Printable View
This is quite simple: it doesn't take the same time. A direct flight from Miami to Los Angeles takes 5 hours 45 minutes and a direct return flight from Los Angeles to Miami takes 4 hours 55 minutes. That's quite a significant difference in flight time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
I'm curious Musicology, is it your contention that the atmosphere is also 'fixed' or do you accept that the atmosphere is 'moving'?
So, I asked:
Quote:
I may presume that you accept that the sun takes 24 hours to make its orbit round the earth as the earth itself does not turn round, that is right, isn't i?
Good on you for keeping count.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinthediltz
I have to admit that it's unusual to find one that just completely ignores the question. I'm more used to seeing even more absurd answers as to why it's a stoopid argument. Kind of "All the starz are the same distance from earth !LOL!!" or something along those lines, but finding them entirely too hard is quite new.
Precisely!Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinthediltz
Once I had been to the websites linked through the OP and gathered that:
A. This isn't an elaborate joke and
B. FIXED earths is just the beginning,
I had a quick think about how many blindingly obvious ways there were of showing that the whole premise is exactly equivalent to your flat earth thread and there are just so many ridiculously obvious ones that I couldn't begin to count them.
If you haven't checked out the man behind the OP yet, I commend you to do so. David Icke meets Lutherian Rosicrucians; quite superb.
Great segue!Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinthediltz
My very next trick was to cover the bible literalism, because it's an old faithful and Musicology is clearly a literalist.
I am therefore assuming that he is a bearded chap who never eats ham or crayfish, lives his life according to Leviticus and who has no trouble with worshipping a god whose tricks include killing 42 kids for calling some old geezer "baldy" but who was unable to protect his favoured humans from iron chariots!
You can't pay for this kind of stuff.
The Fifth Element,
Thank you for your post. You've made a valuable contribution. It's the first progress we've had on the subject for about 3 days. So I will ignore the dunces and focus on what you have posted. And, whether we agree or not, thank you sincerely for your post. You tell us -
Miami to Los Angeles 5 hours 45 minutes
Los Angeles to Miami 4 hours 55 minutes
A difference, in fact, of 50 minutes, yes ?
OK, let's look at this.
We are told by the textbooks the Earth is rotating on its axis at between 900 and 1,000 mph. Everyone believes this. (Because everyone else believes this. And everyone else believes it because everyone before them learned it in their class). Thus, a plane flying between these two cities is in the air for some 5 hours 25 minutes, give or take 25 minutes or so. During which time, we believe, the Earth below us must have rotated on its axis around 4,500 to 5,000 miles. Since it's said to be rotating in one direction (and not in all directions) this means our plane taking off from Miami only needs to fly in circles and eventually Los Angeles must appear within easy reach of our plane. So we can land. In Los Angeles.
Similarly, according to the same theory, you can jump up in your garden and land on the pumpkin patch of your next door neighbour if he has one. Because we are told the Earth is already rotating below us as we jump up and during the time we are in the air. So says the dogma.
But if I jump up from a moving car the car will disappear below me and I will fall behind that car on the road and be injured. Likewise, if I jump up from my garden while it is in rotation I will arrive on my next door neighbour's cabbage patch. Thus, my garden is not and cannot be moving.
As for the idea the atmosphere must be moving at the same speed as this alleged rotation of the Earth, no, I don't believe that also. Since, if the Earth atmosphere is linked to Earth rotation and is moving itself at roughly the same speed and direction as this alleged rotation of the Earth we would have atmospheric resistance to any flight occurring in the direct opposite direction of that Earth rotation. But we do not. I assure you that if you are sitting on a 'merry go round' and were able to jump up from its seat you would land in another seat when you come down again. (It's not a good idea to try this).
The difference between the flight times (Miami to Los Angeles and Los-Angeles to Miami) are of course mainly due to headwinds etc. (Assuming they are both travelling on the same route in opposite directions).
And the Earth has definitely not moved 5,000 miles in the time they were flying, has it ? Except in the textbooks.
Thus, the Earth is not, and cannot be moving at between 900 and 1,000 mph. And nor is the atmosphere. Since the winds of the Earth atmosphere are not at those speeds and there is no evidence that plane flights of the kind above are much shorter or longer in either direction. A small problem for the mediaeval dogmatists, you may agree.
