The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: jonnytimber on January 14, 2016, 11:57:57 AM
-
Do planes have to continually dip their noses in order to prevent them flying straight out the side door into space?
Why can't they just go up and wait for the earth to move and come back down? That would surely be more economical.
Why don't the flight times change drastically between East-west flights and vice versa?
How can a plane land on a runway that could potentially be moving at 1000mph at 90 degree angles to the fuselage?
-
Short answer:
1. Yes, kind of.
2. Relativity
3. Relativity
4. Relativity
Long answer:
1. Planes constantly makes adjustments to the direction the plane is facing in order to maintain a constant altitude. A plane flying completely straight with no adjustments would indeed find itself climbing in altitude, but compared to the effect things like a moderate breeze might have on the altitude of the plane, the curvature of the Earth is simply not dramatic enough to have a significant impact on the altitude of the plane. It gets washed out by larger effects which require adjustments to maintain a constant altitude.
2. The plane sitting on the surface of the Earth has a certain inertia associated with it, due to the spinning of the planet. If you were for example to take a balloon up into the sky, you'd be moving at the same relative speed as the surface below you, so you can't just wait for your destination to slide underneath you.
3. Again, this is just another point about relativistic motion. If we were to take the center of the Earth as a reference frame, you would indeed be moving faster while traveling in one direction versus the other. The problem arises when you consider that the surface is also moving faster relative to the center, so that you have to be moving faster (relative to the center of the Earth) to "catch up" with the surface as it rotates.
4. Once again, relativity. You can land on a north facing runway because both you and the runway are moving at a relative speed of 1000 mph in the same direction (relative to the center of the Earth). As a result, it appears that the runway isn't moving at all. Imagine two boats side by side on the ocean, moving at the same speed to each other. It's not difficult at all for me to take a step perpendicular to their motion from one boat to another, because we're all moving at the same relative speed. The same case applies to the airplane.
-
Short answer:
1. Yes, kind of.
2. Relativity
3. Relativity
4. Relativity
Long answer:
1. Planes constantly makes adjustments to the direction the plane is facing in order to maintain a constant altitude. A plane flying completely straight with no adjustments would indeed find itself climbing in altitude, but compared to the effect things like a moderate breeze might have on the altitude of the plane, the curvature of the Earth is simply not dramatic enough to have a significant impact on the altitude of the plane. It gets washed out by larger effects which require adjustments to maintain a constant altitude.
2. The plane sitting on the surface of the Earth has a certain inertia associated with it, due to the spinning of the planet. If you were for example to take a balloon up into the sky, you'd be moving at the same relative speed as the surface below you, so you can't just wait for your destination to slide underneath you.
3. Again, this is just another point about relativistic motion. If we were to take the center of the Earth as a reference frame, you would indeed be moving faster while traveling in one direction versus the other. The problem arises when you consider that the surface is also moving faster relative to the center, so that you have to be moving faster (relative to the center of the Earth) to "catch up" with the surface as it rotates.
4. Once again, relativity. You can land on a north facing runway because both you and the runway are moving at a relative speed of 1000 mph in the same direction (relative to the center of the Earth). As a result, it appears that the runway isn't moving at all. Imagine two boats side by side on the ocean, moving at the same speed to each other. It's not difficult at all for me to take a step perpendicular to their motion from one boat to another, because we're all moving at the same relative speed. The same case applies to the airplane.
Are you saying that a moderate breeze is more of a factor than curvature? I can't believe that I'm afraid, curvature should have a constant affect on an airplanes journey. At 500mph, the nose would have to be in a constant downward angle to keep up with the rapidly 'falling earth'.
You speak of relativity. I can imagine it like this. If I'm standing atop a moving train travelling at 50mph, I too am travelling at 50mph. If I was able to lift off from the roof of the train and hover, my speed would steadily decrease from 50mph from the moment my feet left the roof of the train. If I hovered for several minutes, it's safe to say that when I returned to the ground the train would be long gone, but I can also say with some confidence that even if I stayed in hover for a year, I would still land in the same spot with regards to geography on the earth.
