigation, but has no effect on how aircraft fly.

And YES. I would consider myself a primate but not a monkey.
Just as a cardinal is a dinosaur but not a T-rex.
Remember, birds are dinosaurs!

I did not post an artists impression of a monkey, but of a paranthropus boisei or Australopithecus boisei an early hominin.

OK, a sparrow might be a dinosaur and an aeroplanes might be "mechanical dinosaurs for temporary flight fueled by a large energy source", but so what? How does any of this support a flat earth.

All this seems a little weird because so many other flat earthers seem to claim
           that evolution (presumably meaning evolution as "the origin of species") is false,
           that evolution could not have have occurred on a flat earth (why, I don't know) and
           hence this is strong evidence for a flat earth.
I can't follow the logic of either your argument or that above. Neither seem the slightest bit relevant.

The earth is the shape it is now and that can be determined by measurement and observations.

Some FE proponents interpret religious text as absolute reality. Bible fundamentalism etc leads to them explicitly rejecting the idea of evolution. However, many non-religious contemporary zetetics include evolution as part of their overall worldview which flourishes in our conflicting ideas of tectonics. A famous and preeminent zetetic flat earther, and dear friend of mine by the name of Dr. James McIntyre shares very similar views to myself and other modern zetetics. His research is well worth a read.

I am glad you have agreed in our conclusion at least that birds are dinosaurs!
Perhaps further meditation on this topic will sway you the side of the flat truth Rabinoz. I hope you have a great weekend.

Humans are fish.

I would say birds are not dinosaurs, they are descendents of them.

Then I would say you need more help understanding how classification works!

No, my comparison is quite meaningful.
That taxonomy is simply stating that anything that evolved from X is X.
It classifies birds as dinosaurs because they evolved from dinosaurs.
The common ancestor of "fish" and land animals such as humans, was a fish.
That means humans evolved from fish (not the fish we have today, but fish from long long ago). Thus, under that system, humans are fish.

If you reject humans being fish, you reject that form of taxonomy.

The common ancestor of land animals and humans was not a fish! It was a basal vertebrate-quite the distinction! Your whole argument crumbles from the very start.

You misunderstand the very basics here which is evidenced by you insisting that we can use the same system to support that humans are fish. Under no system is that the case unless you are about to publish a paper titled "Jack Black's new classifying system: Biology gone rogue."

I implore you to further study the topic. Once you realize birds are dinosaurs, you are a step closer to enlightenment.
Have a blessed weekend Jack.

I am glad you have agreed in our conclusion at least that birds are dinosaurs!
Perhaps further meditation on this topic will sway you the side of the flat truth Rabinoz. I hope you have a great weekend.

Since you seem to have posted nothing relevant to the Flat Earth vs. the Globe question, I see no likelihood of that.

A famous and preeminent zetetic flat earther

There is no real zetetic flat Earther.
If you actually followed through the inquiry/observations you would find those consistent with a round or flat Earth, and those only consistent with a round Earth.

I am glad you have agreed in our conclusion at least that birds are dinosaurs!

Only if humans are fish and eukaryotes are prokaryotes.

Then I would say you need more help understanding how classification works!

I would say you do.
There are a multitude of classification systems in taxonomy.
It is only recently people have begun using evolutionary history as a system of classification.

I reject that system as pure stupidity.
You are not your parents, just like birds are not their ancestors.

The common ancestor of land animals and humans was not a fish! It was a basal vertebrate-quite the distinction!

No, it was a fish.
The earliest vertebrates were fish.
These fish evolved, with there descendants eventually becoming land animals.
You are now just grasping at excuses to pretend it wasn't a fish and thus to pretend that that system doesn't make humans fish.

If you think it wasn't a fish, explain what you think distinguishes it from a fish.

It also isn't really any distinction. You may as well have said it was a vertebrate or an animal or a life form.
Lots of fish are basal vertebrates.

You misunderstand the very basics here which is evidenced by you insisting that we can use the same system to support that humans are fish. Under no system is that the case

Nope. Under evolutionary taxonomy, it is.
The ancestor of humans was a fish, thus humans are fish.
Just like all eukaryotes are prokaryotes as prokaryotes were the ancestors of eukaryotes.

