A proof for the Stationary Earth

[rogue06]

JM, true or false that was a very enjoyable read.

Pffft. This is nothing. You should read his stuff in support of a flat earth and a solid firmament.

[shunyadragon]

Another hamster escaped from the cage,

[oxmixmudd]

So now the rudder changes the W-E velocity of the 747 by 277km/hr over an 8 hr flight from Sydney to the equator. Actually a rudder will only change the direction of the flight and not the W-E velocity of the 747.

Think before you speak. The changing atmospheric velocity would manifest as a slight breeze (the velocity change per second would be slightly less that .01km/h) blowing east to west. And the rudder trim could compensate quite nicely for it.

The W-E force of the atmosphere against the 747 is merely a ruse. There is no evidence for its existence at all. If you think it does exist,

1) present the evidence that such a force exists and is used in flight path calculations.

Too small a force to worry about. Planes are guided by a variety of means and need multiple small adjustments to stay on course. The impact of this is simply lost in the noise of other factors.

2) If the force does exist, why then claim the pilot is also using the rudder to change the W-E velocity of the 747 as it moves S-N? Does the W-E moving atmosphere act on the 747, or does the pilot do the work by guiding the 747, or neither, because you are making up ad hoc answers as you go?

As I said above, the pilot monitors the position of the plane against the flight plan and adjusts course as needed. The factors which can produce a deviation in the planned course are numerous, with this issue being among the smallest.

I noticed you've dropped your Mars example. Very wise Jim. There is some hope for you after all. Ball 2 rotation is no evidence for ball 1 rotation when a viewer from ball 1 could be either stationary or rotating and see the same effect on ball 2.

JM

I didn't drop it, you just don't have enough going on upstairs to understand it. Case in point. I didn't use Mars to show the Earth rotates. I used it to show that your assumptions about the behavior of an atmosphere on a rotating planet are wrong. You know, the OP, the first post you wrote? That is all shown to be silliness by looking at the actual atmosphere on a rotating rocky planet similar to the Earth - Mars.


Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Hey nutcase, have you been able to explain the jet stream yet?

[JohnMartin]

Hey nutcase, have you been able to explain the jet stream yet?

Eather flow.


JM

[JohnMartin]

Think before you speak. The changing atmospheric velocity would manifest as a slight breeze (the velocity change per second would be slightly less that .01km/h) blowing east to west. And the rudder trim could compensate quite nicely for it.

The rudder trim would also slow down the 747 W-E velocity differential north of the equator as well huh? I doubt it Jim. Its just another con with modern maths tied to a failed theory.

Too small a force to worry about. Planes are guided by a variety of means and need multiple small adjustments to stay on course. The impact of this is simply lost in the noise of other factors.



As I said above, the pilot monitors the position of the plane against the flight plan and adjusts course as needed. The factors which can produce a deviation in the planned course are numerous, with this issue being among the smallest.

So no evidence has been presented to demonstrate this force within the atmosphere actually exists. Therefore, its a force no more real than a maths model.

I didn't drop it, you just don't have enough going on upstairs to understand it. Case in point. I didn't use Mars to show the Earth rotates. I used it to show that your assumptions about the behavior of an atmosphere on a rotating planet are wrong. You know, the OP, the first post you wrote? That is all shown to be silliness by looking at the actual atmosphere on a rotating rocky planet similar to the Earth - Mars.


Jim

You have dropped it because I have rebutted it and you are now silent on the rebuttal. Your recent claim above merely muddies the waters. Your initial Mars post was off topic and now you respond with another tangent, accidental claim without substance.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

You have dropped it because I have rebutted it and you are now silent on the rebuttal. Your recent claim above merely muddies the waters. Your initial Mars post was off topic and now you respond with another tangent, accidental claim without substance.

JM

So now what - you just make up stuff if you don't like what actually was said or what actually happened?

[JohnMartin]

So now what - you just make up stuff if you don't like what actually was said or what actually happened?

My rebuttals of your Mars post remain unanswered.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

My rebuttals of your Mars post remain unanswered.

JM

The explanation for geostationary satellites

geo_orbit.jpg

JohnMartin has none.

[JohnMartin]

The explanation for geostationary satellites

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15218[/ATTACH]

JohnMartin has none.

Flat earther's think the blue marble picture is a composite fraud.

The Geo satellites are said to operate via Newtonian maths, which requires instantaneous action at a distance, without a medium, for an unknown force to act on a body. Such shoddy assumptions within the model make the model open to questions. How can we take the geo satellite model seriously when

1) the model requires a breach in causation? Action, without a medium?

2) Gravity in instantaneous within Newtonian mechanics and c in relativity theory? If the Geo runs by Newtonian gravity, then relativity gravity invalidates the Geo model and vice versa.

A piece of bare metal in space, under constant sunlight can get as hot as two-hundred-sixty (260) degrees Celsius. This is dangerous to astronauts who have to work outside the station.

If they need to handle bare metal, they wrap it in special coatings or blankets to protect themselves.

And yet, in the shade, an object will cool down to below -100 degrees Celsius.

http://www.universetoday.com/77070/how-cold-is-space/

The temperature variability of about 350 degrees Celsius is incredible. How does a satellite bear such wild changes in temperature? If the pod is made of metal, the thing would expand and contract as the temp changes. Such radical changes would make the pod inoperable . . . so it seems.