Unfortunately, relativity does not work in this example, and I fail to see how a plane leaving a spinning runway is any different to me leaving a moving train
-
We all agree that the fabric of the earth at ground level is a different mass and density to the air surrounding it (where the plane is). How can 2 objects of completely different mass (ground and air) move at the same speed when propelled by the same force? It doesn't add up, it's impossible.
-
....
Are you saying that a moderate breeze is more of a factor than curvature? I can't believe that I'm afraid, curvature should have a constant affect on an airplanes journey. At 500mph, the nose would have to be in a constant downward angle to keep up with the rapidly 'falling earth'.
You speak of relativity. I can imagine it like this. If I'm standing atop a moving train travelling at 50mph, I too am travelling at 50mph. If I was able to lift off from the roof of the train and hover, my speed would steadily decrease from 50mph from the moment my feet left the roof of the train. If I hovered for several minutes, it's safe to say that when I returned to the ground the train would be long gone, but I can also say with some confidence that even if I stayed in hover for a year, I would still land in the same spot with regards to geography on the earth.
Unfortunately, relativity does not work in this example, and I fail to see how a plane leaving a spinning runway is any different to me leaving a moving train
Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor.
Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).
As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph.
Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.
-
....
Are you saying that a moderate breeze is more of a factor than curvature? I can't believe that I'm afraid, curvature should have a constant affect on an airplanes journey. At 500mph, the nose would have to be in a constant downward angle to keep up with the rapidly 'falling earth'.
You speak of relativity. I can imagine it like this. If I'm standing atop a moving train travelling at 50mph, I too am travelling at 50mph. If I was able to lift off from the roof of the train and hover, my speed would steadily decrease from 50mph from the moment my feet left the roof of the train. If I hovered for several minutes, it's safe to say that when I returned to the ground the train would be long gone, but I can also say with some confidence that even if I stayed in hover for a year, I would still land in the same spot with regards to geography on the earth.
Unfortunately, relativity does not work in this example, and I fail to see how a plane leaving a spinning runway is any different to me leaving a moving train
Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor.
Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).
As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph.
Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.
Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train. This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop. If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started. If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage.
-
The earth doesn't stop spinning though, so it doesn't make sense to use an analogy where there train stops moving. You're just displaying your own ignorance of basic physics now.
-
The earth doesn't stop spinning though, so it doesn't make sense to use an analogy where there train stops moving. You're just displaying your own ignorance of basic physics now.
Exactly, you've proved my point! The earth apparently doesn't stop spinning, so the plane should be able to hover and wait for the country to magically appear below it. Thanks for agreeing.
-
Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor.
Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).
As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph.
Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.
Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train. This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop. If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started. If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage.
Did you simply ignore my line were it says "(asuming the train is keeping a constant speed)" ? This would be the proper way to compare it, as the earth is spinning at a constant speed.
If you want to add in acceleration or deceleration in the mix, when trying this I'm sure you felt that when the train is accelerating you get pushed back in your seat, and when its decelerating you lean forward in your seat. Its even more evident in a car that can accelerate and stop at a faster rate then most trains. When accelerating, the train is accelerating up to speed, but you also need to start accelerate, and the seat your sitting in is pushing you forward brining you (along witht the train) up to speed, say the 50mph we talked about before. Now once up to speed, you will no longer feel pushed back in you seat, I asume you've experienced this as well? If not on a train so in a car. Whenever the speed is kept constant you don't feel any force pulling you forward or pushing you back in the seat, try it out for yourself.
Now stand in the aisle of the train again, and make chalk outline around your feet. If you jump in the aisle in the train now during the acceleration, when it start moving forward. The chalk outline would move. As when you jump, the only thing pushing you forward is the air inside the cart, and its not dense enough to accelerate/push you forward at the same acceleration as the train itself. You woulld actually accelerate even if you just hoverd in the aisle thanks to the air, but the traincart would have to be extremly long to bring you up to the same speed as the train. This you said you've tried yourself so I asume it makes sense.
But now try the same thing when the train has come up to speed and is moving at a constant and steady speed. The chalk outline will not move, you will be at the same place.
By this you can then see that the chalk outline is only moving when the train is accelerating or decelerating, and as the earth is not doing that (earth's speed is constant) you can't just take off up in the air and wait for the earth below you to move. The air you are up in, is spinning at the very same rate, same as the air inside the traincart (WHEN THE TRAIN IS AT A CONSTANT SPEED).
