A Question for FEers

So this is a question strictly for FEers, and that’s why I asked it here.

All I want is know what FEers believe in regards to this question. It’s actually about round Earth, but given the context of the question, it’s indirectly about FE, too.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

Given this line of thinking, do you believe that, in a RE scenario, 737s traveling east would have to travel at 1600 mph?

Additionally, this would mean that 737s traveling westward would actually have to be flying backwards at around 400 mph just given what we know about flight times.

Since this type of flight is impossible, do you think that this reasoning gives more credence to FE theory?

Not here to debate. Just want to know.

I understand why you posted in Q&A, but your questions are not posed in a way that is conducive to a Q&A topic. The way you framed it, it's either meant to be a trap of some sort or it will require discussion to clarify points. I'm going to assume it's the latter, hence placing this in Debate so the conversation can be had.

So this is a question strictly for FEers, and that’s why I asked it here.

All I want is know what FEers believe in regards to this question. It’s actually about round Earth, but given the context of the question, it’s indirectly about FE, too.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

Given this line of thinking, do you believe that, in a RE scenario, 737s traveling east would have to travel at 1600 mph?

Additionally, this would mean that 737s traveling westward would actually have to be flying backwards at around 400 mph just given what we know about flight times.

Since this type of flight is impossible, do you think that this reasoning gives more credence to FE theory?

Not here to debate. Just want to know.

The atmosphere, the plane, and the passengers are rotating along with the earth, so the speed is all relative to the existing rotation, of course. Drop a ball in a car speeding down the freeway. Does it hit the back of the car, or the floor?

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 09, 2019, 10:26:39 AM

So this is a question strictly for FEers, and that’s why I asked it here.

All I want is know what FEers believe in regards to this question. It’s actually about round Earth, but given the context of the question, it’s indirectly about FE, too.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

Given this line of thinking, do you believe that, in a RE scenario, 737s traveling east would have to travel at 1600 mph?

Additionally, this would mean that 737s traveling westward would actually have to be flying backwards at around 400 mph just given what we know about flight times.

Since this type of flight is impossible, do you think that this reasoning gives more credence to FE theory?

Not here to debate. Just want to know.

The atmosphere, the plane, and the passengers are rotating along with the earth, so the speed is all relative to the existing rotation, of course. Drop a ball in a car speeding down the freeway. Does it hit the back of the car, or the floor?

I’m pretty sure you believe RE, yeah?

I particularly want sceptimatic to answer this as he was the one who told me to post a thread on this.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

The Space X rocket could land on the barge, even if the earth was globe and spinning.

Same way a fly can land on your hamburger in your car while you're traveling at 60mph with the windows closed.

Here's some crazies flying drones in a moving truck:

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 09, 2019, 10:26:39 AM

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

The Space X rocket could land on the barge, even if the earth was globe and spinning.

Same way a fly can land on your hamburger in your car while you're traveling at 60mph with the windows closed.

Here's some crazies flying drones in a moving truck:

Thank you.

So this is a question strictly for FEers, and that’s why I asked it here.

All I want is know what FEers believe in regards to this question. It’s actually about round Earth, but given the context of the question, it’s indirectly about FE, too.

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

Given this line of thinking, do you believe that, in a RE scenario, 737s traveling east would have to travel at 1600 mph?

Additionally, this would mean that 737s traveling westward would actually have to be flying backwards at around 400 mph just given what we know about flight times.

Since this type of flight is impossible, do you think that this reasoning gives more credence to FE theory?

Not here to debate. Just want to know.

Ask yourself why Brian Cox and his fighter pilot managed to stop the sun from setting, as they put it, by catching up with the Earth's so called spin.

Explain what he meant by that? Because the only way I can see that happening on the fictional globe is to negate the atmospheric push on the jet against the so called spin and drag against the jet.

To make this more simpler.
The jet is on the ground. The sun is supposedly setting on the so called globe, which means the globe is spinning backwards away from the sun.

The jet takes off towards the disappearing sun but initially it apparently gets dragged back with the spinning Earth and atmosphere.
However, Brian Cox then says, we've speeded up towards the sun and caught up with the spin of the Earth and now we can see the sun frozen, neither rising nor setting.

No matter which way you try to angle this, it's pretty clear above anything that he's made a massive boo boo, probably due to arrogance.
If anything it shows that the spin of the so called globe can be negated and if that's the case then it has to work for everything.

