A proof for the Stationary Earth

[JohnMartin]

Now the 747 became a hornet?

Okaaaay....

John, if something is moving with the atmosphere, then there IS no pressure being felt by the object. You only feel pressure if there is a speed difference. Like the pressure felt on the plane in the direction it is traveling. The rotational direction has no pressure because the plane is moving at the same speed rotationally as the atmosphere. It is embedded in the atmosphere. If there is a 5 MPH tail wind and you are walking 5MPH in the direction of the wind, guess what? You would feel no wind.

Your analogy is false. If a boat is floating in a river (1) of velocity v, then the boat moves (2) also at v. If the boat is then propelled, the boat moves at v+vp. The vp will cause a pressure differential on the boat which moves against the river surface. Similarly, the Hornet moves against the atmosphere and will also feel a pressure. The only wat a plane does not feel pressure is when the plane always moves with the atmospheres W-E rotation. This would mean the plane would have to fly along with the atmosphere, like the boat floating in the water (1), rather than the boat moving through water (2).

If there is no force from the atmosphere acting on the S-N plane, then the plane must be always guided by the pilot to move W-E with the atmosphere. As this does not happen because flights take direct routes, then the atmosphere must be acting on the S-N plane.

JM

[JohnMartin]

When a boat is floating down a river with the current, how much pressure do you think you would measure pushing on the boat? NONE because the boat is moving at the same speed as the water. as far as relative velocity goes, there is none. If the boat is being carried sideways by the current it only feels the pressure if it is starting out at a different speed and being carried up to the speed of the current, once their speeds are the same, then there is no difference in pressure on the hull. No eddy currents. If the current changes speed gradually, then the boat being carried along with it, will change speed gradually too and will not feel any pressure. The only pressure felt would be if the boats engines are pushing it forward. Then there would be pressure at the bow and eddies at the stern, but there still would be no pressure or eddies on the sides where the current is carrying the boat.

now a plane starts out with having the same rotational speed as the atmosphere so there is no current felt. And once in the air, the sideways current of the air keeps moving the plane with it (along with gravity) and so when the atmosphere speeds up or slows down with the ground speed, so does the plane and there is no differential pressure felt. The rotational current can be ignored as far as aerodynamics is concerned.

A fifth grader could have told you that, John.

So the W-E rotation velocity is like a water current. The current at Sydney has a velocity of 1392 km/hr. This means both the Hornet and the earth rotate at 1392 km/hr at Sydney. At the equator the earth rotates at 1670 km/hr and the Hornet rotates with the atmosphere only if the Hornet has changed its W-E velocity by 1670-1392 = 278 km/hr. The change in velocity requires a force, which implies a pressure acting on the Hornet between Sydney and the Equator. If you think otherwise, then show how your model explains the change in W-E velocity of the Hornet without a force being applied to the object. You simply cannot do this, and this means the Hornet must be designed to account for such a force.

Change in velocity of an object requires a force according to Newtonian mechanics. The Hornet has a W-E change in velocity, which means there must be a force applied to the Hornet. The force is applied as a pressure on the object whilst in flight.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I see ... pulling a "Trump" on us John?

When confronted with objections you cannot answer you act like a child. Your quasi god, is a Swiss cheese.

JM

[JohnMartin]

And if he drove from Italy to London, he would not have to compensate for the change in W-E wind speed or get blown off the road, because his car would be changing it's W-E speed along with the air and the ground as he drove because of friction. Same thing with the air plane. I think John gets it, but wants to play dumb.

And the Hornet changes W-E velocity because of friction also. The friction is caused by the W-E rotating atmosphere relative to the Hornet flying S-N. You want friction to answer the car example, but deny friction for the Hornet example.

JM

[JohnMartin]

John - the fact Newtonian Physics has been supplanted by Relativity is old news. The continued use of NM for problems at 'normal' (non-relativistic) speeds and mass densities is simply a matter of convenience. The differences in the calculated results are minor to non-existent in most cases and the difference in the complexity of the mathematics is many cases significant. So it is a waste of time and effort to do the relativistic calculations for that extra .000001% accuracy.