-
Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor.
Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).
As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph.
Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.
Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train. This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop. If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started. If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage.
Did you simply ignore my line were it says "(asuming the train is keeping a constant speed)" ? This would be the proper way to compare it, as the earth is spinning at a constant speed.
If you want to add in acceleration or deceleration in the mix, when trying this I'm sure you felt that when the train is accelerating you get pushed back in your seat, and when its decelerating you lean forward in your seat. Its even more evident in a car that can accelerate and stop at a faster rate then most trains. When accelerating, the train is accelerating up to speed, but you also need to start accelerate, and the seat your sitting in is pushing you forward brining you (along witht the train) up to speed, say the 50mph we talked about before. Now once up to speed, you will no longer feel pushed back in you seat, I asume you've experienced this as well? If not on a train so in a car. Whenever the speed is kept constant you don't feel any force pulling you forward or pushing you back in the seat, try it out for yourself.
Now stand in the aisle of the train again, and make chalk outline around your feet. If you jump in the aisle in the train now during the acceleration, when it start moving forward. The chalk outline would move. As when you jump, the only thing pushing you forward is the air inside the cart, and its not dense enough to accelerate/push you forward at the same acceleration as the train itself. You woulld actually accelerate even if you just hoverd in the aisle thanks to the air, but the traincart would have to be extremly long to bring you up to the same speed as the train. This you said you've tried yourself so I asume it makes sense.
But now try the same thing when the train has come up to speed and is moving at a constant and steady speed. The chalk outline will not move, you will be at the same place.
By this you can then see that the chalk outline is only moving when the train is accelerating or decelerating, and as the earth is not doing that (earth's speed is constant) you can't just take off up in the air and wait for the earth below you to move. The air you are up in, is spinning at the very same rate, same as the air inside the traincart (WHEN THE TRAIN IS AT A CONSTANT SPEED).
You are the right the chalk line would not move. Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed. If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train. If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air? It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force? Physics denies you my friend
-
You are the right the chalk line would not move. Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed. If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train. If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air? It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force? Physics denies you my friend
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know this is completely wrong. Have you ever seen a fly in your car as you drive? Flies don't care if they're in a stationary room or in a car travelling at a constant 60 mph. They'll do the same thing in either case. Similarly, if you were in a train moving at a constant speed and hovered in the air over a chalk circle, you would stay over that chalk circle. The air in the train is moving along with the train (which is why, when the windows are closed, you shouldnt feel any wind), and you're stationary with respect to that air.
What's propelling the air is the Earth. It's dragging its atmosphere along with it. Really, the logical consequence of your line of reasoning is that there would be constant 1000-mph winds (at the equator; they would be less strong as you get farther away and it would be calm at the poles). And yes, if that were the case, maybe you'd be able to make a glider that can just ride the wind from one place to another. But if you don't live near the poles and you look outside and there's any trace of civilization, that means there aren't supersonic winds, and your plane idea won't work.
There are tons of (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae203.cfm) other answers (https://www.quora.com/If-the-earth-is-rotating-at-a-high-speed-and-we-jump-up-why-doesnt-the-earth-move-below-us-at-high-speed-1) to this question (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1000358/) online, if you look. Most of them are by people who know much more physics than you do. If you want to prove the Earth is flat, this isn't the way to do it.
-
You are the right the chalk line would not move. Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed. If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train. If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air? It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force? Physics denies you my friend
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know this is completely wrong. Have you ever seen a fly in your car as you drive? Flies don't care if they're in a stationary room or in a car travelling at a constant 60 mph. They'll do the same thing in either case. Similarly, if you were in a train moving at a constant speed and hovered in the air over a chalk circle, you would stay over that chalk circle. The air in the train is moving along with the train (which is why, when the windows are closed, you shouldnt feel any wind), and you're stationary with respect to that air.