But that creates a massive problem if this was the truth, so what can the alternative be to ensure this works?

It's pretty easy.
You simply follow the sun as it moves AWAY from you. You catch up with the speed that sun is moving away.
Now you are in near unison with that moving sun spot. End result? A move over and around a near plain to negate the moving sunspot and render that sun spot as a visual stand fast position.

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 09, 2019, 10:26:39 AM

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

The Space X rocket could land on the barge, even if the earth was globe and spinning.

Same way a fly can land on your hamburger in your car while you're traveling at 60mph with the windows closed.

Here's some crazies flying drones in a moving truck:

Try it on the top of the truck and see what happens.
The inside of it is the biggest con going, just like the train.
Why?
Because your atmosphere is a pressure pot inside that truck.
It can't be legitimately defended after what Brian Cox done.He helped destroy the figment of the imagination of your globe Earth.

Ask yourself why Brian Cox and his fighter pilot

Why can't you just focus on the one issue rather than trying to run off into pathetic distractions and misunderstanding?

No matter which way you try to angle this, it's pretty clear above anything that he's made a massive boo boo, probably due to arrogance.
If anything it shows that the spin of the so called globe can be negated and if that's the case then it has to work for everything.

No, it is pretty clear you still don't understand.
There is no massive boo boo here from Cox.
He didn't just hop in the jet and have it magically negate the spin of Earth. It negated it by using engines.
These engines did 2 things:
1 - Provide an impulse to accelerate the jet in a direction opposite Earth's rotation, or as you would say it, to slow down the jet.
2 - Provide a force to negate air resistance.
If the jet was to lose power (or have the power cut), the air resistance will speed it up, just like the wind, and that means it starts rotating with Earth.

So the only massive problem is your understanding of relative motion.

Try it on the top of the truck and see what happens.
The inside of it is the biggest con going, just like the train.

No. You repeatedly appealing to the inside of the truck is the massive con-job, which indicates you do understand but are wilfully lying.

The air inside the truck is moving with the truck, just like if you ignore wind, the air of the atmosphere is moving with Earth.

If you had a long enough truck/train, you could have a drone fly inside the truck, against its direction of motion and have objects outside the truck appear to stand still for the drone.

Why can't you just focus on the one issue rather than trying to run off into pathetic distractions and misunderstanding?

Look at the topic.
I'll focus on what I want to focus on. feel free to not take part.
You seem to be getting into a right panic trying to gate keep.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 09, 2019, 07:40:31 PM

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 09, 2019, 10:26:39 AM

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

The Space X rocket could land on the barge, even if the earth was globe and spinning.

Same way a fly can land on your hamburger in your car while you're traveling at 60mph with the windows closed.

Here's some crazies flying drones in a moving truck:

Try it on the top of the truck and see what happens.

Why?
"On the top of the truck" the drone is subject to a wind of the same speed as the truck.
But the atmosphere of the rotating earth has nothing outside to slow it down so it simply moves at the same speed as the earth - apart for the winds.
Please explain why you think the atmosphere would not rotate with the Globe.

The inside of it is the biggest con going, just like the train.
Why?
Because your atmosphere is a pressure pot inside that truck.

No it is not any "pressure pot inside that truck"! The pressure inside that truck is almost exactly the same as the atmospheric pressure outside.

But that has no bearing on the earth's atmosphere rotating along with the earth. Why would it not rotate along with the earth?

Look, wet a ball about 10 cm in diameter and then rotate it at say 7 rpm.
Now does the water on the surface rotate with the ball or does it remain stationary and held in place by the air around it?

It can't be legitimately defended after what Brian Cox done.He helped destroy the figment of the imagination of your globe Earth.

It can be very legitimately defended by anyone that knows what they are talking about.
So please explain where Brian Cox helped destroy the globe Earth, because he did no such thing!

Look at the topic.

Yes, look at the topic. Just what does it have to do with flying a jet to fight Earth's rotation?

You seem to be getting into a right panic trying to gate keep.

Nope, just sick of your distractions.
Notice how you use this entire post as a distraction?
Rather than focus on your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the RE model, you just complain that I told you to stay on topic.

I explained why your claims were wrong and why there was no boo boo or massive problem for the RE.
But you have no response for that, so need to resort to distractions.