Again - you simply chose to ignore or don't understand the concept of "relative magnitude".

Jim

NM says gravity propagation is instantaneous. R says gravity propagation is at c. What then is the greater velocity of G? NM or R? It's NM. But NM does not predict gravity waves. Hence the observation of gravity waves does the following -

1) The wave is assumed to propagate at a high velocity, of say close to c. Therefore any NM maths concerning the orbital mechanics of the local solar system must account for this gravity wave (GW) propagation. As NM does not account for GW, then the orbit paths of all the planets are not correctly modeled by NM. In fact all the NM calcs are all wrong and the standard Helio model must now be recalculated. Currently the discovery of GW invalidates NM and Helio.

2) G propagation in NM is infinite. The claim that R theory modifies NM for high velocities is simply false. Why? G propagation in NM has a far higher velocity than G propagation in R theory. The high velocity is found in NM and not in R. Those who think otherwise have got it backwards. The GW measurement may well have concluded that G propagation is far slower than predicted by NM than what is expected by the relatively slow propagation predicted by R theory.

The apparent discovery of GW invalidates the NM mass attraction for gravity and consequently the NM maths for the Helio model.

Furthermore, dark matter is said to permeate the universe, which is required to account for the motion and shape of the spiral galaxies, which do not conform to NM. The matter required to be added into the calcs is summarized in the article - Galaxy rotation curve

So dark matter permeates the spiral galaxies. The Milky Way is a Spiral galaxy, which also must have dark matter according to the Copernican principle. Why then is dark matter ignored in the NM maths to account for the Helio model? Does the local system act as a dark matter bubble and hence not as the rest of the other spiral galaxies? If so, doesn't the Helio model contradict the fundamental principle of modern cosmology, that there is no preferred place in the universe?

For the Helio model to work the following must occur -

1) Ignore the observations of spiral galaxies which do not conform to NM.

2) Ignore the dark matter placed into the spiral galaxies required to model the motion of said galaxies similar to that observed.

3) Ignore the Copernican principle with regard to dark matter permeating the spiral galaxies.

4) Ignore the geocentric claim that our system is in a special place, then ignore the dark matter solution to the spiral galaxies and thereby assert the local system is without dark matter and hence in a special place.

5) Apply NM to the local system which is known to drastically fail for spiral galaxies all over the universe. Apparently for the Helio model to work, a failed theory must be applied locally and ignored universally.

That's what MS physics does to your head. It give you a very large, logical headache.

JM

[JohnMartin]

John there is a medium between the objects regarding gravity. It is called "space"

Gravity is a bending of space around a mass, like a ball sitting on a rubber sheet will create a dent and cause other smaller objects to fall toward the object creating the dent.

You believe this, but you have no proof.

By the way, what medium do magnetic fields travel through? You can create a vacuum in a jar and put a magnet and a piece of metal in it and the magnet will still attract the metal through a perfect vacuum.

The aether/firmament. A vacuum does not remove the aether.

and it has been shown that gravity is not instantaneous over any distance. It acts at the speed of light. So if the sun were to disappear all of a sudden, the earth would not feel the difference in the sun's gravity for about 8 minutes.

Hence NM is invalidated.

You also contradict yourself when you say there is a medium called space, then deny it is required when magnetic fields travel through a vacuum. You should think more before you post.

JM

[JohnMartin]

In this universe, gravity propagates at the speed of light.

Hence NM is invalidated and the Helio model does not have any NM maths to present. These low orbit velocities are within NM, but the G propagation is not within NM. The G propagation is within R, but the low orbit velocities are not within R. Is there a maths model for the Helios to fall back on? Maybe not it seems. MS physics is hostile to logic.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Hmmm...

Technically, if a plane steers directly northwards towards the equator through still air it does experience a sideways force caused by the Coriolos [Coriolis] effect on the atmosphere. However this is resolved either by the plane being pushed off course, which leads to it following a curving path; or, if the pilot corrects for this force, by the plane being steered slightly east of north. In neither case does the atmosphere exert a sideways pressure on the plane that causes eddies.