What's propelling the air is the Earth. It's dragging its atmosphere along with it. Really, the logical consequence of your line of reasoning is that there would be constant 1000-mph winds (at the equator; they would be less strong as you get farther away and it would be calm at the poles). And yes, if that were the case, maybe you'd be able to make a glider that can just ride the wind from one place to another. But if you don't live near the poles and you look outside and there's any trace of civilization, that means there aren't supersonic winds, and your plane idea won't work.
There are tons of (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae203.cfm) other answers (https://www.quora.com/If-the-earth-is-rotating-at-a-high-speed-and-we-jump-up-why-doesnt-the-earth-move-below-us-at-high-speed-1) to this question (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1000358/) online, if you look. Most of them are by people who know much more physics than you do. If you want to prove the Earth is flat, this isn't the way to do it.
I have no bias in this discussion, I've always said that I KNOW nothing. I only base my opinions on what I perceive within my own environment. I do not for one moment profess to have the answers. And I have the dignity to admit that your "fly example" has got me a little stumped. I can see your point of view with regards to the environment moving with the 'object'. But I'm not sure the inside of a car and the earth can be compared. But I will again admit that you've given me food for thought there. I will think about it and get back to you my friend. And when I say think I don't mean look for a way out of it, I will do what I always do and look at both sides with an open mind
-
I have no bias in this discussion, I've always said that I KNOW nothing. I only base my opinions on what I perceive within my own environment. I do not for one moment profess to have the answers. And I have the dignity to admit that your "fly example" has got me a little stumped. I can see your point of view with regards to the environment moving with the 'object'. But I'm not sure the inside of a car and the earth can be compared. But I will again admit that you've given me food for thought there. I will think about it and get back to you my friend. And when I say think I don't mean look for a way out of it, I will do what I always do and look at both sides with an open mind
Your somewhat humble opinion and will to actually debate is the sole reason I botherd to actually reply to this post in the first place so for that part I salute you. I'm willing to debate anything, how stupid I still might find it on a personal level, as long as it's kept open minded, actual facts and logic arent ignored. I'm no physicist myself, but consider myself somewhat educated on the subject just from pure interest and curiousness as it effects us and everything around us on a daily basis. Maybe I could and should have went into more details on the aeroplane matter, considering my father actually was a pilot I'm quite familiar with planes. Though that question might actually be answerd now (with the train, fly etc)and its the followup on why the air is moving that's the issue to actually acknowledge the first question.
Also I appologize in advance for maybe not using the correct words and/or terms here, as well as spelling, cause english is not my native language. From my point of view I'm probably not the most suited to explain this either, as from experiance (regarding any possible subject) one can learn enough to understand something on a personal level, but to explain or teach something to someone in a good and easily understandable way you need to know it 10x deeper.
Doing my best to try and come up with analogies or examples that you could actually try for yourself, as I think that would be the way for you to actually feel sure about something, if you as you say base your understanding on what you percive.
You are the right the chalk line would not move. Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed. If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train. If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air? It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force? Physics denies you my friend
The chalk outline would not move even if you, and sadly we can't really test this as we as humans can't hoover, managed to hoover in the train for 1 hour. The fly in the car might actually be a better example. But there's a couple of other things you could try. Take a helium filled balloon onto the train (or maybe even better, in your car), that you just hold in a thing string, fishing line or the like. That balloon would essentially be hoovering in the car/train and you could see how it behaves. If what you said was correct the line your holding it in would not be vertical when the speed is constant, and the balloon would slightly pull towards the back of the train, it does not, I can assure you but feel free to try for yourself (asuming constant speed, no open windoes or other kind of forced airflows within the train/car due to say ventilation). You could see another cool thing if you do this properly with a helium ballon in your car as well, that when you accelerate the balloon would actually move forward instead of backwards, and move backwards when you brake (completly reverse to the way you feel or see any other objects behave in the car that have higher density then air).
You could try the same thing with one of thoose new popular small drones/queadcopters, if you somehow was allowed to fly it on a train :)
As a third thoughtexperiment: Say we could actually get a traincart the size of a hangar, big enough to fly a model RC airplane in it. Even if that train was moving at 200mph (constant speed) it would be no different flying the model RC plane in there, then in a stationary hangar (same as the fly in the car).
