- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHinds/facepalm
I have always been taught that the earth is round and it spins and rotates around the sun. So I am indoctrinated to believe that just like you are. However, when we receive evidence that things may not be the way we were taught, we should check it out and make a decision.
I have decided against the flat earth idea in favour of a circular shaped earth. H ...[text shortened]... cities are the same regardless if one is travelling east or west and many other things about it.
https://ruthdehaas.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/triple-facepalm.jpg
I have decided against the flat earth idea in favor of a circular shaped earth.
Spherical, spherical shaped Earth...
And even then it's better described as an irregular oblate spheroid.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
However, the idea that the earth is spinning so fast and we don't get dizzy needs an explanation
http://www.scienceaddict.com/the-earth-is-spinning-at-1000-mph-so-why-dont-we-get-dizzy/
why the flight times between cities are the same regardless if one is traveling east or west
Have you noticed a 1000 mph east to west wind rushing around the Earth?
No? That's because the air in the atmosphere is going around with the Earth's rotation and
thus aircraft which fly at a given air speed will [assuming they are not being effected by one of the
winds that do blow around the Earth, like the jet stream which is caused by the Earth's rotation]
take the same time to fly a given distance going east or west.
I cannot believe anyone who claims to have been an engineer doesn't know this already.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf the earth is not flat and is circular doesn't that equate to a spherical shaped Earth?
/facepalm
https://ruthdehaas.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/triple-facepalm.jpg
I have decided against the flat earth idea in favor of a circular shaped earth.
Spherical, spherical shaped Earth...
And even then it's better described as an irregular oblate spheroid.
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
...[text shortened]... est.
I cannot believe anyone who claims to have been an engineer doesn't know this already.
We don't get dizzy because there is no acceleration. Yes, I see where that makes sense.
You say the atmosphere is moving at the same 1000 mph speed as the earth, however the clouds move at various speeds apparently since we notice their movement. I don't see how this would allow the airplane to travel back and forth from LA to NY in the same amout of time, unless the earth and atmosphere go in the opposite direction on the return trip. I don't believe anyone suggest that happens. 😏
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen you fly from NY to LA you go several hours into the future. So what happens on the return flight?
If the earth is not flat and is circular doesn't that equate to a spherical shaped Earth?
We don't get dizzy because there is no acceleration. Yes, I see where that makes sense.
You say the atmosphere is moving at the same 1000 mph speed as the earth, however the clouds move at various speeds apparently since we notice their movement. I don't see how ...[text shortened]... o in the opposite direction on the return trip. I don't believe anyone suggest that happens. 😏
05 Feb 15
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357I am not referring to man-made time zones. I am talking about actual flight times in hours and minutes. The earth is supposed to spin at about 1000 mph. Yet very few airplanes fly much faster than about 800 mph. But none of that matters, since they fly at about the same speed both ways and use about the same amount of fuel both ways and the travel time in minutes is the same. The airlines know all this and are able to keep on a schedule. This seems to prove the earth is not spinning like a top, but there is no spin like the moon or the space station. Of course this point could be argued too as an optical illusion or something I guess.
When you fly from NY to LA you go several hours into the future. So what happens on the return flight?
I might even believe that the earth could spin very slowly, but 1000 mph seems absurd.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat I was referring to was that it takes about 5 hours to fly from NY to LA so you "go 5 hours into the future" if it can be said that way. The same is true going from LA to NY. We are always time traveling.
I am not referring to man-made time zones. I am talking about actual flight times in hours and minutes. The earth is supposed to spin at about 1000 mph. Yet very few airplanes fly much faster than about 800 mph. But none of that matters, since they fly at about the same speed both ways and use about the same amount of fuel both ways and the travel time in ...[text shortened]... guess.
I might even believe that the earth could spin very slowly, but 1000 mph seems absurd.
But anyway...
If the earth is standing still, then as catstorm says, the stars are going round the earth pretty fast. If the universe is big enough, there is a distance from the earth where a star would have to go faster than light speed to go around the earth in 24 hours. A bright student could figure out what this distance is and compare it to the estimated size of the known universe.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAbout a decade ago I flew from London Heathrow to LAX.
I am not referring to man-made time zones. I am talking about actual flight times in hours and minutes. The earth is supposed to spin at about 1000 mph. Yet very few airplanes fly much faster than about 800 mph. But none of that matters, since they fly at about the same speed both ways and use about the same amount of fuel both ways and the travel time in ...[text shortened]... guess.
I might even believe that the earth could spin very slowly, but 1000 mph seems absurd.
The outbound flight took ~13 hours, either flying into, or without the benefit of
the jet stream.
The flight back took ~11 hours, because we flew with the jet stream at our back.
So flights don't always take the same time.
Ok lets say you are going on a flight in a 747-400 and it cruises at an airspeed of 600 mph.
[simplifying]
You are going to fly the [rounded to] 3000 mile trip from LAX in California to JFK New York.
And you are going to go both ways.
The Earth spins west to east so flying from LAX to JFK you are going with the Earth's spin.
On the return journey you are going to be going in the opposite direction to the Earth's spin.
Now the Earth spins once every 24 hours [again, simplifying] and has a radius at the equator
of 6,378 km [3,963 miles] giving a circumference of 40,074 km [24,900 miles].
So the rotational velocity at the equator in kph/mph is 1,670 kph [1,037 mph]
However you are flying LAX to JFK and you are not on the equator.
I am going to for simplicities sake state that both LAX and JFK are at 40 degrees north.
If A is your latitude in degrees, R is the radius of the Earth, and r is the radius of the line
of latitude A, then; [all numbers rounded to zero dp unless specified otherwise]
r = R * Cos(A)
R = 6,378 km
A = 40 degrees
thus
r = 4,886 km [3,036 miles]
Thus the circumference at 40 degrees latitude is 30,700 km [19,080 miles]
Giving a rotational velocity of 1,279 kph [795 mph] at 40 degrees latitude.
Now the air is not fixed to the ground and can and does move around, but neither New York
or Los Angeles is stuck in a constant 800mph wind from west to east. In fact as a good first
approximation they likely have a net wind speed near zero, with easterlies roughly cancelling
out westerlies.
This is because the atmosphere rotates with the Earth.
On the day of your flight we are going to have a dead calm over the USA with no winds blowing.
So you set off from LAX in your plane and travel at an air speed of 600mph from west to east.
As the air is not moving with respect to the ground it has a ground speed of 600mph.
Thus it takes 5 hours to travel the 3000 miles to JFK.
Now while it is true that the ground is going from west to east at 795 mph the air is
moving with the ground and is also moving west to east at 795 mph.
Meaning that the plane is going west to east at a total speed of 1,395 mph. [600+795]***
Now we look at the return flight.
You set off from JFK in your plane and travel at an air speed of 600mph from east to west.
The air is still not moving with respect to the ground and so you again have a ground speed
of 600mph.
Thus it takes 5 hours to travel the 3000 miles to LAX.
The ground is still going west to east at 795 mph and the air is still moving with the ground
and thus is also moving west to east at 795 mph.
Meaning that the plane is going west to east at a total speed of 195 mph. [795-600]***
In all cases the plane has an air speed of 600mph and when the air is not moving with
respect to the ground [the wind speed is zero] the plane also has a ground speed of
600mph.
Now in reality we seldom have zero wind speed, and so journey times are not always equal
as the planes ground speed will be lower if it flies into the wind making the trip take longer,
and the planes ground speed will be higher if it flies with the wind making the trip faster.
This is why my flight to LAX was slower than the trip back, because we used the jet stream on
the way back to gain an extra 80~110 mph of ground speed. a boost we either didn't get, or
got in reverse on the way there.
Air routes are in fact often designed to take advantage of effects like this where possible.
It is in fact the case that a lot of the Earth's winds, and the nature of them, are caused by the fact
that the Earth rotates.
As warm air rises it draws more air in from around it to fill the gap.
In the northern hemisphere [reverse for the southern] air moving in from the south will be travelling
west to east slightly faster than air drawn in from the north. This causes the air to spiral in, and it's
why low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere rotate anti-clockwise, the biggest of course being
hurricanes. If the Earth didn't rotate, neither would they.
***With respect to an Earth-centred non-rotating reference frame
PS: I don't know what you mean when you say "there is no spin like the moon or space station"...
The moon IS spinning. It rotates once per orbit, which is why we only see one side.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Forget the known universe...
What I was referring to was that it takes about 5 hours to fly from NY to LA so you "go 5 hours into the future" if it can be said that way. The same is true going from LA to NY. We are always time traveling.
But anyway...
If the earth is standing still, then as catstorm says, the stars are going round the earth pretty fast. If the universe is big enough ...[text shortened]... uld figure out what this distance is and compare it to the estimated size of the known universe.
For an object to have an orbital velocity less than the speed of light and an orbital period
of 1 24hr day then it cannot have an orbital circumference of more than 24 light hours or
it will be travelling more than 1 light hour per hour and thus will have exceeded C [the speed
of light]
The circumference of any circle is 2*PI*r or approximately ~6.3*r as a first order approximation.
