"Relative motion" falls apart when applied to plan

[Gary Shelton]

Oh sure, when we are talking about orbital paths of planets and moons and the sun, relative motion can be said to be valid (and this is completely discounting any aether). But what about when we are talking about motion within a medium such as air? There is obviously a difference the two mediums, space and the air, is there not? How would this affect the calculation of relative motion? Well, the "original motion" component would not be changed, true, but the drag effect sure would. And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

Let's use my favorite airplane flight example to crunch this "original motion" factor. Yes, a plane could be said to be rotating at the 600 mph speed of O'Hare airport in Chicago when it departed. And then, as the plane left the surface of the ground, it separated from what was its obvious "engine" or "original motion carrying force" and was definitely running head on into major drag, the air. Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas. (Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below. And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

It is this fact of the nature of the air is what makes my airplane hypothesis stand proud and tall. Although the airplanes would not prove anything if they were flying around the earth in a vacuum (as if that were possible!), they prove quite a lot by flying in the air. After all the dissecting of the relative motion argument, I can yet show that the planes still have the same conundrum of east/west travel that I first thought they did when I just used common sense.

[Robert Andersson]

and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas.

Where do you get the notion that a gas cannot push or carry an object? That is what aerodynamics is all about!

An object will keep its velocity unless an external force is applied. In the case of a projectile, the forces are gravity and air resistance. You seem to argue that the atmosphere isn't rotating with the Earth, and thus it would apply a force opposite to the rotation of the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support that notion?

A comparison. The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train (unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with Earth's atmosphere.

edit: speling and clarification.

[Yorkshireman]

For the benefit of the rest of the board, Gary believes in a geostatic universe, where the Earth is not rotating.

Gary, what exactly is your assertion about east/west travel with an aircraft? Are you saying that aircraft can't fly in a moving atmosphere? Or that aircraft don't get their lift from the atmosphere?

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going?

The thrust from the jet engines or the turboprops? I think you need to define 'original motion' for us here.

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas

Have you ever made a paper airplane? What holds it up?

Rob

[PhantomWolf]

To carry on the train carriage example. I stand at the back end of a train carriage and you at the front. The train speeds down the track at 120km/h. I take a tennis ball out and throw it to you at 30km/h. To a person on the side of the track, that ball is travelling at 150km/h but I only propelled it to you at 30km/h. It doesn't hit the air and stop because everything in the carriage is travelling at the same speed including the air so when I throw the ball, it's the same as if the train wasn't moving. Of course if the train slammed it's brakes on while the ball was heading your way, you'd suddenly see smething rather different happen.

[Robert Andersson]

One comment on something I suspect is part of your misunderstanding.

And then, as the plane left the surface of the ground, it separated from what was its obvious "engine" or "original motion carrying force"

Newton's first law states: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

If you don't agree with that law, please say so, because all our answers will be founded on it.

Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must apply a constant force to keep an object in motion. If we change the laws of nature, Newton's first in this case, so that this is the case, I can begin to understand your culprit. Then, the Earth would need some sort of engine to keep it rotating, and the friction would (probably?) not be enough to keep the atmosphere from dragging behind.

However, all observational evidence says that Newton was right. And in that case the air, the airplane, or whatever, does not need an "engine" to keep it in motion.

[TriangleMan]

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas

Have you ever made a paper airplane? What holds it up?

Better yet, how do kites work? Or parachutes? Or hot air balloons?

[Gary Shelton]

Well, hello Rob. I was sorry to see you leave the other board. As you can see, I did take the plunge onto your turf. Thank you for the introduction you made for me here. I was hoping you would show up. We never did finish this debate.

The numbers of participants on BadAstronomy is enormously greater than Dr. Jones' board, isn't it? And just think. Every one of them is as tenacious as you in attacking me. Well, well. We'll see. I appreciate your efforts to be factual, Rob. The way I figure it, the truth will only get sharper, and we'll all only learn. I the most of all. Everyone here is so much more educated than me, and it is so obvious. The only thing going for me is that I am starting out from the correct worldview, unlike all my attackers.

Anyway, the sheer numbers of people against me here is far worse than the opposite ratio for you on the other board, isn't it? It's going to take awhile to reply to all the points. Eventually, I will just have to limit myself to replying to you, I fear, as I am only one person.

In case you ever see the nice things I wrote about you when you left...I never meant a word of it.

For the benefit of the rest of the board, Gary believes in a geostatic universe, where the Earth is not rotating.

Quite correct, Rob.

Gary, what exactly is your assertion about east/west travel with an aircraft? Are you saying that aircraft can't fly in a moving atmosphere? Or that aircraft don't get their lift from the atmosphere?

The assertion, Rob, is not the fact that the airplane's jet engines propel the plane forward in a relative motion to the earth. That much is agreed upon. The problem comes in with the "original motion" of the plane. You have a belief that a still plane on the ground is travelling as fast as the earth spins (which makes sense in an acentric view), and that as soon as it leaves the ground it will still somehow retain this "original motion" component of its velocity. This is much the same as the rocket flying to the 1st quarter moon issue we hashed out.

There, you were correct because there is nothing in the vacuum of space to drag on the speed of the rocket as it hurls through space (this purely avoiding the aether issue for this argument), and occasionally thrusts here and there to adjust its speed relative both the earth and moon. In other words, the rocket always maintains the "original motion" that it had when it was on the earth, ie., 66,000 mph. We are fine to this point, and agree.