Regarding the air spinning. I'm not sure I know all the correct terms and principles in english words to explain this properly but I can give it a try. Its also hard to come up with (at least for me) a good analogy for this that you could just step outside your front door and try/see, as we're talking about things on such a big scale.
The short answer, gravity and inertia. You might have played with toys like this?
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/10/09/10095f855a05759f17e9da5b5f0b840b.gif?itok=dSLvbtee (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/10/09/10095f855a05759f17e9da5b5f0b840b.gif?itok=dSLvbtee)
You spin it on a table either with you fingers or a string, and it will spin for quite a while before coming to rest (it also show the principles of angular momentum, but thats a different matter all thoghter and not really of any importance to this discussion (the reason why it doesn't fall over while spinning)). It could actually just as well be a marble that we set spinning on the table, for this purpose. Why does it slow down? Two main things, friction on the table where its spinning, and drag in the air. But if we put the marble inside a little glas sphere with vacuum in it, and managed to levitate the marble inside that glas sphere so the marble is just floating inside that vacuum. Now if you started spinning it, it would essentially spin forever, there's nothing slowing it down. This is where we have the earth, the marble beeing earth and the vacuum sphere space, as there's vacuum in space and earth isn't resting on anything there's nothing slowing us down, not even the air/atmosphere on earth however "light/thin" you consider air to be, there is no friction on the outside (space) effecting the air.
Thanks to gravity, that's pulling the air down towards earth however, there's quite the friction between just our air and the ground. How small this friction ever could be percived on a human level if you just go outside doesn't really matter, as there is none, nada, absolutly no friction on yhe outside of the earth towards space. Air does provide quite the friction/drag even if mostly think of it as "nothing", just put you hand out the window going 60mph, quite the force on your hand.
The friction between the actual earth/ground and our air/atmosphere is rather irrellevant for this point though, as they are allready spinning/moving at a constant speed. It would only come into play if we suddenly started to accelerate or decelerate the earth's spin (jumping in the train analogy). I would imagen that the key thing to wrap your head around here is that if we go back to the marble and earth analogy, if you think of the marble and the earth, its the entire earth with the air and our atmosphere that represent the marble, not just the "solid" part of earth that we walk on.
To try and answer your question more direct then regarding the "If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air?", There is no friction, no force slowing us/earth down (vacum, not resting on anything etc, like the marble levitating in the vacum glass sphere) so once we're spinning we don't need any additional force to keep spinning, we will essentially spin forever.
-
Its not a "rapidly falling earth" in the sence that earth is huge, but of course its a factor.
Your almost thinking right, regarding the train. Do the experiment again, but this time you jump INSIDE the train. Now, you jump of the floor of the train, if you did that in the middle aisle the doors to the next traincart would hit you quite quick and hard, if things weren't relative. You could hoover for as long as you want inside the train, but you would still be in the same place inside the train (asuming the train is keeping a constant speed).
As a second example: The train is moving at 50mph, you start running along (from say the last cart to the locomotive, for a sense of direction) the train at 10mph, relative to anyone inside the train, you'd run past them at 10mph right? But anyone watching you from the outside would see you run past them at 60mph.
Now to translate that to the airplanes, they are all inside the train. To leave the train and "jump outside/on the roof of the train" like you suggest in your example, you would have to leave the earth's atmosphere, aka go out in space. And simply, planes don't fly that high/far out, so they're all still inside the train.
Sorry but it would exactly the same inside the train. This can be felt as the train moves off and comes to a stop. If you time a jump right (I've actually done this when no ones looking obviously lol) just as the train starts to move, you land a foot or so behind where you started. If you could hover, you are no longer being propelled by the floor of the train and you will constantly lose speed and end up being pulled along by the inside of the door of the last carriage.
Did you simply ignore my line were it says "(asuming the train is keeping a constant speed)" ? This would be the proper way to compare it, as the earth is spinning at a constant speed.
If you want to add in acceleration or deceleration in the mix, when trying this I'm sure you felt that when the train is accelerating you get pushed back in your seat, and when its decelerating you lean forward in your seat. Its even more evident in a car that can accelerate and stop at a faster rate then most trains. When accelerating, the train is accelerating up to speed, but you also need to start accelerate, and the seat your sitting in is pushing you forward brining you (along witht the train) up to speed, say the 50mph we talked about before. Now once up to speed, you will no longer feel pushed back in you seat, I asume you've experienced this as well? If not on a train so in a car. Whenever the speed is kept constant you don't feel any force pulling you forward or pushing you back in the seat, try it out for yourself.
