The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: just_a_curious_guy on January 23, 2021, 06:16:50 AM
-
if you travel along a line of latitude of some angle above the equator and then the corresponding line south of the equator between two separate and fixed lines of longitude, then on the globe you travel the same distance but on a flat earth the path along the southern line of latitude is necessarily longer. This is verifiable with renaissance era technology, so this experiment can easily be done. Do FE adherents think that navies and coast guards prevent this experiment from being conducted and reported on? Do they think there is some contraction of space that happens outside the ring of the so-called equator if you will that accounts for this? Thanks, not sure how to post the image I drew of my question.
-
It’s because the flat earth map is just a projections of the globe onto a plane. Just like any projection of a 3D surface onto a 2D surface, it faces loss of information. In this case the distances are distorted. North of equator is contracted and South of equator is expanded (as far as I understand). The flat earth community has yet to create a map of the Earth.
-
These are good questions. I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below. You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north. I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e. This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today, identical in the most popular fly over areas. Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this.
I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)". This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.
-
These are good questions. I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below. You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north. I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e. This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today, identical in the most popular fly over areas. Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this.
I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)". This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.
If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
-
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
Except that maps put onto globes do the best job representing the shape, sizes and proportions of features on the earth...
-
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
This is just objectively false.
I have a globe map of the Earth right here, I'm looking at it now.
It's unmistakably a map, and it's round. Not flat.
You can claim it doesn't represent your reality, but it is very clearly a map.
-
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
Except that maps put onto globes do the best job representing the shape, sizes and proportions of features on the earth...
That is just silly.
Captain Cook drew an almost exact layout of New Zealand (right down to position) on a perfectly flat map.
-
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
This is just objectively false.
I have a globe map of the Earth right here, I'm looking at it now.
It's unmistakably a map, and it's round. Not flat.
You can claim it doesn't represent your reality, but it is very clearly a map.
What you have is a globe, it is not a map.
-
Id only add that I'm sure info is lost but info may also be found, lol. One mystery I have about this projection is Nasa says it's almost 25,000 miles around the equator. Projections like these (equidistant azimuthal proj.) Typically shrink the equators distance sometimes by half! Id enlarge the map proportionally to try and keep acceptable distances intact. I don't know.
Another cool fact about this map, is that if you condense all the continents together they fit real well (Pangea). Then if you unravel the map you can explain the trails of land following Russia and Alaska...
-
Id only add that I'm sure info is lost but info may also be found, lol. One mystery I have about this projection is Nasa says it's almost 25,000 miles around the equator. Projections like these (equidistant azimuthal proj.) Typically shrink the equators distance sometimes by half! Id enlarge the map proportionally to try and keep acceptable distances intact. I don't know.
Another cool fact about this map, is that if you condense all the continents together they fit real well (Pangea). Then if you unravel the map you can explain the trails of land following Russia and Alaska...
Folks calculated the circumference of earth well prior to the existence of NASA.
-
These are good questions. I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below. You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north. I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e. This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today, identical in the most popular fly over areas. Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this.
I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)". This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.
If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).
None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.
-
Raza the flight distances do check out on this map. Stack asked me this question the first time I introduced this map and I confirmed NY to Alaska is 4000 miles on this map as is generally accepted to be the distance.
Regarding the pole stars, I did follow closely the debates everyone had on how there can be two rotating sets of stars on a flat map. Tom introduced a video showing how a Dome above a flat earth can help part the stars and have them circle in two distinct groups.
Id go further and say that my understanding is that people in the south can observe some stars near them and people in the North can observe a higher set of stars in the sky. The dome helps magnify these effects.
And keep in mind, my map is different then the map you talked about in your other thread. This is a south Antarctic based projection, not a North pole one which is more commonly talked about.
Id go even further and say that the high altitude stars visible in the northern hemisphere are actually located closer to inner earth but the star light actually bends around the dome and gives the illusion of it being behind observers and over the artic circle. The Milky Way bends around the dome if you've seen time lapse photos of it, it's a dramatic effect.
This bending also accounts for why people in the North can see polaris from much of the world in winter. Just like the sun's rays wrap around the dome to give them 24 hour sunlight in summer, so do the stars (or planets) lights in winter. Not all night, as there is no 24 hour darkness in the habitable north (save 1 day maybe) But admittedly, there's not too much data on the far reaches of the north anyway to compare data as easily as you guys did for the southern hemisphere.