So the largest r is approximately 24/6.3 light hours = ~ 3.8 light hours....
Pluto is over 6 light hours away!
You can't even make it out of the solar system without the velocity needed for a 24 hour
period rotation being more than the speed of light.
We have space probes farther away than that.
EDIT: 1 light hour ~ 7.2 au [multiples of the average Earth-Sun distance] and thus 3.8 light hours
is about 27.5 au. Neptune is ~30 au out from the sun, and so the light speed limit would by slightly
inside Neptune's orbit. Pluto ranges from slightly less than 30 au to nearly 50 au because it has a highly
elliptical orbit, and so it can be more than 6 light hours away, but it depends on where it is in it's orbit.
Voyager 1 is about 130.4 au out from the sun currently, or about ~18 light hours away.
Given that this is nearly 5 times the distance beyond which a rotating sphere of stars would have to
break the speed of light at the equator, and it still has not hit such a sphere, we can confidently conclude
that no such sphere exists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by catstormI'm not throwing science out.
Are we really limited by the speed of light here, since we are throwing the Sciences out the window anyway?
I'm using to prove that this is nonsense.
If they try to throw out the speed of light limitation then I use science to
demonstrate why they can't do that either.
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI didn't mean that you are throwing science out, but that the geocentrists are. Sorry, my meaning was not clear. The beauty(?) of their system is that you can stamp the word "miracle" on anything that doesn't fit.
I'm not throwing science out.
I'm using to prove that this is nonsense.
If they try to throw out the speed of light limitation then I use science to
demonstrate why they can't do that either.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by catstormAh, yes I got what you were meant, seems I wasn't clear either, sorry about that.
I didn't mean that you are throwing science out, but that the geocentrists are. Sorry, my meaning was not clear. The beauty(?) of their system is that you can stamp the word "miracle" on anything that doesn't fit.
I meant that if they try to throw science out I don't let them.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
is a useful maxim in this regard, although where possible it is more satisfying to
dismiss it with evidence.
But where someone makes a 'science rejecting' claim, that can be dismissed by
having someone spin on the spot [or imagine doing so] and refute it themselves
I absolutely will not give any quarter in using science and reason to refute that
said rejection.
06 Feb 15
Originally posted by catstormWhy would the stars have to orbit the earth every 24 hours? As I understand it, the sun and the moon orbit the earth in the geocentric model.
If the stars orbit the earth they would have to travel faster than light to make the trip every 24 hours, unless they were much closer than we think and therefore much smaller. (You are a teachers dream. My students are loving this.)
06 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I don't understand why you guys think the stars have to go around the earth every 24 hours. It is the sun and the moon that go around the earth to keep time, not the stars. The Holy Bible does not say anything about the stars are involved in keeping time for the days and seasons. Where do you get such an idea?
What I was referring to was that it takes about 5 hours to fly from NY to LA so you "go 5 hours into the future" if it can be said that way. The same is true going from LA to NY. We are always time traveling.
But anyway...
If the earth is standing still, then as catstorm says, the stars are going round the earth pretty fast. If the universe is big enough ...[text shortened]... uld figure out what this distance is and compare it to the estimated size of the known universe.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOkay, in practice flights don't always take the same exact time both ways. But I am sure you must understand what I am getting at. And of course one can make calculation show about anything if one is willing to use voodoo math and fudge factors.
About a decade ago I flew from London Heathrow to LAX.
The outbound flight took ~13 hours, either flying into, or without the benefit of
the jet stream.
The flight back took ~11 hours, because we flew with the jet stream at our back.
So flights don't always take the same time.
Ok lets say you are going on a flight in a 747-400 and it crui ...[text shortened]... station"...
The moon IS spinning. It rotates once per orbit, which is why we only see one side.
My main point is that an airplane that can travel at 600 mph would not be able to keep up with an earth moving in the same direction at 1000 mph. You claim the air is moving at 1000 mph to help the plane gain distance. However, when have you ever heard a weatherman say the air is moving 1000 mph? I am pretty sure air does not always move with the direction the earth is supposed to be spinning like a top. At least, that is not what the weatherman seems to be saying.
Yes, I have heard of the jet stream, but I have never heard that it moves 1000 or more mph. Air flows in all different directions from time to time and I realize that can have some effect on air travel, but in general the amout of time in hours and minutes going both ways is usually pretty close.
What about the clouds that we see moving in different directions? Do you have anymore voodoo math to explain the clouds movement in the air in different directions? Or perhaps you can explain it by optical illusions or something else.