Now stand in the aisle of the train again, and make chalk outline around your feet. If you jump in the aisle in the train now during the acceleration, when it start moving forward. The chalk outline would move. As when you jump, the only thing pushing you forward is the air inside the cart, and its not dense enough to accelerate/push you forward at the same acceleration as the train itself. You woulld actually accelerate even if you just hoverd in the aisle thanks to the air, but the traincart would have to be extremly long to bring you up to the same speed as the train. This you said you've tried yourself so I asume it makes sense.
But now try the same thing when the train has come up to speed and is moving at a constant and steady speed. The chalk outline will not move, you will be at the same place.
By this you can then see that the chalk outline is only moving when the train is accelerating or decelerating, and as the earth is not doing that (earth's speed is constant) you can't just take off up in the air and wait for the earth below you to move. The air you are up in, is spinning at the very same rate, same as the air inside the traincart (WHEN THE TRAIN IS AT A CONSTANT SPEED).
You are the right the chalk line would not move. Only because I would not be in the air long enough to lose speed. If I could hover I would appear to move towards the back of the train as I slowly and steadily lost the momentum built up from being propelled by the FLOOR of the train. If what you say is correct, that the air around the earth is spinning with it, what do you propose is propelling the air? It must be a very clever force, one that can move heavy dense matter such as concrete, iron and rock and at the same time, light gaseous material at exactly the same rate whilst applying the same uniform force? Physics denies you my friend
Friction.
Edit: Is not a proposal, it's a fact. How does a desk fan propel air into your face? (solid vs gas). How you could not answer this question yourself is frightening.
-
Friction.
Edit: Is not a proposal, it's a fact. How does a desk fan propel air into your face? (solid vs gas). How you could not answer this question yourself is frightening.
Axial-flow fans do not rely on friction, other than perhaps to get blades going in the first place (although even that is unnecessary - a few electromagnets will sort you out). The air, much like anything else, can be pushed in a hypothetical frictionless environment.
It's appalling that you'd try to mislead others and shame them for their alleged lack of knowledge, only to then spout this kind of nonsense.
-
Friction.
Edit: Is not a proposal, it's a fact. How does a desk fan propel air into your face? (solid vs gas). How you could not answer this question yourself is frightening.
Axial-flow fans do not rely on friction, other than perhaps to get them going in the first place (although even that is unnecessary - a few electromagnets will sort you out just as well). The air, much like anything else, can be pushed in a hypothetical frictionless environment.
It's appalling that you'd try to mislead others and shame them for their alleged lack of knowledge, only to then spout this kind of nonsense.
Friction, no matter how you look at it, is the cause of the atmosphere following the earth's spin, same with the air flow from a desk fan. Stop sidetracking.
-
Friction, no matter how you look at it, is the cause of the atmosphere following the earth's spin, same with the air flow from a desk fan. Stop sidetracking.
Both of these claims are entirely false, regardless of the Earth's shape. In fact, the air flow from a desk fan doesn't even follow the blades' spin -- precisely because friction is not the relevant force here. Please stop trying to ruin the discussion with your misinformation.
-
Friction, no matter how you look at it, is the cause of the atmosphere following the earth's spin, same with the air flow from a desk fan. Stop sidetracking.
Both of these claims are entirely false, regardless of the Earth's shape. In fact, the air flow from a desk fan doesn't even follow the blades' spin -- precisely because friction is not the relevant force here. Please stop trying to ruin the discussion with your misinformation.
Dude, please stop embarrassing yourself.
-
Dude, please stop embarrassing yourself.
If you'd like to address my claims, or substantiate yours, go ahead. It seems that you suddenly have very little to say when I called you out on your misunderstanding of elementary fluid mechanics.
-
Dude, please stop embarrassing yourself.
If you'd like to address my claims, or substantiate yours, go ahead. It seems that you suddenly have very little to say when I called you out on your misunderstanding of elementary fluid mechanics.
