A proof for the Stationary Earth

[JohnMartin]

I know, we really shouldn't be engaging with dullards like you but it's entertaining waiting for your next really stupid excuse.

Hey Moonbat, when you accidentally knock a cup off your kitchen counter what force makes it fall straight down to the floor?

I'd prefer if you didn't engage me at all.

JM

[rogue06]

JohnMartin...you are aware, are you not, that LPOT works on military planes?

That just means she's part of the government conspiracy to hide da Trooth

[Roy]

If there is no force from the atmosphere acting on the S-N plane, then the plane must be always guided by the pilot to move W-E with the atmosphere. As this does not happen because flights take direct routes, ...

"Navigation" added to cluelessness list.

[Roy]

NM says gravity propagation is instantaneous.

Does Newtonian mechanics say that gravity is instantaneous, or does it merely assume it? Or does it actually include nothing about the speed of gravity at all? What about Kerbal space physics?

The apparent discovery of GW invalidates the NM mass attraction for gravity and consequently the NM maths for the Helio model.

By that standard, JM's inability to correctly calculate 2*pi invalidates everything else he's ever written.

[Roy]

Roy thinks the atmosphere moves N-S or S-N relative to a rotating earth.

No I don't That's so stupid no-one with any intelligence at all would even consider that some-one else might believe it.

He also doesn't know how to spell Coriolis ("Coriolos" in a recent post) either.

You're complaining about typoes now? So I missed the 'i' key and hit the 'o' key next to it. Big deal.

P.S. You're either a hypocrite, or you can't spell "Aether".

[HMS_Beagle]

I'd prefer if you didn't engage me at all.

Then stop posting your blithering nonsense.

Why do dropped object fall straight to the ground? Does the magic aether push them?

[Roy]

Next question: Is that 14.38 also a random number?

29,932 is another number taken from another Hornet mass. You can use either 29,932 or 16,800 depending upon which Hornet included in the example.

14.83 comes from the acceleration equation above. 277,000 is a change in velocity. 3.30x3600 is the flight time. Hence 14.83 is the average W-E acceleration caused by the atmosphere acting on the plane.

14.83? It was 14.38 earlier. That's a poor showing from some-one who just harped on a typo in 'Coriolis'.

But can you explain exactly how 14.83 or 14.38 comes from the acceleration equation above? Exactly how does

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

?

Don't forget to include the units.

[Roy]

277 km/h*1000m/km = 277,000 m/h * 1/3600 h/s = 23.32 m/s

JM_math^TM is contagious.

[oxmixmudd]

JM_math^TM is contagious.

- I still had the 3.3 multiplier from the other calculation's time val in the divisor - sorry about that. It changes the result by a factor of 3.3, but twice nothing is still nothing in terms of effect, nevertheless I wish I hadn't done that :(

Thanks for pointing it out. (No really ... )


Jim

[Sparko]

Your analogy is false. If a boat is floating in a river (1) of velocity v, then the boat moves (2) also at v. If the boat is then propelled, the boat moves at v+vp. The vp will cause a pressure differential on the boat which moves against the river surface. Similarly, the Hornet moves against the atmosphere and will also feel a pressure. The only wat a plane does not feel pressure is when the plane always moves with the atmospheres W-E rotation. This would mean the plane would have to fly along with the atmosphere, like the boat floating in the water (1), rather than the boat moving through water (2).

If there is no force from the atmosphere acting on the S-N plane, then the plane must be always guided by the pilot to move W-E with the atmosphere. As this does not happen because flights take direct routes, then the atmosphere must be acting on the S-N plane.

JM

do you understand vectors? the boat would indeed feel pressure as it moved against the current in a different direction because the engines are pushing it against the flow of water, but it would not feel any pressure in the direction the current is pushing it. its direction vector would be the combination of the current and the direction of travel. if the current were pushing it at 5 mph eastward and it was moving under power at 5mph northward, the vector would be around 5mph NE but as far as what the boat would notice pressure wise would only be 5mph pressing on the bow from the north.

[Sparko]

You believe this, but you have no proof.

actually it has been proven.

The aether/firmament. A vacuum does not remove the aether.

you believe this but have no proof. the michaelson morley experiment proved that there is no aether.

Hence NM is invalidated.

hence geostationary theory has been invalidated.

You also contradict yourself when you say there is a medium called space, then deny it is required when magnetic fields travel through a vacuum. You should think more before you post.

JM

there is still space in the jar when you remove the air, john.

[Roy]

do you understand vectors?

Good point. Added to cluelessness list.

[Sparko]

You've tried to make out as if this force was something that should be obvious, something that should affect the flight plans of airplanes, something pilots should have to take into account when the plan their flights. I've shown you in the calculations you acknowledge as a correction the effect itself is so small as to be virtually invisible in terms of its effect in the normal every day operations of aircraft. The fact is the systems in place are designed to get the aircraft where it needs to be in spite of a myriad of potential distractions and influences that could take it off course. It's just that this particular component is so small that it just isn't anything to worry about in the grand scheme of things.

That says nothing about if it exists or if it could be measured if one wanted to measure it.

But given the variability of the weather, I seriously doubt it would be easy to measure on a typical aircraft of any type. Perhaps a massive blimp? I don't really know what it would take to measure the effect on an aircraft going N-S. But we can see its effects as it spins up hurricanes or creates noreasters. There the effect is magnified over hundreds of miles and large masses of clouds and air from the surface to many 10's of thousands of feet in altitude.

There are also the trade winds themselves.

What can be expected from the effect is well documented, well researched. We know a lot about it, and the effects are basically as expected for a rotating Earth.

But John - you don't care about any of these facts. In fact, if you were to be convinced by any or all of us, John Martin just disappears into obscurity - just another one of the boring, moderately intelligent members of humanity whose life goes virtually unnoticed.

But as John Martin Geocentrist. Well, you are known after all. And as they say, any publicity is good publicity. So - here's to you finding a way to some measure of fame in the world. More people know your name than mine after all. So there you go.



Jim

yep. he doesnt care about the facts because no matter the facts he twists them to prove his delusion. first the earth is stationary because if it roatates there would be a huge crosswind. when you show him that he is wrong and the would be no huge crosswind, then he claims that since there is no crosswind then the earth cant be rotating. same conclusion from opposing facts. everything proves the earth is stationary, you just have to twist the information in just the right way

[Jedidiah]

People are still responding to this crawling ego? Stationary earth indeed.

[DesertBerean]

People are still responding to this crawling ego? Stationary earth indeed.

I thought I would try to engage him on the fiction thing. But his overall view is so flawed, IDK. I'll go back to providing relief.