I must remember to update JM's cluelessness list over the weekend.

The Coriolis effect is the effect of the observer in the earth rotating reference frame observing an apparent curved path of a straight moving object above the earth's surface. If Roy is consistent with his statement, "the Coriolos effect on the atmosphere" means the atmosphere has an apparent curved path of a straight moving atmosphere moving above the earth's surface as observed from the earth. Such means according to Roy, that the atmosphere is moving either N-S or N-S relative to the W-E moving observer on earth. Roy's understanding of the Coriolis effect with regard to the atmosphere is certainly unique to say the least.

Roy also claims the plane can be "pushed off course" by I assume, the atmosphere, or is it the apparent "off course" observed by the observer on earth? Who knows.

Roy also says the "pilot corrects for this force" which implies a S-N or N-S flight path will encounter a force, just as I have already stated repeatedly. By Roy asserting a force exists on a N-S or S-N flight, he has admitted there must be an associated pressure on the plane. Then Roy denies such implication when he says "In neither case does the atmosphere exert a sideways pressure on the plane that causes eddies.

Yes Roy, if you admitted the atmosphere exerts a force, then it exerts a pressure and the pressure will be accompanied by an atmospheric flow around the plane fuselage, which implies eddies being formed on the far side of the pressure.

You can add all of your above errors to your list over the weekend as well.

JM

[JohnMartin]

He can't do math. I have yet to see any non-trivial calculation from him that didn't include at least one glaring error. His latest 'calculation' consists of multiplying two random numbers together. He doesn't understand units. He doesn't understand that percentages should sum to 100. A couple of years ago he calculated 2*pi = 6.14 twice in the same post.

JM couldn't do maths if his life depended on it.

Roy

Roy thinks the atmosphere moves N-S or S-N relative to a rotating earth. He also doesn't know how to spell Coriolis ("Coriolos" in a recent post) either. He also doesn't understand cause and effect where he affirms an atmosphere force on the plane, then denies a pressure and associated eddies over the plane.

JM

[JohnMartin]

This is what makes me think JM is just trolling.

I can see how someone uneducated might think the Earth is stationary and the universe rotates around it.

I can kinda even see how someone uneducated might perceive the Earth as being flat.

How in the world can someone not understand gravity? Even newborn babies have a grasp gravity. How can you get through your day without ever seeing and feeling gravity's effects??

Not understand gravity? NM says G is mass attraction. R says G is bending of a maths S-T continuum. MS physics doesn't understand G. And you don't as well.

JM

[JohnMartin]

If it's so obvious, why didn't gravitational theories show up much sooner in human history? I mean, yeah, we understand it as obvious now, but I don't see how it's different than the other things you mention.

Beagle is trolling, that's why.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Is that 29932 a random number?

I'll take that as a "Yes".

Next question: Is that 14.38 also a random number?

29,932 is another number taken from another Hornet mass. You can use either 29,932 or 16,800 depending upon which Hornet included in the example.

14.83 comes from the acceleration equation above. 277,000 is a change in velocity. 3.30x3600 is the flight time. Hence 14.83 is the average W-E acceleration caused by the atmosphere acting on the plane.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

When confronted with objections you cannot answer you act like a child. Your quasi god, is a Swiss cheese.

JM

I'm not the one make jokes about what is or is not 'downstairs' John. If you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.

[JohnMartin]

He can't do math. I have yet to see any non-trivial calculation from him that didn't include at least one glaring error. His latest 'calculation' consists of multiplying two random numbers together. He doesn't understand units. He doesn't understand that percentages should sum to 100. A couple of years ago he calculated 2*pi = 6.14 twice in the same post.

JM couldn't do maths if his life depended on it.

Roy

Roy couldn't defend his atheism if his soul depends upon it, which it does.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I'm not the one make jokes about what is or is not 'downstairs' John. If you can't handle the fire, get out of the kitchen.

You are also a bad sophist.

JM