-
Raza the flight distances do check out on this map. Stack asked me this question the first time I introduced this map and I confirmed NY to Alaska is 4000 miles on this map as is generally accepted to be the distance.
What's the route a flight takes on your map from:
- NYC to Anchrage
- LA to London
Can you draw them on your map?
And why is it Antarctica centered again? You may have mentioned why before, but I have forgotten.
-
Stack, Please see the attached photo. It's the same flight paths used today, although most trips from NY to Anchorage have one or two stops in between.
Ive made a few posts endorsing this map but here's the link to one Q & A I had with the IceMan.
"Questions from a glacier guy"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16801.msg218718#msg218718
-
Stack, Please see the attached photo. It's the same flight paths used today, although most trips from NY to Anchorage have one or two stops in between.
Ive made a few posts endorsing this map but here's the link to one Q & A I had with the IceMan.
"Questions from a glacier guy"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16801.msg218718#msg218718
Why wouldn't the flight path from LA to London simply be the blue line? Seems like it would be a lot shorter:
(https://i.imgur.com/EL0SkGA.jpg)
-
Okay Stack, I got it. It's because the path from LA to London follows exactley along the path of a polar jet stream. This increases the planes speed and presumably makes up for the longer distance. Theres no significant jet stream if you went in a straight line on my map. See the attached flight path and stream path. I mapped them out on my original more accurate map too.
Admittedly, this flight path is also a straight line and the most direct path on a round 3D earth map from LA to London (see attachment). So, I guess It's what you want to believe.
Here's a fun story on how a jet steam pushed an aircraft past 800mph. https://www.thetravel.com/jet-stream-propels-record-breaking-l-a-to-london-flight-to-801-mph/amp/
-
Raza the flight distances do check out on this map. Stack asked me this question the first time I introduced this map and I confirmed NY to Alaska is 4000 miles on this map as is generally accepted to be the distance.
Regarding the pole stars, I did follow closely the debates everyone had on how there can be two rotating sets of stars on a flat map. Tom introduced a video showing how a Dome above a flat earth can help part the stars and have them circle in two distinct groups.
Id go further and say that my understanding is that people in the south can observe some stars near them and people in the North can observe a higher set of stars in the sky. The dome helps magnify these effects.
And keep in mind, my map is different then the map you talked about in your other thread. This is a south Antarctic based projection, not a North pole one which is more commonly talked about.
Id go even further and say that the high altitude stars visible in the northern hemisphere are actually located closer to inner earth but the star light actually bends around the dome and gives the illusion of it being behind observers and over the artic circle. The Milky Way bends around the dome if you've seen time lapse photos of it, it's a dramatic effect.
This bending also accounts for why people in the North can see polaris from much of the world in winter. Just like the sun's rays wrap around the dome to give them 24 hour sunlight in summer, so do the stars (or planets) lights in winter. Not all night, as there is no 24 hour darkness in the habitable north (save 1 day maybe) But admittedly, there's not too much data on the far reaches of the north anyway to compare data as easily as you guys did for the southern hemisphere.
How does light bend to give the illusion of a celestial pole? On your map, I’m assuming the center is the South Pole and this has the southern celestial pole but how does the northern celestial pole works?
In the more traditional north centered flat Earth map, in the other thread, Tom tried to explain it away using crepuscular and anti crepuscular rays. That explanation was shaky but even more glaring issue was the ability of people on different continents to look at their own south directions (remember, different places on a flat Earth) and still see the same stars. I remember stack or someone else found a time of year when conditions are dark enough to see stars from Australia, tip of South America, and tip of Africa.
How do you explain that? On the Globe earth, South Pole is a single point. People looking south from all of those three locations are converging at a singular point. Therefore, they can easily see the same set of stars.
This issue was not resolved by the way and Tom has now abandoned that thread presumably because it’s not really recoverable without also bending logic. In a yet another thread about a similar discussion I believe the flat Earth proponents had to change wiki because of this issue.
-
These are good questions. I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below. You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north. I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e. This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today, identical in the most popular fly over areas. Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this.
I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)". This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.
If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).
None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.
There is no single verifiable map of the entire world of any kind, RET or FET.
All maps are flat, however.
There is no such thing as a "Globe" map.
Quit posting false information.
-
I remember stack or someone else found a time of year when conditions are dark enough to see stars from Australia, tip of South America, and tip of Africa.
That was me. I also made the point that it's a massive problem for FET even if you consider two observers just a short distance apart on the same continent - if they're both looking at the celestial south pole then just a small change in longitude means, on a monopole FE, that they are facing in slightly different directions whilst looking at the same object. There is no credible explanation for that other than being on a spherical planet, which then of course means they aren't facing in different directions - they are just standing on different parts of the sphere looking towards the south pole.
-
Okay Stack, I got it. It's because the path from LA to London follows exactley along the path of a polar jet stream. This increases the planes speed and presumably makes up for the longer distance. Theres no significant jet stream if you went in a straight line on my map. See the attached flight path and stream path. I mapped them out on my original more accurate map too.
From your jetstream image below, seems like there's one that follows mostly my straight line on your map, it's the most southern one. Why don't they use the majority of that one instead of going way north out of their way to catch the most northern jetstream?
Admittedly, this flight path is also a straight line and the most direct path on a round 3D earth map from LA to London (see attachment). So, I guess It's what you want to believe.
Here's a fun story on how a jet steam pushed an aircraft past 800mph. https://www.thetravel.com/jet-stream-propels-record-breaking-l-a-to-london-flight-to-801-mph/amp/
Yes, on a globe earth it's referred to as a great circle route. It's about 5500 miles. If I were to transpose the blue straight line flight path I drew on your map on to a google map, it's about 12,000 miles.
So here's the conundrum: On your map, the arced flight path you have is way longer than the straight line path I drew, which is way shorter. (average flight speed from LAX to Heathrow is around 500 mph. But yes, sometimes there are anomalous super highspeed jet streams, but those are the exception)
Airliners could still take advantage of a jetstream for most of the journey along my blue straight line path. On your map, planes should be flying over South America and a portion of Africa because it's way shorter and there is a jetstream to support most of the route.
The fact of the matter is that your map has planes going way north out of their way which, belief or no belief, doesn't make sense.
-
Stack, it is at least pretty clear that they fly directly within the polar jet stream. As to why they didn't pick another route, well, my drawings of the jet streams arent perfect. If you line them up perfectly with the flight path, then almost all of the jet streams have tradeoffs. The polar jet is long but smooth, the middle stream is very curvey and far north anyway, and the southern jet is only available for maybe 50% of the trip and your still going out of your way. The direct route you propose has no jet stream, you only pass through one twice at an intersection.
-
How does light bend to give the illusion of a celestial pole? On your map, I’m assuming the center is the South Pole and this has the southern celestial pole but how does the northern celestial pole works?
In the more traditional north centered flat Earth map, in the other thread, Tom tried to explain it away using crepuscular and anti crepuscular rays. That explanation was shaky but even more glaring issue was the ability of people on different continents to look at their own south directions (remember, different places on a flat Earth) and still see the same stars. I remember stack or someone else found a time of year when conditions are dark enough to see stars from Australia, tip of South America, and tip of Africa.
How do you explain that? On the Globe earth, South Pole is a single point. People looking south from all of those three locations are converging at a singular point. Therefore, they can easily see the same set of stars.
This issue was not resolved by the way and Tom has now abandoned that thread presumably because it’s not really recoverable without also bending logic. In a yet another thread about a similar discussion I believe the flat Earth proponents had to change wiki because of this issue.
Regarding light bending, in the summer months in NY, i can see the Sun rise to my North West and Set North East.
If the sun is located below my latitude which it is, shouldn't it rise and set in front of me in SW and SE? I went nuts over this, until I realized that during sunrise im seeing a reflection of the sun on the northern edge of the dome (which is North West). As it rises the suns rays are less distorted during the day (my viewing angle is closer to 90deg) and therefore passes in front of me (facing south) as one would expect. During the winter it rises and sets in front of me which (correct me if im wrong, but the sun is farther south and more perpendicular to the dome so theres less of a bending of light around the dome effect. If you take a flashlight and point it at a huge glass dome, the sides will illuminate less as you point the flashlight down and center. If you bring the light to the edge of the dome it will reflect on all sides.
For star purposes, if you spin the earth which i believe happens, beneath a starry sky through the eyes of a dome, you will observe two seperate rotating circles that represent the two poles of axis. It's in the wiki. Further, if you admit being able to see a huge sun at sunset (despite being further away from your location), then you have to admit that the dome can share and magnify images of the sky to your location even if its not near you. That's my understanding of stars as seen by people around the northern hemisphere. They see a certain set of stars based on there viewing angle, and can see these stars during a big portion of the night and to there north because the Dome helps project these images to everyone as the starlight bends around it during the early hours of night and the later hours of night just like the sun in the morning!
-
Stack, it is at least pretty clear that they fly directly within the polar jet stream. As to why they didn't pick another route, well, my drawings of the jet streams arent perfect. If you line them up perfectly with the flight path, then almost all of the jet streams have tradeoffs. The polar jet is long but smooth, the middle stream is very curvey and far north anyway, and the southern jet is only available for maybe 50% of the trip and your still going out of your way. The direct route you propose has no jet stream, you only pass through one twice at an intersection.
You're missing a key fact. Not only do planes fly that northerly path from LA to London, but they fly the same path, against the polar jetstream, from London to LA. Why don't planes take my straight route on your map over Africa and South America when flying London to LA? It's way shorter and they are not fighting a jetstream.
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LAX to LHR is 9:37
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LHR to LAX is 10:31
1 hour difference yet your northerly arcing flight path is at least a third longer than my straight line path on your map.
(https://i.imgur.com/2GAcDmX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q0qtVMb.png)
-
These are good questions. I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below. You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north. I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e. This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today, identical in the most popular fly over areas. Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this.
I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)". This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.
If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.
All maps are flat.
Period.
When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.
The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).
None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.
There is no single verifiable map of the entire world of any kind, RET or FET.
All maps are flat, however.
There is no such thing as a "Globe" map.
Quit posting false information.
Actually there is a Globe map that perfectly describes reality. The traditional Flat Earth map is literally just its projection. That is why, as I explained in my previous message, there is a loss of information.
This means the traditional Flat Earth map gets a lot of stuff wrong including the fact that South Pole is actually a singular point instead of a ring. Simple proof of this is observing the Southern Celestial Pole. If you claim that the South Pole is actually a ring, then how do three people living in Australia, tip of Africa, and tip of South America look to their South (different locations) and see the same stars.
Unless you are a troll, you will not deny the existence of the Southern Celestial Pole. How does the Flat Earth map explain this real life observation. The Glove Earth map has no trouble explaining this.
Also this problem occurs even if the two people are on the same continent but just far apart. The two people see the same set of stars even if their South Direction is different.
-
You're missing a key fact. Not only do planes fly that northerly path from LA to London, but they fly the same path, against the polar jetstream, from London to LA. Why don't planes take my straight route on your map over Africa and South America when flying London to LA? It's way shorter and they are not fighting a jetstream.
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LAX to LHR is 9:37
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LHR to LAX is 10:31
1 hour difference yet your northerly arcing flight path is at least a third longer than my straight line path on your map.
(https://i.imgur.com/2GAcDmX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q0qtVMb.png)
As usual thank you for the mind bending information. I can't answer this yet. My first thoughts are why are planes travelling up a jet stream? But I can see there trying to avoid it. Jet streams are normally a few hundred miles wide. And even if that was the shortest distance, why if the earth is spinning TOWARDS you on your flight from London to LAX, why would the flight take longer? It should be shorter.? The only answer I have is when you fly near the Artic Circle, you have entered the Twilight Zone!
-
@MetaTron
Centering the map on the south pole (or any other place on earth) does not solve distance problems - it just shifts it to another area.
But have a look how REers act.
They have a globe in their living room as decoration and to show where they have spent their holidays.
But for all practical purposes like planning a route or building a bridge they use flat maps and they call it "projections of a globe". Why are they using all this distorted maps if they have a globe???
So why not turning this around and using a flat earth map projected on a globe?
This would solve all shape and distance problems forever.
;)
-
All the usual talk of flights is all very well, but to bring the discussion down to earth I’d like to ask MetaTron what the distance on this new map is from Moscow to Vladivostock, as taken by the Trans Siberian Railway, overland. The route passes through Kirov, Yekaterinberg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Svobodny and Khabarovsk to name a few places along the way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway)
The actual distance is going to be a little longer than the direct measurement because the train route isn’t perfectly straight, but what sort of distance do you make it on your new map?
-
You're missing a key fact. Not only do planes fly that northerly path from LA to London, but they fly the same path, against the polar jetstream, from London to LA. Why don't planes take my straight route on your map over Africa and South America when flying London to LA? It's way shorter and they are not fighting a jetstream.
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LAX to LHR is 9:37
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LHR to LAX is 10:31
1 hour difference yet your northerly arcing flight path is at least a third longer than my straight line path on your map.
(https://i.imgur.com/2GAcDmX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q0qtVMb.png)
As usual thank you for the mind bending information. I can't answer this yet. My first thoughts are why are planes travelling up a jet stream? But I can see there trying to avoid it. Jet streams are normally a few hundred miles wide. And even if that was the shortest distance, why if the earth is spinning TOWARDS you on your flight from London to LAX, why would the flight take longer? It should be shorter.? The only answer I have is when you fly near the Artic Circle, you have entered the Twilight Zone!
Because the atmosphere of the Earth also spins with the Earth. If what you are proposing were true, helicopters could just hover and wait for their destination to come to them. Similarly, jumping in a train or plane would slam you across on the back of the vehicle.
-
So why not turning this around and using a flat earth map projected on a globe?
This would solve all shape and distance problems forever.
;)
Lol, interesting idea.
-
[quote author=MetaTron Why don't planes take my straight route on your map over Africa and South America when flying London to LA? It's way shorter and they are not fighting a jetstream.
Stack, I discovered two more jet streams that run right through South America. See attachments.
-
All the usual talk of flights is all very well, but to bring the discussion down to earth I’d like to ask MetaTron what the distance on this new map is from Moscow to Vladivostock, as taken by the Trans Siberian Railway, overland. The route passes through Kirov, Yekaterinberg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Svobodny and Khabarovsk to name a few places along the way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway)
The actual distance is going to be a little longer than the direct measurement because the train route isn’t perfectly straight, but what sort of distance do you make it on your new map?
Hi, the distance is the same. I dont like to question well documented distance measurements on earth.
-
Hi, the distance is the same. I dont like to question well documented distance measurements on earth.
That’s probably wise, thank you.
-
Because the atmosphere of the Earth also spins with the Earth. If what you are proposing were true, helicopters could just hover and wait for their destination to come to them. Similarly, jumping in a train or plane would slam you across on the back of the vehicle.
Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.
-
Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.
Do you think so? If you put a mixing rotor like a food mixer’s paddle in a bowl of water and start it going for 5 hours, does the water still spin slower than the paddle by the end? It does, because the bowl isn’t turning and that drag of the bowl slows the water down.
But with a round earth there’s nothing containing the air, so what apart from the earth drags on the air? What is to slow the air from turning with the earth, at the same turning rate as the earth?
-
Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.
Do you think so? If you put a mixing rotor like a food mixer’s paddle in a bowl of water and start it going for 5 hours, does the water still spin slower than the paddle by the end? It does, because the bowl isn’t turning and that drag of the bowl slows the water down.
But with a round earth there’s nothing containing the air, so what apart from the earth drags on the air? What is to slow the air from turning with the earth, at the same turning rate as the earth?
A better analogy is to put a bowl of water on a steady turntable. At the start the water is still, then it slowly starts to move, and eventually will move with the bowl.
You won't be able to see any difference in the speed of the bowl and the water anywhere in it as it will all be moving together.
This used to be easier to demonstrate when everyone had record players. :)
-
Because the atmosphere of the Earth also spins with the Earth. If what you are proposing were true, helicopters could just hover and wait for their destination to come to them. Similarly, jumping in a train or plane would slam you across on the back of the vehicle.
Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.
Answered by Kelly Chipps
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Physics
Colorado School of Mines
Ask a Physicist Answers
If a helicopter hovers in a fixed position for 24 hours will the earth rotate around it?
"Since the helicopter is also sitting on the ground, it's also inside this moving reference frame, and has the momentum that goes with it so the helicopter is also moving at one revolution per day. In fact, so is the air! Now, when the helicopter takes off, it flies straight up to some height above the Earth's surface. But though the helicopter has exerted a force (through the use of its rotors) to lift it straight up, it hasn't exerted a force in the horizontal direction to counter the motion (momentum) it already had that one revolution per minute! So though the helicopter is no longer touching the ground, unless the pilot purposely exerts a force against the helicopter's initial momentum, the helicopter will continue to move at one revolution per day, and thus remain above the same spot on the Earth's surface from where it took off."
https://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20110218025229
-
This is interesting, thank you.
-
I find that nonsense interesting too.
No sane person with competency in physics should ever fall for it.
-
I find that nonsense interesting too.
No sane person with competency in physics should ever fall for it.
Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.
-
I find that nonsense interesting too.
No sane person with competency in physics should ever fall for it.
Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with? It’s no different to being on a train and walking around - if the track is straight, and the train isn’t accelerating or decelerating, you feel just like you’re walking around normally. Your inertial frame of reference has just moved. In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.
As an aside, if you want to quibble at all, you could point out that we aren’t technically in an inertial reference frame, as we have a small centripetal acceleration. However, if you work out the acceleration, it is so trivial that for all intents and purposes it can be ignored.
-
@iceman
Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.
Did someone call a physicist insane? In any case, competent physicists SHOULDN'T fall for it (sanity not withstanding). This isn't an issue of belief or sanity, it is really an issue of competency in physics (even ignoring/accounting for gross oversimplification for accessibility / target audience).
Someone with physics competency would already understand that the air (a semi elastic fluid with varying gravitational attraction which wanes from the surface) of the world does not travel with it. No layer of it does - the air does many things and the motion of the world is not involved. Again, basic physics competency - understanding the source of the motion of the air above our heads is caused by the sun and not any rotation of the world is a good first step towards that. Understanding, acutely, what coriolis IS and is not is a good second one.
@steelybob
Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with?
Absolutely!
In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.
Conservation of momentum is not a problem, though there is no way to keep it indefinitely as is implied in the oversimplification. The moment the helicopter leaves the ground, it begins to lose that momentum (or gain it in other directions etc.). Assuming the air were perfectly still (in relation to the helicopter, and the ground beneath it) - "frame dragged" if you prefer, then the description is more or less reasonable/intelligible.
Because of wind, this is not the case. The wind (caused by the sun, not the presumed rotation of the earth - which is responsible for 0% of the wind on earth) immediately begins to act upon the helicopter and the fanciful dream of eternal conservation of momentum dies immediately.
The only reason physicists play apologist in this way, and make up/parrot dreadful paradoxical tripe like this and then have to do cartwheels to try and rationalize/defend it, is because they are required to. On some level, they know that the coriolis effect doesn't exist with planes, helicopters, and other flying craft and have "cognitive dissonanced" themselves into the sorry state. They MUST understand why the coriolis effect doesn't occur, and why you can't wait for the earth to rotate beneath you - even if you could remove the influence of all wind (like on a perfectly still day, for instance). There is no height at which this magical entrainment, which demonstrably and by consistent measurement of earths weather/air - does not happen, occurs. It doesn't matter how high you go, or how much air you remove from the equation - you still come down essentially right where you took off, and rather than conclude the obvious (what goes up must come down, and the ground is stationary as it appears) from this fact, they are locked into fantasy which contradicts basic physics and observation.
-
@iceman
Not a particularly productive contribution to call the physicist insane / incompetent just because you dont believe them.
Did someone call a physicist insane? In any case, competent physicists SHOULDN'T fall for it (sanity not withstanding). This isn't an issue of belief or sanity, it is really an issue of competency in physics (even ignoring/accounting for gross oversimplification for accessibility / target audience).
Someone with physics competency would already understand that the air (a semi elastic fluid with varying gravitational attraction which wanes from the surface) of the world does not travel with it. No layer of it does - the air does many things and the motion of the world is not involved. Again, basic physics competency - understanding the source of the motion of the air above our heads is caused by the sun and not any rotation of the world is a good first step towards that. Understanding, acutely, what coriolis IS and is not is a good second one.
@steelybob
Curious to know which part of it, precisely, you disagree with?
Absolutely!
In the hovering helicopter example, the helicopter has whatever velocity that latitude of the earth’s surface has at the point of lift off, as does the air mass around it, give or take local wind speed.
Conservation of momentum is not a problem, though there is no way to keep it indefinitely as is implied in the oversimplification. The moment the helicopter leaves the ground, it begins to lose that momentum (or gain it in other directions etc.). Assuming the air were perfectly still (in relation to the helicopter, and the ground beneath it) - "frame dragged" if you prefer, then the description is more or less reasonable/intelligible.