Not at all, I'm just not gonna waste anymore time dealing with your particular stupidity. It's that simple.
-
Not at all, I'm just not gonna waste anymore time dealing with your particular stupidity. It's that simple.
How cute. Well, I explained the physics to you. If you don't wish to learn, that's your prerogative. At least now it's out there in the open, so nobody will be deceived by your misleading claims.
-
No you didn't. You explained your understanding of it, not how it actually works. This is the problem with FE in general, there's a difference in how it appears to work, and reality.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1193/why-does-the-atmosphere-rotate-along-with-the-earth
Have fun reading, and stop throwing about home grown ideas.
-
"Home grown ideas"? You're the one who thinks axial-flow fans rely on friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_fan_design
Note that, as I explained, the air does not follow the spin of the fan's blades. This is not an FE vs RE issue, this is an "andruszkow doesn't understand fluid mechanics" issue.
It's also cute that you provided this link - the top answer explains precisely why friction is not the answer. But hey, I guess you'd have to actually read your source to know what it says ;)
-
"Home grown ideas"? You're the one who thinks axial-flow fans rely on friction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_fan_design
Note that, as I explained, the air does not follow the spin of the fan's blades. This is not an FE vs RE issue, this is an "andruszkow doesn't understand fluid mechanics" issue.
It's also cute that you provided this link - the top answer explains precisely why friction is not the answer. But hey, I guess you'd have to actually read your source to know what it says ;)
Apparently you didn't read it all, dummy :)
-
Apparently you didn't read it all, dummy :)
Late to reply to this one, but your last several responses in this thread are personal insults and are against the rules. It is obvious you lost the debate with SexWarrior and unfortunately resorted to using ad-hominem attacks. You've been warned already for low-content posting. This is your last warning. Please review the rules.
-
Apparently you didn't read it all, dummy :)
Late to reply to this one, but your last several responses in this thread are personal insults and are against the rules. It is obvious you lost the debate with SexWarrior and unfortunately resorted to using ad-hominem attacks. You've been warned already for low-content posting. This is your last warning. Please review the rules.
I've never lost any argument to him. For a debate on this matter to be constructive or is only fair that you point out mistakes in people's claims, such as stopping people from continuing spreading bad science when they say friction isn't the reason the atmosphere is moving with earth's spin.
What happens to air inside a blender when you turn it on? Add a wee bit of smoke and it's obvious
-
Also, as always something was taken out of context to divert the real issue at hand. I wasnt talking about the design of desk fans, but using fans as an example to explain what friction from solids can do to air
-
What happens to air inside a blender when you turn it on?
That depends strongly on the blender's design, but usually it's going to be pushed downwards or pulled upwards.
The viscosity of the fluid (or other material) inside the blender could be important in many cases, but in case of air, it's not going to be much of a factor.
Perhaps you should refrain from trying to use engineering in your elaborate anecdotes? Your lack of understanding of how simple appliances are built really doesn't help your case. It's very difficult to understand what you're saying when you keep comparing it to your misconceptions of how household appliances work.
-
What happens to air inside a blender when you turn it on?
That depends strongly on the blender's design, but usually it's going to be pushed downwards or pulled upwards.
And rotate in the same direction as the blades I take it?
-
And rotate in the same direction as the blades I take it?
I was editing my post after you responded - sorry.
No, in most cases it wouldn't rotate with the blades - air's viscosity is not sufficient for that. However, this will still vary greatly with blenders, and I'm sure you could find one that does cause rotation if you searched hard enough.
-
And rotate in the same direction as the blades I take it?
I was editing my post after you responded - sorry.
No, in most cases it wouldn't rotate with the blades - air's viscosity is not sufficient for that. However, this will still vary greatly with blenders, and I'm sure you could find one that does cause rotation if you searched hard enough.
But have you actually tried it? Because I have
-
But have you actually tried it? Because I have
Yes. I was lucky enough not to be a victim of Western education, meaning that I was frequently exposed to experiments in school.
I'm also an engineer, albeit not of a relevant specialisation. Regardless, I've used, disassembled and fixed enough blenders to feel quite comfortable with how they operate.