Now, however, does the airplane do the same thing as the rocket ship? When it leaves the ground, does its "original motion" from the spinning earth remain as a constant the entire time it is in the air? My point to you is two-fold. First, there is the question of "drive". Second is the question of "drag".

What "drives" or "powers" or "carries along" the airplane at its original motion speed? With the rocket there was nothing. It just automatically retained what was given to it when it left the earth. There was nothing out in space to slow it down and therefore no extra force was especially needed to maintain this part of the rocket's motion.

But here's the rub. In the atmosphere of earth, the plane does not have a resistance-free environment. Once the plane has left the ground, both the plane's "original motion" and "relative motion" meet immediate resistance. Besides gravity pulling downward, the air resists motion through it. So, therefore, if the jet's engines are carrying the plane forward at 500 mph relative to the earth, what is the "engine" working to maintain the "original motion" that the plane took off with?

Is this clear?

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going?

The thrust from the jet engines or the turboprops? I think you need to define 'original motion' for us here.

The engines of the plane work only to move the plane along "relative" (gosh am I using your word too much?) to the ground. The "original motion" of an object is the speed that thing had when it left contact with a second object it is riding upon.

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas

Have you ever made a paper airplane? What holds it up?

Rob

The thing that holds the plane up is the force which, again, moves the paper airplane along relative to the ground. Of course, it stays aloft due to aerodynamic properties. But, I maintain most resolutely, this same air cannot at the same time "carry" the little paper plane along at the speed the earth is turning, the plane's "original motion". Assuming we are outside with our little plane, it is obviously true the air would yield to the plane's forward hand-thrown thrust. But what property of the air, Rob, would allow the air to both "yield" to the plane yet also "push" or "carry" the little plane along at 600 mph at Chicago's latitude?

[The Bad Astronomer]

Just as an aside, people here tend not to attack other people. They attack those peoples' ideas. That's the way science works. If someone attacks someone else here, they get banned.

[Arena]

In respect to your original motion, wouldn't the plane and air be in rest? The only force the plane need to overcome is gravity and drag(from the planes relative motion to the airs original motion).
I would imagine that the jet-winds airliners use to reduce flight time is a good example (partly anyway) to an offset between the earths motion and the airs 'original' motion. Would be kinda windy if the gases that builds up the atmosphere suddenly stopped rotating along with the earth as son as they left wherever they originated.

I probably dont know what Im talking about, but anyway.

[TrAI]

The thing that holds the plane up is the force which, again, moves the paper airplane along relative to the ground. Of course, it stays aloft due to aerodynamic properties. But, I maintain most resolutely, this same air cannot at the same time "carry" the little paper plane along at the speed the earth is turning, the plane's "original motion". Assuming we are outside with our little plane, it is obviously true the air would yield to the plane's forward hand-thrown thrust. But what property of the air, Rob, would allow the air to both "yield" to the plane yet also "push" or "carry" the little plane along at 600 mph at Chicago's latitude?

Ok, I am not Rob, but I'll try to answer this. The surface of the earth and the atmosphere is moving along at the same speed(To simplify it we just say there is no wind just now), the plane is on the surface getting ready to take of. Before it accelerates it is all ready moving at the same speed as the surface, when it accelerates it applies energy to get a speed in relation to the surface and so also the atmosphere.

Now, it is important to remember that an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon, that is what happens when the plane takes off, it will have a certain speed in relation to the rotational speed of the earth, so if you fly with the rotation, you move the surface speed plus the velocity measured by your instruments if seen by an observer that is not rotating with the earth. If you fly against the rotation, the speed is surface minus the measured, so you move slower, or perhaps even accelerate in the opposite direction as seen by the observer.

So, the plane is already moving when standing on the ground, just not in relation to the surface or atmosphere, but it has to have to move relative to the air to get lift. The energy to change its speed comes from the fuel of course, and the engine does the work of acting against the atmosphere. Since there is some friction/drag against the air, you must continue to apply energy, or sooner or later you will be moving to slow in relation to the air to get adequate lift to keep the craft up, as no speed in relation to the air is the rotational speed of the earth, you are still moving from the observers point of view.

Of course if a wind starts up, energy from the wind will be transferred to the plane, this is like if you were floating along in the water and suddenly a wave washes you up on the beach, some of the waves energy got transferred to you.

[Quartermain]

I smell a troll... butt...

...Assuming we are outside with our little plane, it is obviously true the air would yield to the plane's forward hand-thrown thrust. But what property of the air, Rob, would allow the air to both "yield" to the plane yet also "push" or "carry" the little plane along at 600 mph at Chicago's latitude?

Let's use your example and say the Earth is rotating at 600 mph at your latitude and altitude (yes, altitude is a factor too). You toss a paper airplane from West to East at a velocity of 10 mph. Because both your arm and the paper airplane were already traveling at the rotational velocity of the Earth prior to launch, the velocity of the airplane in flight (10 mph) is combined with its velocity at rest (600 mph). So for the time the plane is aloft and before it succumbs to the forces of friction and gravity it is actually traveling at a speed of 610 mph relative to a rest position framed at the moment you let go of the plane.

This is an example of relative motion and we demonstrated it within a gaseous medium but how do you really see it? How do you know the motion isn't being caused by air currents?

A better example of relative motion would be to use a steel ball because it is less affected by friction and the atmosphere. Fire off two cannon balls (one east, one west) each at a velocity of 600 mph. Using the same factors we used in the airplane example, the cannon ball traveling East has a combined velocity of 1200 mph relative to the rest frame snapped at the moment the cannon balls were fired. Ths is because the imparted motion of the Earth is added to the directional velocity of the cannon ball. So that means that the cannon ball traveling West has a combined real velocity of 0 (zero) mph relative to the same rest frame. Both cannon balls travel exactly the same distance along the ground. But if viewed from the rest frame only the East bound cannon ball has gone anywhere. In either case they both land at exactly the same time. Now you can definitely see the effects of relative motion with something that is very much bound to Earth, not to orbit.

[Gary Shelton]

Dear Robert,

I think my latest reply to Rob Glover tonight makes my position clearer.

I do not deny that aerodynamics provides the factor of lift, yes, and will carry a plane aloft. When a plane is flying along it is obviously employing these factors. My argument centers on the breakdown of what makes up "relative motion". I describe it as having two components. The first is the "original motion". The second is a thing's absolute motion relative to the thing it was riding upon.

[you said] "An object will keep its velocity unless an external force is applied. In the case of a projectile, the forces are gravity and air resistance. You seem to argue that the atmosphere isn't rotating with the Earth, and thus it would apply a force opposite to the rotation of the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support that notion? "

I couldn't agree more, and yes I feel I have evidence. (Please read my post to Rob tonight). Here, it seems you have answered your own point from the first sentence to the second. The air and gravity will both certainly act to slow a projectile. I believe the the atmosphere isn't rotating because to believe so is to necessitate an air that is so tenacious to the ground that our 8000 mile diameter earth cannot shake it, yet I as a mere mortal man can displace it by a wave of the hand or simply breathing it in. Plus, I see the wind "blow". If the air was SO tenaciously adhering to the incredibly speedy ground rotation below it, the air would never do anything but turn with the earth. When would you ever see it waste time dawdling by playfully swirling up leaves and blades of grass?

[you wrote:] "A comparison. The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train (unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with Earth's atmosphere."

Robert, this comparison is not accurate. You are talking about something that sounds plausible, but you are comparing a closed system (the train) going a mere 60 mph to a comparitively open system (the earth and its atmosphere) supposedly turning at 600 mph. Also, any air inside this train is obviously trapped by the FOUR WALLS of the train car (which makes for an obvious container) and is plainly moving the same speed as the train. This air WOULD provide a resistance to the slowing down for a jumping man simply because it is moving. I agree to that much. But the problem here is going to be the inexactness of your metaphor.

Try with me to visualize the air and what kind of thing that it is. Let me try this angle. Let's say the air is turning with the earth as you say. Now we all know there are all sorts of winds. They pop up constantly and in almost random directions. First, what force would cause the air to break from the rotation of the earth? And secondly, what force, do you suppose, would cause all these randomly moving air molecules to re-align themselves with the earth's west to east rotation? Do you not suppose all these various molecules would bump into each other and slow each other down? Wouldn't the air/atmosphere logically, therefore, work itself to a stop? And if so, then what do you have? A turning earth with a freely roaming atmosphere, that's what.

And very high winds, Robert.

That's the best I can do tonight. Please read my post to Rob.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Ut]

The only thing going for me is that I am starting out from the correct worldview, unlike all my attackers.

Now, if that isn't the height of arrogance...

Ok, I'm going to work from two major assumptions here.

1) You believe the Earth to be the centre of the solar system.
2) You believe the Earth to be entirely at rest (rotation free).

Now, I'm going to ask a number of questions.

A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?

B) How do birds fly?

C) What causes the winds?

E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?

F) Explain stellar parallax.

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The nearest galaxies?

[Gary Shelton]

Dear Quartermain,

I'm no troll. I may be provacative. And it could plainly be said to be on purpose. But I don't think my provacativeness is gratuitous enough to warrant that label.

[you wrote:] "Let's use your example and say the Earth is rotating at 600 mph at your latitude and altitude (yes, altitude is a factor too). You toss a paper airplane from West to East at a velocity of 10 mph. Because both your arm and the paper airplane were already traveling at the rotational velocity of the Earth prior to launch, the velocity of the airplane in flight (10 mph) is combined with its velocity at rest (600 mph). So for the time the plane is aloft and before it succumbs to the forces of friction and gravity it is actually traveling at a speed of 610 mph relative to a rest position framed at the moment you let go of the plane."

This is a very good example, Quartermain. I disagree with only one point. When you say that the plane is travelling at 610 mph while it is aloft, I would immediately tell you that you are assuming a resistance-free environment for the plane's "original motion" of 600 mph. Now in a vacuum such as between planets (assuming space is a vacuum for the argument) this "original motion" of the plane/rocket would indeed be maintained. But you cannot ignore the factor of the air and how it acts on the original motion of the paper airplane you threw, which, at the point of release was going the same speed as the turning earth. But for how long was this speed maintained? Obviously a paper airplane is short-term example. That's why I refer to airplanes instead.

[you wrote:] "Ths is because the imparted motion of the Earth is added to the directional velocity of the cannon ball."

Quartermain, this would be accurate if there were no resistance to the original motion "imparted" as you say by the earth to the cannonball. But how can you not see that the air provides resistance to both the original motion component of the cannonball, and its fired velocity relative to the earth?

A vacuum offers no resistance, but the air does.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Gary Shelton]

Dear Phantom Wolf,

As I told Robert Andersson, this train example is really a problem-filled and inexact metaphor. Please see the post reply I made to him.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Gary Shelton]

Dear TrAI,

[you wrote:] "Now, it is important to remember that an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon, that is what happens when the plane takes off, it will have a certain speed in relation to the rotational speed of the earth, so if you fly with the rotation, you move the surface speed plus the velocity measured by your instruments if seen by an observer that is not rotating with the earth."

Yes, TrAI, an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon. I couldn't agree more. Newton was a fine man. And that is precisely what must happen when the plane leaves the ground. A force of resistance, the air, will act upon the plane. When the plane is on the ground it maintains the exact turning speed of the earth below it. Once it leaves this "propulsion" by taking off the ground, it immediately loses this "propulsion" because the air acts as resistance to both the "original motion" of the plane at the point of take off (rotational speed of the earth), as well as the forward thrusting speed relative to the earth due to its engines.

You state the case for the airplane very well, TrAI, if we were talking about an environment where there is no resistance to the "original motion" component of the plane's speed. Of course, the air does provide resistance. And it provides it to both the original motion (earth's rotational speed at point of take-off) and the self-propelled speed born out by its engine thrust relative to the ground.

What kind of thing is the air, TrAI? Think about that. And please read my other posts tonight. Thank you,

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Gary Shelton]

Hello again, Robert,

[you wrote:] "Newton's first law states: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

"If you don't agree with that law, please say so, because all our answers will be founded on it."

"Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must apply a constant force to keep an object in motion."

Robert, I do agree with what you say. I just say that there is a difference between a vacuum and a medium like the air, and the way you are applying Newton's law. In space, a thing's motion could be said to go on forever, as there is nothing to resist it. (ignoring aether for the sake of argument here) In the atmosphere, though, we not only have gravity pulling downward, we have atmospheric resistance. And this resistance MUST act on both components of a plane's motion through the air. That is, its original motion from the earth's rotation at the point of take-off, and it's thrusted speed forward due to its engines.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Gary Shelton]

Dear Ut,

Yes, I showed my arrogance. I am a bit arrogant, you're right. And I'm more than a bit ignorant. Ignorant of all of what you and the others at this forum are going to impart to me. I'm no Phd. I don't even have a master's degree. I do have a 4 year degree in Business, which was of questionable value anyway. But I certainly can and will learn a lot of things here.

Please teach away if you feel so inclined. I would welcome it. Dutifully, I will study and absorb what you have to say and then give you my response. Yes, I have my pre-conceived opinions but they have been built one brick at a time, like anyone else's . The best way to change my mind is to take down one brick at a time, not disparage me for my positional bias.

Let's work on one brick at a time, okay?

Since you asked me for my answers to your post, here is what I know:

[you asked the following questions. my replies are after each:]

A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?

I talked to a pilot instructor the other day who told me it matters not if a
plane flies on a north/south longitudinal line. And I know of a Smithsonian article which claims the strength of this "effect" is 30 million times weaker than gravity. If these things are so, I wonder what bother we should make about this force.

B) How do birds fly?

I know they are creatures designed with hollow bones, but as to all the features of their anatomy, I couldn't say. I do know that birds are amazing when they fly in large groups and all turn simultaneously. That is a wondrous thing, isn't it?

C) What causes the winds?

Well, now this is one a little more in my corner. I would say that the wind is moving air. As to what causes it, I do have Bible reference for you. Ecclesiastes 1:6 KJV states "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." So, my short answer is that the cause of the winds is "his circuits". Now this answer may not satisfy scientifically, and I don't expect it to do so, but it does touch upon "why?". All I've ever heard science tell me is "how", which is quite qualitatively different. For what it is worth to you this verse shows that, Biblically speaking, the wind is most definitely precluded from turning only west to east with a rotating earth.

E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?

This is a misunderstanding of what I have posted. The best and easiest thing for me to say is please read the posts I have made tonight. I don't mean to short you but I have answered several posts tonight and I have addressed this subject more than once.

F) Explain stellar parallax. Thank you for bringing this particular topic up. This is an area I am weak in. I would love to know what you think. I have heard from some that it is positive proof for acentricity, from some that it proves geocentism. My question to you would be, do you think that the effect can be explained in either worldview?

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The nearest galaxies?

These, as you may be aware, are under direct scrutiny by many geocentrists. Infinite stellar distances are required by evolutionary, acentric thinking, but certainly not for a geocentric universe. I do know that Dr. Neville Jones of Scotland is a strong proponent of a much smaller than commonly taught universe. Beyond this I am not qualified to say.

Thank You, Ut, for your response to my original post.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[Ut]

A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?

I talked to a pilot instructor the other day who told me it matters not if a
plane flies on a north/south longitudinal line. And I know of a Smithsonian article which claims the strength of this "effect" is 30 million times weaker than gravity. If these things are so, I wonder what bother we should make about this force.

Since it's topical at the moment, I have to ask, if not the coriolis effect, what causes a hurricane to spin? These are the scales on which the effect is seen.

B) How do birds fly?

I know they are creatures designed with hollow bones, but as to all the features of their anatomy, I couldn't say. I do know that birds are amazing when they fly in large groups and all turn simultaneously. That is a wondrous thing, isn't it?