Again, ignoring wind, the air is mostly moving with Earth. This makes it akin to the air inside the truck, not outside.
You can have a drone or the like fly inside a moving vehicle to make Earth look still.
So if your claims regarding objects magically being able to negate the rotation was true (instead of negating it based upon real physics where they apply a force to accelerate them to change their velocity such that they are no longer rotating with Earth and applying a force to negate the air resistance trying to make them move with Earth), it would apply equally well to objects in a truck or car or bus or train, with them magically appearing to fly towards the back.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2019, 01:41:11 AM

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 09, 2019, 07:40:31 PM

Quote from: AroundWeGo on March 09, 2019, 10:26:39 AM

Basically in a debate thread, sceptimatic believed that a Space X rocket couldn’t land on the barge it was said to land on (in a RE scenario) because after some time into the flight, the Earth will have rotated underneath the rocket.

The Space X rocket could land on the barge, even if the earth was globe and spinning.

Same way a fly can land on your hamburger in your car while you're traveling at 60mph with the windows closed.

Here's some crazies flying drones in a moving truck:

Try it on the top of the truck and see what happens.

Why?
"On the top of the truck" the drone is subject to a wind of the same speed as the truck.
But the atmosphere of the rotating earth has nothing outside to slow it down so it simply moves at the same speed as the earth - apart for the winds.
Please explain why you think the atmosphere would not rotate with the Globe.

Quote from: sceptimatic

The inside of it is the biggest con going, just like the train.
Why?
Because your atmosphere is a pressure pot inside that truck.

No it is not any "pressure pot inside that truck"! The pressure inside that truck is almost exactly the same as the atmospheric pressure outside.

But that has no bearing on the earth's atmosphere rotating along with the earth. Why would it not rotate along with the earth?

Look, wet a ball about 10 cm in diameter and then rotate it at say 7 rpm.
Now does the water on the surface rotate with the ball or does it remain stationary and held in place by the air around it?

Quote from: sceptimatic

It can't be legitimately defended after what Brian Cox done.He helped destroy the figment of the imagination of your globe Earth.

It can be very legitimately defended by anyone that knows what they are talking about.
So please explain where Brian Cox helped destroy the globe Earth, because he did no such thing!

You can't have it both ways. You can only argue it one way and not all kinds of ways that suit the narrative.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2019, 03:59:07 AM

Look at the topic.

Yes, look at the topic. Just what does it have to do with flying a jet to fight Earth's rotation?

Maybe the OP will help you out.

You can't have it both ways. You can only argue it one way and not all kinds of ways that suit the narrative.

We aren't having it both ways.
Again, it is a simple result of forces.
The Jet didn't just magically counter the rotation. It didn't just magically stop and sit there.
It used its engine to accelerate and counter the air resistance.

Again, objects inside moving vehicles can move such that they negate the motion of the vehicle relative to Earth. That doesn't magically mean all objects will magically stop.

Now can you point out any actual issue?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 10, 2019, 04:21:38 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 10, 2019, 01:41:11 AM

The inside of it is the biggest con going, just like the train.
Why?
Because your atmosphere is a pressure pot inside that truck.

No it is not any "pressure pot inside that truck"! The pressure inside that truck is almost exactly the same as the atmospheric pressure outside.

But that has no bearing on the earth's atmosphere rotating along with the earth. Why would it not rotate along with the earth?

Look, wet a ball about 10 cm in diameter and then rotate it at say 7 rpm.
Now does the water on the surface rotate with the ball or does it remain stationary and held in place by the air around it?

Quote from: sceptimatic

It can't be legitimately defended after what Brian Cox done.He helped destroy the figment of the imagination of your globe Earth.

It can be very legitimately defended by anyone that knows what they are talking about.
So please explain where Brian Cox helped destroy the globe Earth, because he did no such thing!

You can't have it both ways. You can only argue it one way and not all kinds of ways that suit the narrative.

What "both ways"? Please explain as I asked before.
I repeat:

Please explain where Brian Cox helped destroy the globe Earth, because he did no such thing!

And I repeat:

Wet a ball about 10 cm in diameter and then rotate it at say 7 rpm.
Now does the water on the surface rotate with the ball or does it remain stationary and held in place by the air around it?

If you don't answer my questions, I don't answer yours!

Sceptimatic, I just read your Brian Cox thread from two and a half years ago.


Let me try to understand what you’re thinking. You think that, if Brian Cox is going 650 mph, he should appear as though he’s hovering? And because he isn’t hovering, you think that disproves RE?

Let me know if this is what you’re thinking.