Because of wind, this is not the case. The wind (caused by the sun, not the presumed rotation of the earth - which is responsible for 0% of the wind on earth) immediately begins to act upon the helicopter and the fanciful dream of eternal conservation of momentum dies immediately.
The only reason physicists play apologist in this way, and make up/parrot dreadful paradoxical tripe like this and then have to do cartwheels to try and rationalize/defend it, is because they are required to. On some level, they know that the coriolis effect doesn't exist with planes, helicopters, and other flying craft and have "cognitive dissonanced" themselves into the sorry state. They MUST understand why the coriolis effect doesn't occur, and why you can't wait for the earth to rotate beneath you - even if you could remove the influence of all wind (like on a perfectly still day, for instance). There is no height at which this magical entrainment, which demonstrably and by consistent measurement of earths weather/air - does not happen, occurs. It doesn't matter how high you go, or how much air you remove from the equation - you still come down essentially right where you took off, and rather than conclude the obvious (what goes up must come down, and the ground is stationary as it appears) from this fact, they are locked into fantasy which contradicts basic physics and observation.
Can you point us to any competent physicists that support what you're going on about? Do you have any evidence for what you're going on about? So far your evidence for "physicists play(ing) apologist" is that you don't agree with them. That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.
-
@stack
That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.
Facts are arbitrary. They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.
The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with? If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.
This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads. Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example. It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain. We do it in astronomy every few years. We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.
There are physicists that hold this view, of course. Finding you one would do ... what, exactly? I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance. Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case. People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.
As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.
-
@stack
That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.
Facts are arbitrary. They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.
The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with? If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.
This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads. Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example. It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain. We do it in astronomy every few years. We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.
There are physicists that hold this view, of course. Finding you one would do ... what, exactly? I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance. Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case. People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.
As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.
Yes, and by saying the "competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning" is an appeal to authority unto itself - The ones you deem competent. A distasteful notion you expounded upon with a great many words appealing to those who know better than the rote conditioned masses. All you are really saying in all of those words is that those who espouse explanations you dislike are incompetent, according to your opinion.
Who are these competent ones that I may look to to maybe explain these finer more logical points you claim to exist? Those who know more about the motion of the air than those with whom you disagree.
-
I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.
We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.
-
I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.
We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.
When I went to college to become a ship's officer we spent plenty of time doing the regular math & physics stuff. Then we applied all that to global navigation and did plenty of homework & lab exercises. During the summer we didn't get to go home. We had to get aboard a ship and set sail to international destinations. All of the things that were taught in school by the professors had to be put into practice supervised by already competent & licensed ship's officers. If there was something taught in class that didn't work in the real world out at sea it would become immediately obvious. In this case we were effectively evaluating all the professor's claims on their merits and challenging their 'authority' and confirming their teachings. Guess what? They claimed that the earth was spherical and we confirmed that out in the real world. How could we be brain washed by any BS?
-
@stack
That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.
Facts are arbitrary. They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.
The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with? If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.
This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads. Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example. It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain. We do it in astronomy every few years. We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.
There are physicists that hold this view, of course. Finding you one would do ... what, exactly? I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance. Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case. People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.
As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.
Scientific facts are not arbitrates issued through some absolute scientific authority. There is no one authority that decides what science is. Science is knowledge produced through the use of scientific method. You can observe or test a scientific fact yourself. In the scientific world, if you think someone has got it wrong, you can literally challenge them or create your own theory and publish it. If your criticism or theory holds merit, other scientists will agree with you and your contribution to science will increase human knowledge.
It is a virtue of scientific facts that they are falsifiable. Science is always evolving. We are learning new things and changing our theories accordingly. If science worked the way you says it works wherein scientific contradictions are hidden as mysteries and no effort is made to correct current theories, why is our knowledge always getting better?
If our system of gathering knowledge is inherently flawed, why is our knowledge always getting closer to the truth? Technology that you use everyday is improving based on this flawed science you speak off.
Year after year, scientists are sitting around making sure no one questions their authority and hiding all their scientific contradictions as hidden mysteries of the universe, yet the pace at technology evolves is accelerating.