A proof for the Stationary Earth

[Roy]

You can check the equations at the Geosynchronous Orbit (Math) link for yourself and see there is no velocity component for the motions of the earth and satellite around the sun.

That site is for Kerbal Space Program!

[oxmixmudd]

That site is for Kerbal Space Program!

BTW, since John can't understand or even be educated regarding the relative magnitude of the gradual shift in relative velocity of the rotating atmosphere as compared to other flight factors, it would be reasonable to add 'relative magnitude' to John's 'does not understand' list, if it is not there already.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

All spoken like a true believer. Keep the faith.

Bye the way you've contradicted Newtonian mechanics where you say "Gravity waves propagate at c". Keep up the eclectic world of physics maths and maths physics that proves nothing and assumes much.

JM

Gravity waves have been detected, though I doubt you'd acknowledge it.

LIGO detects gravity waves from black hole merger

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Another faith based claim.



The barycenter is yet another maths fiction within the faith based world of Newtonian physics, which does not exist within the faith based world of relativistic maths/physics.
Keep believing and keep ignoring all the logical problems created by these maths fictions.

JM

Wrong again, if not in technical correctness, certainly by implication. oh great "Keeper of Errors and Master of Bifurcation". Newtonian physics itself is a less accurate representation of the physics of the Universe, but it is also simpler and easier to use than the more accurate Theory of Relativity. The concept of a Barycenter exists in both, but the precise behavior of a barycenter, at high velocities or significant mass densities, is not accurately described by Newton's theory, though it is by Einstein's theory.

IOW,

(1) Newton vs Einstein is only 'right' vs 'wrong' in the mind of those incapable of understanding their actual relationship and the process of scientific discovery.
(2) The concept of a Barycenter exists in both.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Newtonian free fall is defined as -



Counter - Newtonian Mechanics assumes gravity is caused by a mass attraction, instantaneously over any distance. Unsolvable problems

1) The mass attraction is assumed, but the cause of such mass attraction has no experimental basis. As such mass attraction is an unscientific, non experiment based, maths fiction.

2) The force caused by mass attraction occurs without a medium between bodies. To cause without a medium between bodies is absurd.

3) The force caused by mass attraction occurs instantaneously. Such instantaneous causation has no known physical model, nor no known experimental verification, nor no known idealized mechanism.

The problems with NM make the free fall definition a science fantasy.

Also -

Relativistic free fall is defined as -



Counter - Relativistic Physics is only based upon a thought experiment which has the following problems

1) The S-T continuum is merely a maths construct which assumes a Cartesian co-ordinate system along with an extra variable, t. The extra variable t is merely a fictional variable imposed along with variables of x, y, z. The S-T maths requires its believers to have faith that x, y, z as lengths, are some how associated with another variable, t, which is not a length. Such a system is merely a maths based belief system.

2) The variable t is placed within the system to ensure light is always at c. Such a system assumes what must be proven and is therefore fallacious. Subsequent experiments that purport to provide evidence for light at c whilst using R theory are also fallacious, by assuming the theory is true with its variable value of t, and using the maths of R in the experiment.

3) The R theory assumes from a thought experiment that lengths contract in the direction in which a body moves. Such an assumption is merely the projection of a thought experiment into reality. In reality, bodies always remain the same length when in motion.

4) R theory requires mass change when a body moves. Such mass change is merely a maths fiction, which requires its adherents to make an act of faith.


Also we note free fall is defined in diverse manners in diverse theories. The diverse theories indicate that free fall is really only a maths fiction, and as such does not explain reality. As free fall does not explain reality, then free fall does not explain the problems associated with the geo orbits.

As such, the geo orbit claims and geo orbit maths are all false. As usual, the mainstream physics is simply crap dressed up as maths.

JM

so MANY errors in just one post. My oh My.

[JohnMartin]

Is that 29932 a random number?

Distance from Sydney to Singapore is 6311 km

Max speed of an F 18 Hornet fighter jet is 1,915 km/hr.

Approximate flight time from Sydney to Singapore is 6311/1,915 km/h = 3.30 hrs

The rotation W-E velocity difference between Sydney to Singapore is 277km/hr.

Average acceleration caused by the atmosphere on the Hornet is

277,000/(3.30x3600) = 14.38 m/s^2

The Hornet’s mass is about 16,800 kg

Force = 16,800 x 14.38 = 241.58 kN

JM

[JohnMartin]

Gravity waves have been detected, though I doubt you'd acknowledge it.

LIGO detects gravity waves from black hole merger

Jim

Lets say they have done as you say. G Waves invalidate NM, because there is no time required for G to act throughout the universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

so MANY errors in just one post. My oh My.

Jim has nothing downstairs either.

JM

[JohnMartin]

That site is for Kerbal Space Program!

The same problem is found here at the physics class room. The earths motion is not included in the calcs.

JM

[JohnMartin]

BTW, since John can't understand or even be educated regarding the relative magnitude of the gradual shift in relative velocity of the rotating atmosphere as compared to other flight factors, it would be reasonable to add 'relative magnitude' to John's 'does not understand' list, if it is not there already.