A touching non-answer if I've ever seen one. I typed up my post long before you started on your replies, but went abscent for some time before submitting. So, I'll assume you addressed this with the airplane questions asked by others. I'll do my share of the reading in the morning.

C) What causes the winds?

Well, now this is one a little more in my corner. I would say that the wind is moving air. As to what causes it, I do have Bible reference for you. Ecclesiastes 1:6 KJV states "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." So, my short answer is that the cause of the winds is "his circuits". Now this answer may not satisfy scientifically, and I don't expect it to do so, but it does touch upon "why?". All I've ever heard science tell me is "how", which is quite qualitatively different. For what it is worth to you this verse shows that, Biblically speaking, the wind is most definitely precluded from turning only west to east with a rotating earth.

I'm afraid this is a scientific board, where religious discussion is a faux pas, so I think you should seek a less spiritual answer to this question.

This has less to do with the spinning of the Earth and more to do with trying to see how you think fluids interact with solids.

E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?

This is a misunderstanding of what I have posted. The best and easiest thing for me to say is please read the posts I have made tonight. I don't mean to short you but I have answered several posts tonight and I have addressed this subject more than once.

Check.

F) Explain stellar parallax. Thank you for bringing this particular topic up. This is an area I am weak in. I would love to know what you think. I have heard from some that it is positive proof for acentricity, from some that it proves geocentism. My question to you would be, do you think that the effect can be explained in either worldview?

Parallax is the effect of seeing something from two different sides depending on the angle at which you view it. Ok, that's a really shotty definition, I know, but it's late...

Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, if you look at a stationary object from one position, and then move to another position, it will look different. The distance you are from this object determines how much different it looks when you move. Look at a nearby tree, and then step thirty feet to the right, and you'll see the tree from an entirely different perspective. Look at a distant mountain and move the same thirty feet, and it will look idential.

The stars exhibit parallax. The nearer ones appear to move relative to the the farther ones. They sort of shift back and forth on the background sky every six months. I can't prove that too you at the moment, but I will ask that you, for now, assume it to be the absolute truth.

Now, in the stationary Earth paradigm, what causes these cyclical shifts in stellar positions? I want you to actually think of an answer. If the Earth isn't moving, what could possibly cause this effect?

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The nearest galaxies?

These, as you may be aware, are under direct scrutiny by many geocentrists. Infinite stellar distances are required by evolutionary, acentric thinking, but certainly not for a geocentric universe. I do know that Dr. Neville Jones of Scotland is a strong proponent of a much smaller than commonly taught universe. Beyond this I am not qualified to say.

You're as qualified as you need to be.

Infinite distances are not needed in the heliocentric model. Just very large ones. And these large distances are needed to explain why stellar parallax is so small.

And I asked this question because I'm honestly curious as to what sort of scale you think the universe is at.

Basically, I need to know what you're thinking in order to discuss it with you.

[mid]

Oh no. Here I was thinking Gary was a genuinely interested person in the other thread, when in fact we're playing the 'create multiple threads and play whack-a-mole' game.

[mid]

Since I've now no idea which thread you're bothering to read, I'll ask here as well. Even if your ideas on the nature of fluid dynamics, Newtonian mechanics and the non-existence of viscosity were correct, how do they help your Geocentrist cause when they equally apply to the atmosphere of every other planet?

[TrAI]

Yes, TrAI, an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon. I couldn't agree more. Newton was a fine man. And that is precisely what must happen when the plane leaves the ground. A force of resistance, the air, will act upon the plane. When the plane is on the ground it maintains the exact turning speed of the earth below it. Once it leaves this "propulsion" by taking off the ground, it immediately loses this "propulsion" because the air acts as resistance to both the "original motion" of the plane at the point of take off (rotational speed of the earth), as well as the forward thrusting speed relative to the earth due to its engines.

Since the air is moving at the same speed as the surface, you get no resistance to the movement "gained" from the surface speed...

You state the case for the airplane very well, TrAI, if we were talking about an environment where there is no resistance to the "original motion" component of the plane's speed. Of course, the air does provide resistance. And it provides it to both the original motion (earth's rotational speed at point of take-off) and the self-propelled speed born out by its engine thrust relative to the ground.

What kind of thing is the air, TrAI? Think about that. And please read my other posts tonight.

Hmmm, the air is a mixture of gases. A gas is quite like a thin fluid in its dynamics. Since it is moving at the same speed as the surface, it will offer resistance to anything moving at any other speed or vector, until that object is moving at the same speed as the air; objects tend to balance their energy levels with the surrounding environment. The engine on your plane is used to maintain your speed relative to the air.

[Yorkshireman]

If the other thread is concentrating on the turning atmosphere, this thread is concentrating on the effect of a turning atmosphere and a turning Earth on flight.

OK Gary, I think I understand your issue now. Let's recap:
Newton's first law: Tick.
The dynamics of airplane lift and drag: Tick.
The atmosphere is a fluid: tick.
Relative motions of the plane and the surface of the Earth: Tick.

You issue then is when the plane is aloft, why does it not slow down to being a velocity relative to some stationary reference point, while the Earth continues to turn below it. You expect, I gather, that on a turning Earth, the plane takes off with it's own airspeed - say 500mph for the sake of argument - and added to the 600mph roatation of the Earth at that point, has a total velocity, relative to a fixed reference point, of 1100mph. But you then expect that the plane will encounter resistance such that it's velocity will be forced down to 500mph relative to that fixed reference point - in effect, it will encounter such resistance that it will end up doing 100mph backwards relative to the ground, with it's engines still on full power.

Now why do you expect this result? Why do you expect such a resistive force?

The resistance comes from the atmosphere and is proportional to the airspeed (actually the square of the airspeed, but let's not split hairs). So if the plane takes off into a quet, wind-free morning, it will rise into the sky with an airspeed of 500mph. If it then encounters a high-altitude headwind of 100mph - the pilot will need a change of trousers - but also the plane will find it's airspeed remains at 500mph, but it's speed relative to the ground will be reduced to 400mph - and it's speed relative to the fixed reference, to be reduced to 1000mph.

To have it's speed relative to the fixed reference reduced to 500mph, i.e. all it's 'original motion' cancelled out, it would need to encounter a headwind of 600mph, and the pilot will probably have bailed out, but let's keep going. In that circumstance, the plane will have an airspeed of 500mph, a relative ground speed of 100mph backwards, and a relative speed to the fixed reference of 500mph.

Following so far?

So you seem to be expecting the plane to encounter a headwind of 600mph as soon as it gets aloft.

In other words, you expect the atmosphere not to be turning with the Earth.

If the atmosphere is turning with the Earth, this argument is negated.

The atmosphere is turning with the Earth. (See other thread).

So I win.

Edit: typos (I told you I did lots of them).

[PhantomWolf]

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The nearest galaxies?

These, as you may be aware, are under direct scrutiny by many geocentrists. Infinite stellar distances are required by evolutionary, acentric thinking, but certainly not for a geocentric universe. I do know that Dr. Neville Jones of Scotland is a strong proponent of a much smaller than commonly taught universe. Beyond this I am not qualified to say.

I thought that perhaps we should have a little look at this.

Okay. If we assume that you re right Gary, then the stars and planets we see -MUST- spin at very high speeds about the earth, it's the only way that what we see could occur other than from a rotating Earth.

Now we know that nothing can travel faster then light in a vaccum, and that, that speed is 299,792,458 m/s.

This gives us an upper limit for the edge of the universe, a sphere which has an equator equal to the distance light can travel in one day (because nothing can travel faster than that.)

So how far is that?

299,792,458 m/s x (60 x 60 x 24)s = 25,902,068,371,200m

Okay so now we can work out where that is. Remember that a circle's circumference is 2πr so we know that r=d/2π or:

25,902,068,371,200m / 2 x 3.1415

which equals

4,122,442,218km

So how far is 4.1 Billion Kilometres?

Well classic science puts it within Neptune's Orbit which is 4.5 Billion Kilometres.


As you can see, Geocentric science very quickly means throwing out everything we have in physics. Either the universe is really, really small, or the theory that nothing can travel faster then light in a vacuum is wrong. If it is small, then everything we understand about optics is wrong, as is our understanding of Super Nova and more. It also means that there is a huge conspiracy in the space industry of all the space going nations to hide this all. As you can see, once you start trying to apply a Geocentric and non-rotating Earth idea to the universe you either hve to redefine the entirety of physics as we know it, or the idea very quickly falls apart on you.

[Taibak]

the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas

Have you ever made a paper airplane? What holds it up?

Better yet, how do kites work? Or parachutes? Or hot air balloons?

Or, even better, sailboats. Humans have only been using them for about 6000 years, so I'd say they're well-tested.

[Gary Shelton]

To everyone, I apologize for attending more to this thread than the other one I started. The fault is that I am so new to your board and how it works that I began two threads when I should have stayed with one. There is certainly enough for me to reply to with just this one thread. I will go to the other one when I'm done here, though.

Now Rob,

[you wrote:] "You expect, I gather, that on a turning Earth, the plane takes off with it's own airspeed - say 500mph for the sake of argument - and added to the 600mph roatation of the Earth at that point, has a total velocity, relative to a fixed reference point, of 1100mph."

To be clear here we need to state the direction of this example plane is west to east.

[you wrote:] "But you then expect that the plane will encounter resistance such that it's velocity will be forced down to 500mph relative to that fixed reference point - in effect, it will encounter such resistance that it will end up doing 100mph backwards relative to the ground, with it's engines still on full power.

"Now why do you expect this result? Why do you expect such a resistive force?"

Rob, I expect it for two reasons. The nature of the air and the nature of this relative motion you originally presented to me. The air is a gas, Rob, and can only have the fluid properties of a gas. It cannot be possessing of both fluid properties and solid properties simultaneously. It would have to be an equal-opportunity resist-er, or equal-opportunity push-er. It couldn't be both at the same time.

This is a hard one to wrap around, I admit. Let me return to the rocket for a moment.

Now, when you bring up relative motion, we do agree that if it is in a vacuum things work like you say they do. That is, we agree that if a rocket ship is flying through space, then no resistance is offered to the craft and it therefore retains the original motion of the 66,000 mph earth it was on, plus whatever thrusted engine speed it is travelling. What I am trying to clarify here is that if, in the case of the rocket, something were out there providing a small drag to it (eg., possibly an aether?), then obviously the rocket, without any engine propulsion of its own, would eventually come to a complete stop, right? Thus you would see, after a period of time, the original motion of the rocket ship completely eradicated by the drag. And isn't it just as obvious that this hypothetical space "drag" would slow down the rocket ship's thrusted engine speed as well? Ergo, the resistance works on both components of the relative motion of the space craft.

Well, you don't have a much different example for the air, and it is a definite drag from the get go. You are telling me, Rob, that a plane which has original motion from the earth's turning will retain that alleged motion despite the plain fact that the air should resist both it and the thrusted speed. Now, you might say perhaps, that the air is turning with the earth and thus providing the "propulsion" for the airplane's original motion. Fine. But now we are back to the nature of the air.

How does the plane, at once and the same time, Rob, cut through this air as if it were a gas and also receive the "pushing" of the air from behind? Also, keep this in mind: the jets on the plane suck air from the front and propel it backwards. So what is the nature of the air that allows it be both "pushed by" and "to push" the airplane?

This relative motion issue is intimately connected with the nature of the atmosphere issue.

[you wrote:] "The resistance comes from the atmosphere and is proportional to the airspeed (actually the square of the airspeed, but let's not split hairs). So if the plane takes off into a quet, wind-free morning, it will rise into the sky with an airspeed of 500mph. If it then encounters a high-altitude headwind of 100mph - the pilot will need a change of trousers - but also the plane will find it's airspeed remains at 500mph, but it's speed relative to the ground will be reduced to 400mph - and it's speed relative to the fixed reference, to be reduced to 1000mph."

Rob, first of all, a small point. I asked a pilot instructor about this so I would know. If you have a 500 mph, or knots ph, airspeed, then that is your airspeed. Your airspeed is the measure of how much air is swarming over the wings. On the airspeed guage in your example, the plane's guage would be registering 400 kph with the 100 kph headwind you postulate. For all intents and purposes, the airspeed is the ground speed.

I really want to concentrate on your last line there again.

[you wrote:] "- and it's speed relative to the fixed reference, to be reduced to 1000mph."

Rob, what is "driving" the airplane along at the original motion speed?

[you wrote:] "To have it's speed relative to the fixed reference reduced to 500mph, i.e. all it's 'original motion' cancelled out, it would need to encounter a headwind of 600mph..."

Rob, good one. It sounds plausible. But remember, I said "after a period of time". You wouldn't have to have a 600 mph headwind resistance. That would kill it all at once. Any kind of modest headwind, or no headwind at all, just the air itself, would "after a period of time" stop the plane's original motion.

[you wrote:] "In other words, you expect the atmosphere not to be turning with the Earth."

You nailed it, Rob.

[you wrote:] "If the atmosphere is turning with the Earth, this argument is negated."

"The atmosphere is turning with the Earth. (See other thread)."

"So I win. "

Wow, Rob, the last time we were discussing the chessboard, you said your king was not yet checkmated and that he was standing proudly in his corner. Guess your confidence today is due to blinders, friend. Look this way. I have two rooks, a bishop, and my queen all bearing down on your king and four pawns.

[Gary Shelton]

Arena,

In respect to your original motion, wouldn't the plane and air be in rest?

Please see my other posts, especially to Rob (Yorkshireman). But, yes, they would be at relative rest to each other and the ground (while on the ground).

What drives the plane at its original motion speed, Arena, once it has left the ground? The engines provide thrust to carry the plane forward relative to the ground, but what propels the plane at this "original motion" speed once it has left its engine (the ground)?

Would be kinda windy if the gases that builds up the atmosphere suddenly stopped rotating along with the earth as son as they left wherever they originated.

Yes, you're right about the winds. That is why all acentrists MUST have the air/atmosphere both spinning with the earth and possessing of the dual nature of both a gas and a solid.

I probably dont know what Im talking about, but anyway

If any of us really was an expert, we'd write a book, right? Please keep along with this argument of mine. It is very easy to understand, and absolutely proves the earth is not rotating as we have been taught.

Sincerely,

Gary

[Gary Shelton]

Better yet, how do kites work? Or parachutes? Or hot air balloons?

Hello Taibak,

Please see my other posts, especially the ones to Rob Glover.

In a nutshell, what I would say to you concerns the nature of the air. Quite simply, if you say that it blows, and can therefore "push" original motion, then what I need to make you understand is that this wind illustrates that it is not connected to the earth in anyway. Therefore, the mere fact you have mentioned wind should open and close my case for the air proving the earth does not rotate. If the air had to turn with the earth, as all acentrists seem to at least agree, then it wouldn't have time to waste blowing a sailboat around here and there.

The earth is allegedly spinning at 600 mph or 880 feet per second where I live. The air would out of necessity have to just stick to its job of simply turning with the earth. You would never see the wind "blow" on a turning planet with this understanding of the air. The air would be too busy turning. It would have to mind its job.

Unfortunately, there is only one other option. The air freely roams across the ground and takes time "according to his circuits" (Eccl 1:6) to blow around sailboats and leaves on trees and everything else.

I do like the metaphor of a ball bearing turning in oil for the earth and its atmosphere. It's the best one I can think of.

Thanks for commenting. This is a good ride. Stick with it.

Gary

[Gary Shelton]

As you can see, Geocentric science very quickly means throwing out everything.... Either the universe is really, really small, or the theory that nothing can travel faster then light in a vacuum is wrong.

Hello PhantomWolf,

I think with the above I have made your words describe the situation fairly well. I don't think we have to throw out everything, though, only the bias that all of the time the other explanation, the one which covers all the bases but which calls for a Creator, is un-considerable.

I am no astrophysicist, but I have heard Phd's debate the truth of the assertion that nothing can exceed "c". Therefore, I know this Einsteinian principle of an absolute speed of light is definitely up for scrutiny.

I am a simple guy, PW. I only wish to show the earth cannot be rotating, from a simple logical approach anyone can follow. Because once the rotation of the earth is disproven, anything that has to happen out there in space will automatically be figured out by much smarter people than I.

Thanks for your comments. Please read my other posts, especially to Rob Glover.

Sincerely,

Gary

[Rich]

Now, when you bring up relative motion, we do agree that if it is in a vacuum things work like you say they do. That is, we agree that if a rocket ship is flying through space, then no resistance is offered to the craft and it therefore retains the original motion of the 66,000 mph earth it was on, plus whatever thrusted engine speed it is travelling. What I am trying to clarify here is that if, in the case of the rocket, something were out there providing a small drag to it (eg., possibly an aether?), then obviously the rocket, without any engine propulsion of its own, would eventually come to a complete stop, right?

Yes, the rocket would come to a complete stop after some time period depending the initial velocity of the body and the resistance provided by the fluid it is moving through.

Thus you would see, after a period of time, the original motion of the rocket ship completely eradicated by the drag. And isn't it just as obvious that this hypothetical space "drag" would slow down the rocket ship's thrusted engine speed as well?

Only if the rocket's engine was reduced to an output that did not match or exceed the force of drag/resistance.

Ergo, the resistance works on both components of the relative motion of the space craft.

See above. There is something else quite wrong with this statement, but I can't put the tip of my mind right on it. Hopefully one of the folks more knowledgeable than me can comment.

Well, you don't have a much different example for the air, and it is a definite drag from the get go.

Actually the two examples are quite different. In your example the "aether" through which your rocket ship flies is at some sort of rest in relation to the rest of the universe. Since the atmosphere moves along with the surface of the earth it has the same apparent velocity. Instead of a plane imagine a perfectly neutral bouyancy balloon, one who's temperature, etc. are perfect to keep it in place in an air column and exactly balanced against gravity - neither rising nor falling.

An observer outside the earth's atmosphere who's motion is at rest (in relation to the rest of the solar system) would see the balloon floating along at the speed of the earth's rotation. If I come along and give it a shove that adds 5mph to it's motion in the direction of the earth's spin, to our outside observer, it will appear to move at the speed of the earth's rotation +5mph. Friction against the atmosphere will quickly slow it back down to "stationary". Again, if I strap a motor on that bad balloon it will appear to travel at the velocity of the earth plus the extra velocity imparted by the motor, so long as that extra velocity exceeds the resistance of friction.

At no point would resistance result in the balloon losing speed in relation to the airmass at which it appears to be at rest in. If that were so it would appear to the outside observer that it was actually accelerating without any additional energy!!! [Edit to add: From the position of the neutral observer at mythical "rest" is would seem to accelerate in the opposite direction of the earth's spin... if your theory were valid. You might say that it is "decelerating" or something but the result is the same.] This is not a small point. Friction can not impart energy to an object. If air provided resistance through friction in the way you describe a perfect vertical jump would result in lateral movement due to "air resistance" imparting energy to me in a certain direction. Again, friction can not impart energy to an object.

You are telling me, Rob, that a plane which has original motion from the earth's turning will retain that alleged motion despite the plain fact that the air should resist both it and the thrusted speed.

The air can only resist due to friction if there is a difference in velocities. If the plane and the air mass are both moving at 1000mph when they start there is no resistance from that relative perspective. Resistance from friction between to object at rest relative to one another is, for the purposes of this discussion, non-existant.

Now, you might say perhaps, that the air is turning with the earth and thus providing the "propulsion" for the airplane's original motion. Fine. But now we are back to the nature of the air.

Huh?

How does the plane, at once and the same time, Rob, cut through this air as if it were a gas and also receive the "pushing" of the air from behind? Also, keep this in mind: the jets on the plane suck air from the front and propel it backwards. So what is the nature of the air that allows it be both "pushed by" and "to push" the airplane?

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of relative motion and fluid dynamics. The atmosphere isn't "pushing" the plane along at 1000mph... they are both moving together at 1000mph. This is the initial velocity of the plane and the atmosphere both. The air no more "pushes" the plane than it pushed my balloon from above. Do not confuse this motion by any additional velocity imparted by things like a tail or headwind which are caused by other processes. An aircraft may gain or lose momentum from the "pushing action" of the wind much as a boat with no sail in a current.

In fact, this is a good analogy. A boat sitting on the ocean at the equator will appear to our outside observer to move at the same velocity as the motion of the earth, plus or minus and additional energy imparted by an engine and a current the boat my ride in. Such a current, if the observer could "see" it, would also appear to move at speeds all relative to the motion of the earth.

I'm having a really tough time following the logic in the rest of your post to Rob. From what I can tell you keep confusing relative motion, imparted velocities, and additional velocities from a relative perspective. I've tried to give a couple of examples above that might help clear it up, but admit again that I am not as knowledgeable as a lot of the other folks here... on these issues. I'll stop here for the moment and see what your responses are and what others might have to add.