I implore you to further study the topic. Once you realize birds are dinosaurs, you are a step closer to enlightenment.

Nope.
I understand it quite well. I reject it as nonsense.
The fact that you need to dance around so much to try and pretend it works fine without making humans fish shows that.
Once you realise that this system is nonsense and no more just calling everything what it's ancestor was, you might be closer to enlightenment.

I have an important experiment for you JackBlack:

Go to your nearest toystore and buy a novel contraption where a table has cut out shapes with corresponding blocks.
You will notice the triangle shape does not fit in the hole made for the square!
Most people would conclude that the triangle is not part of the square grouping. However, JackBlack starts throwing a fit, saying "I reject this table! These blocks are stupid. These shapes correspond to whichever hole I want them too!" Kids start crying, the store owner has you escorted out, and you still clutch on to that triangle shape.  This is what you are doing with classification of different life forms.

Eukaryotes have major differences than prokaryotes. Believe it or not! A Eukaryote is excluded from being considered a prokaryote for many reasons and vice versa. Organelle composition: Prokaryotes lack an ER, mitochondria etc. In fact their very composition and organization of DNA is different. These are defining things that rule out any overlap in classification.
Claiming humans are fish falls into the same non-sensical problem. That's why the correct statement is humans are vertebrates! Wow!

Birds share the defining characteristics of dinosaurs. They are part of the grouping!
Now this will really get your noggin going, but pterodactyls are NOT dinosaurs!! They evolved separately from the dinosaur family!!!

I wonder perhaps if part of your confusion is that you are not familiar with the particular phrasing: birds are avian dinosaurs. A triceratops is a non-avian dinosaur.

All of this dinosaur talk really gets me excited and my blood pumping. I can't wait until you realize that birds are dinosaurs! To claim humans are fish is just nonsense on your part.
 

This is what you are doing with classification of different life forms.

No, it is more akin to what you and everyone else promoting evolutionary taxonomy.
You discard the attributes of the organism and instead focus on who its parents where.
You don't care that it is a triangle. It's parents were a square, so you say its a square.

Isn't it funny, and a little pathetic that the analogy you are trying to use to describe me is actually describing you?

Eukaryotes have major differences than prokaryotes. Believe it or not! A Eukaryote is excluded from being considered a prokaryote for many reasons and vice versa.

Yes, the primary difference being a nuclear envelope.
But notice how you are completely rejecting evolutionary taxonomy here?
It doesn't matter what attributes they have.
Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. Thus by evolutionary taxonomy, they are both prokaryotes. Eukaryotes would be a subgroup of prokaryotes.
So good job showing why evolutionary taxonomy is stupidity.

Birds share the defining characteristics of dinosaurs. They are part of the grouping!

No they don't.
Just what do you think the attributes of dinosaurs are?

I wonder perhaps if part of your confusion is that you are not familiar with the particular phrasing: birds are avian dinosaurs.

No, I am quite familiar with that terminology. It is used by people who wish to pretend birds are dinosaurs.

To claim humans are fish is just nonsense on your part.

No, it is nonsense on the part of evolutionary taxonomy, the same that claims birds are dinosaurs.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on April 27, 2018, 02:09:38 AM

Quote from: FaKaN on April 27, 2018, 01:38:27 AM

If Gravity exists How birds can fly and easily without power motors??
Please don’t explain the birds biomechanics but explain it from the gravity point of view
I’m Waiting logic/scientific answers

You know how a fan pushes air right, it redirects it with its blades. The bird does the same thing pushing down the air so that it itself will rise.

Compare it with swimming, just in the air where you need more speed.

You have probably heard the saying in physics, that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The bullet firing from a gun pushes just as hard on the gun firing it.

Thanks, but where is the gravity rule here? and there are many birds floating on the air without doing any action (just float)

Birds aren't floating, they are going fast enough so that they don't have to flap, that's why you see them flap, float, flap, float, so on. They are going fast enough to not flap, then they slow down and have to flap again. When they seam to be floating in place is when wind is blowing in the opposite direction that they are moving, so they don't need to go fast, and sometimes, they don't even need to be moving forwards at all. Remember, winds are faster and stronger higher up.
Oh and the gravity thing, the reason why we need motors to go to space is because we need to retain the escape velocity.