Jim

You can add failure to engage an argument to your list.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Wrong again, if not in technical correctness, certainly by implication. oh great "Keeper of Errors and Master of Bifurcation". Newtonian physics itself is a less accurate representation of the physics of the Universe, but it is also simpler and easier to use than the more accurate Theory of Relativity. The concept of a Barycenter exists in both, but the precise behavior of a barycenter, at high velocities or significant mass densities, is not accurately described by Newton's theory, though it is by Einstein's theory.

IOW,

(1) Newton vs Einstein is only 'right' vs 'wrong' in the mind of those incapable of understanding their actual relationship and the process of scientific discovery.
(2) The concept of a Barycenter exists in both.

Jim

And both are fictional.

JM

[Sparko]

Distance from Sydney to Singapore is 6311 km

Max speed of an F 18 Hornet fighter jet is 1,915 km/hr.

Approximate flight time from Sydney to Singapore is 6311/1,915 km/h = 3.30 hrs

The rotation W-E velocity difference between Sydney to Singapore is 277km/hr.

Average acceleration caused by the atmosphere on the Hornet is

277,000/(3.30x3600) = 14.38 m/s^2

The Hornet’s mass is about 16,800 kg

Force = 29,932 x 14.38 = 430.4 kN

Hornet surface area facing the W-E atmosphere rotation = is very roughly 17 x 2 (body) + 4 (tail) = 38 m^2

Pressure caused by W-E atmosphere motion against the Hornet fuselage = 430/38 = 11.32 kPa

The pressure on the W side of the S-N flying hornet would induce an air flow over the Hornets fuselage, causing and eddy on the E side of the Hornet. Similarly, a N-S flying Hornet would experience and eddy on the W side of the fuselage. Such eddies would also cause a negative pressure on one side of the Hornet, in opposition to the 11.32 kPa.

The pressure could be measured and the eddies observed and should be accounted for in the design of the jet. I’m betting the eddies are not observed in flight and are not taken into account when designing the jet and no pressure is ever measured on the side of the Hornet fuselage that matches that required of the moving earth model. Furthermore, the positive and negative pressures on the Hornet would make the jet difficult to design, simply because of the stresses induced by both positive and negative pressures acting on the fuselage.

If it is claimed that such pressure is not measured, because it does not exist, then the jet never accelerates the 277km/hr required between Sydney to Singapore due to the atmosphere acting against the Hornet. Such acceleration must then be caused by another means. What then is the cause of the required acceleration if the pressure is not measured, nor designed for in the Hornet?



JM

Now the 747 became a hornet?

Okaaaay....

John, if something is moving with the atmosphere, then there IS no pressure being felt by the object. You only feel pressure if there is a speed difference. Like the pressure felt on the plane in the direction it is traveling. The rotational direction has no pressure because the plane is moving at the same speed rotationally as the atmosphere. It is embedded in the atmosphere. If there is a 5 MPH tail wind and you are walking 5MPH in the direction of the wind, guess what? You would feel no wind.

[Sparko]

Which means there must be an air pressure on one side of the jet, that is not on the other side of the jet. This air pressure is never measured, nor used in design of the jet. You think otherwise? Prove me wrong. Wind tunnels for models only have wind acting from front to back and never to the side in imitating this rotating atmosphere model which you espouse.

JM

When a boat is floating down a river with the current, how much pressure do you think you would measure pushing on the boat? NONE because the boat is moving at the same speed as the water. as far as relative velocity goes, there is none. If the boat is being carried sideways by the current it only feels the pressure if it is starting out at a different speed and being carried up to the speed of the current, once their speeds are the same, then there is no difference in pressure on the hull. No eddy currents. If the current changes speed gradually, then the boat being carried along with it, will change speed gradually too and will not feel any pressure. The only pressure felt would be if the boats engines are pushing it forward. Then there would be pressure at the bow and eddies at the stern, but there still would be no pressure or eddies on the sides where the current is carrying the boat.

now a plane starts out with having the same rotational speed as the atmosphere so there is no current felt. And once in the air, the sideways current of the air keeps moving the plane with it (along with gravity) and so when the atmosphere speeds up or slows down with the ground speed, so does the plane and there is no differential pressure felt. The rotational current can be ignored as far as aerodynamics is concerned.

A fifth grader could have told you that, John.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim has nothing downstairs either.

JM

I see ... pulling a "Trump" on us John?

[Sparko]

I don't have to. The pressure of exerted by the change in velocity is so small it simply is not a factor that needs to be accounted for. Yes, in a perfect airplane (one that could fly perfectly true in one direction in a control and thrust neutral configuration at a perfect constant altitude in a completely still atmosphere where the only 'wind' was that induced by the atmospheric latitude based velocity change), a pilot might notice he arrived a tad off course because the airplane itself did not lose all of its W-E momentum during the journey. But that just isn't reality. The pilot must adjust for all sorts of atmospheric and aerodynamic inconsistencies, with the control adjustments made purely and simply so that the course across the land is correct relative to that required to fly the great circle arc from point A to point B that is the shortest route.

It's just like when you drive a car John. You don't care about the fact your car can only drive straight for 200 yards with your hand off the steering wheel, you just look down the road and turn the wheel by whatever amount is required to keep you on the road and between the lines.

err... you do know who to drive a car - right John?


Jim

And if he drove from Italy to London, he would not have to compensate for the change in W-E wind speed or get blown off the road, because his car would be changing it's W-E speed along with the air and the ground as he drove because of friction. Same thing with the air plane. I think John gets it, but wants to play dumb.