JM

[DesertBerean]

[Roy]

But you ignore the fact that my argument requires that the atmosphere in the global model is assumed to rotate with the earth (but never observed), but is proven not to rotate with the earth due to the experience of no local winds on the 747 flying N-S over the W-E rotating earth.

The atmosphere is seen to move with the earth not only in satellite images but also every time you step outside and don't get flattened by air moving in excess of 1000km/h.

747 flies N-S and an observer in the 747 will see the earth rotate W-E when the 747 is over the equator. Correct? Yes.

Yes

But does the observer see this phenomena in the concrete? No.

Yes.

Issue resolved.

Come back when you have a problem that isn't based on your own ignorance.

[Roy]

So do tell us Roy - if the earth was a non rotating globe and the 747 flies N-S from the south pole, what W-E atmospheric velocity effects would occur on the 747?

Still waiting for the answer.

I'm waiting for you to learn what a false dichotomy is so that you can admit that the above question is just a way of avoiding having to deal with one.

I have no idea what the atmosphere does on your fantasy globe where it is possible to fly south from the south pole.

[Sparko]

There is a gradual change in rotational velocity of the atmosphere from Sydney to the equator. But the W-E rotational velocity of the 747 does not change, for the rotational velocity of the 747 is dictated by the initial value at Sydney. Your claim that the 747 acts like the bug requires the bug and 747 to be carried along with the earth's rotation. But the atmosphere does not work that way. The atmosphere is a fluid medium, which will only apply a pressure against the 747 and not act like the sold medium of the earths surface. If the atmosphere is rotating with the earth then the atmosphere would act like model plane in a wind tunnel. The wind tunnel does not cause the plane to move with the wind, likewise the rotating atmosphere does not cause the 747 to continually change its W-E velocity as it flies N-S.

If you insist that such is what occurs in a N-S flight. Then you have posited a W-E force within the atmosphere which acts on all bodies in flight. If this is so, and bodies move with the atmosphere, like the bug on the orange, then you have to explain why clouds and flights account for the Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect is the effect of the earth moving under the 747 when the 747 flies N-S or S-N. You say the atmosphere will move the plane along with the rotating atmosphere. Yet if this were so, then its the same as saying a car driving N-S will move along with the rotating earth and does not have to constantly steer the car with the W-E earth motion through driver guidance. As the N-S moving car sticks to the earth, so too, the N-S 747 sticks to the moving atmosphere.

As there is a force applied to the car by the rotating earth, so too there is a force applied to the 747 by the atmosphere. Yet the 747 is not attached to the atmosphere and no design of the 747 would account for such a force existing within the atmosphere. Hence your claim is vacuous. In fact your claim assumes the velocity differential between the equator atmosphere W-E rotation and the 747 W-E rotation velocity at Sydney. As there is no mechanism within the atmosphere to case the 747 to rotate with the rotating atmosphere then the problem remains unresolved.

Even if we grant you that there is such a mechanism within the atmosphere to continually change the W-E rotation velocity of the 747, what then do you do with the decreasing rotation velocity of the atmosphere after the 747 has crossed the equator? Does the 747 begin to slow down from a W-E velocity of 1670km/hr to almost zero at the north pole? How is this possible by the atmosphere alone as you claim? Wouldn't the decrease in W-E velocity from the 747 travelling from the equator to the north pole be caused by the pilot of the 747 who would have to guide the 747 to decrease the W-E velocity? If so, what evidence do you have for this ever occurring? After all, those S-N flights over the equator only ever fly direct routes and no evidence exists for a flight changing course to decrease the W-E velocity with the ever decreasing W-E atmosphere velocity.

Your counter claims are currently vacuous and assume much that requires demonstration. Your claims also require a demonstration of how the 747 will decrease the W-E velocity in the northern hemisphere when flying from the south.

JM

Once again you show you are either trolling or an idiot. The plane already has a rotational speed from sitting on the ground. It doesn't just slow down 1000K/H when it takes off. It maintains that rotational speed and yes the atmosphere does carry it along. Air is a fluid but it has mass. A lot of mass. If you doubt that air can move objects then you have never seen a storm. The atmosphere carries the plane along with it, speeding it up and slowing it down as the plane moves along it's path.

Stop being an idiot, whether it is on purpose or not.

[JohnMartin]

But you ignore the fact that my argument requires that the atmosphere in the global model is assumed to rotate with the earth (but never observed), but is proven not to rotate with the earth due to the experience of no local winds on the 747 flying N-S over the W-E rotating earth.

The atmosphere is seen to move with the earth not only in satellite images but also every time you step outside and don't get flattened by air moving in excess of 1000km/hr.

You assume you see the atmosphere move with the rotating earth from a satellite because you prefer the Helio model. You must ignore the relativity's non preferred reference frame to assert the atmosphere is seen to rotate with the earth from a satellite. According to the non preferred reference frame you could also just as easily conclude that you see the atmosphere stationary over a stationary earth from the moving satellite. To assert the atmosphere orbits with the earth is to contradict relativity theory.

747 flies N-S and an observer in the 747 will see the earth rotate W-E when the 747 is over the equator. Correct? Yes.

Yes

But does the observer see this phenomena in the concrete? No.

Yes.

Issue resolved.

Come back when you have a problem that isn't based on your own ignorance.

The only evidence you present is that of the claim about an observer from a satellite. Your claim has been answered and the problem remains unresolved.

JM