Regards
I think I'm beginning to feel something not unakin to admiration.
Earth rotation doesn't have any effect on airplanes and their speed. When you leave ground, you're still moving with same speed as Earth. BUT:wind storms mostly flows from west to east due to Coriollis's effect (caused by inertial force due to Earth rotation), and when planes enter their trajectories, they get additional speed. So, if wind has speed of 100km/h (nothing special, they are normally much faster), it will give aditional speed to planes when going to east. When going to west, they will loose some speed to fight against wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
That's the reason why time travel is different when traveling W to E or E to W.
A gracious post from Mark Bastable ! I recommend that we call this post the 'Bastable Discussion'. In honour of your goodself and your persistance and fair minded comment just received on this issue.
Regards
You are absolutely right. All things being relative, of course !Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Regards
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
Moving in absolute system doesn't have any revelance in moving in relative system. So train speed is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Yes. I know that. And you know that. If you wind back through the thread a few hundred pages, you'll see that the point of the question was not that I was unsure of the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
As for the Coriolis Effect, this is not (contrary to popular belief) evidence for the 'rotation of the Earth'. It is evidence, in fact, only of seasonable wind trends and other seasonable and always changing activity within the annual cycle. And, since the Earth seasons are in fact caused by Solar revolution of the Earth its effects include those we see as trends on the Earth's atmosphere. Including seasonal wind patterns. So the Coriolis Effect is best seen within that Sun/Earth frame of reference.
Note the following -
The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations.
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:q...&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Amazing, honest, admission from a scientist that we believe what we are taught because we are continually interpreting the data within the dogmatic assumption of the 'rotation of the Earth'.
The credit for this must go to Mr Bazarov (the poster above) who has reminded us of the difference between closed minds and those which are open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
''Popular belief'' is based on scientific proofs, so I would say it's correct, Missiles, planes, deformed railrodes and river banks on Northern hemisphere proves it.
P.S. And please stop pointing orbital speed of 900 or 1000 mph. I believe you are aware how wrong it is.
As to the problem of the stars having to travel very fast to go around the earth in twenty-four hours, that's easy. Space is a vacuum - which means that light travels much faster in space than in our atmosphere. If you doubt this, just try walking through treacle, as opposed to walking in air which is less dense. Because light is travelling faster in space, we are deceived into thinking that the stars are faraway. However, they are relatively close - the precise distance of the furthest star is precisely one light day divided by two pi - this being obviously the case as in twenty four hours the star in question travels the perimeter of a circle of which the earth is the static centre. This actually is as far away as anything illuminated can be - QED. Dark things, it goes without saying, can be further away than that.
This science stuff is easy. Just common ense. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
Mr Bazarov,
You say popular belief is 'based on scientific proofs'. The history of science proves dogmas and paradigms are alive and well in the name of science. Lysenko and Darwin are prime examples.
However, I would suggest that what is worthy of being called 'scientific' is that which the creation has taught us. And not that which is popular.
The orbital theory of Earth in respect of its alleged rotation on its axis is a movable and continually reinvented dogma. Varying in its particulars as widely and as often as the different versions of pagan myth but never changing enough for its teachers to address its inherent contradictions.
I am sure that missiles, planes, deformed railroads and river banks of the Northern Hemisphere prove only that our theories on those subjects are as fallible as all others. That they are products of the paradigm to which we are wedded. And that our paradigm is wrong. If the Earth is fixed in space the Darwinian delusion has collapsed. So too the theories of Newton, Einstein and countless others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
You left out this next sentance from the quoted article above:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
"This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand."
papayahed
Yes, let's add that sentence too. You see it comes from a scientist who has already admitted the state of the scientific confusion of this issue. This fact you agree to, don't you ?
''The Coriolis Force. Responsible for large scale weather patterns and legendary cause of the direction the water swirls down the sink (although it generally isn't). But when trying to explain how it really works, most physicists come up with a blank, point to the equation and mutter something about rotating frames of reference. It's not really our fault, we've only ever seen the equations and rotating frame explanations. This article will attempt to explain the basic workings of the Coriolis Effect in terms a non-physicist can understand''.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed