"Dino246", What do you believe is the minimum speed someone would have to fly in a westerly direction (the opposite direction of east) to get to their westerly destination if you truly believe the earth is rotating eastwardly at about 1,000 miles per hour?I shouldn't have to explain this, but since certain persons don't understand basic physics, I will...
The atmosphere and water, and all fluids, and solids suspended in air or fluid such as balloons, planes, fish, etc., move along with the Earth's surface. Gravity holds them in sync with the Earth's rotation. Here's an illustration:
A car with driver and passenger is travelling at 100 kilometres per hour (~60 mph). Inside the car, the driver picks a penny from the console and lobs it over to the passenger. Does the penny suddenly travel "backwards" in the car at 100 Km/h? No. It continues to travel at the same speed as the car, and lands in the passenger's outstretched hand.
Similarly, a helicopter takes off vertically. The Earth doesn't suddenly "start" moving at 1000 mph beneath it, because the helicopter is moving at the same speed and direction as the Earth beneath. Unless there is a wind, the atmosphere is doing the same thing.
A plane takes off (in any direction) and gets to its cruising speed/altitude. Its airspeed relative to the ground is not 1000 mph plus or minus anything; it is simply the speed relative to the ground, which is almost entirely due to the propulsion of the airplane itself, not due to the ground moving beneath it.
People, this is rocket science, but it's the easy part.
If the Earth Would be Rotating Eastwardly at About 1,000 Miles Per Hour;
- Thread starter RaceRunner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
its very odd. many people are ignoring their senses and common sense in order to believe an explanation given by NASA or some scientist somewhere. i may be wrong but my logic does not follow.Why do so many people believe it is possible for a pilot to fly west and to be able to land a plane on a ball spinning at 1,000 miles per hour when there is no proof something like this is ever possible?
ok guys i figured it out.
look at a housefly, inside of a plane or a bus. it can stilll fly even though we are moving fast.
look at a housefly, inside of a plane or a bus. it can stilll fly even though we are moving fast.
I took enough classes in Physics to understand the issues. It's clear that you haven't. When you want to discuss actual testable observable science, let me know. That might be a while, as you have much to learn.I know you can't answer the question.
0. If the Earth truly were spinning, one would need only hover above the surface - say in a balloon - and one's destination would come to one at the speed of 1000 miles per hour.What is the minimum speed someone would have to fly in a westerly direction (the opposite direction of east) to get to their westerly destination if the earth is rotating eastwardly at about 1,000 miles per hour?
What is the minimum speed someone would have to fly in a westerly direction (the opposite direction of east) to get to their westerly destination if the earth is rotating eastwardly at about 1,000 miles per hour?
Flat Earthers strike again. lol
To headline my post, this is coming from a Concave Hollow Earth view point of view.
I think this might be a trick question, since there is no mention of type of plane, and the distance. I believe this referred to as stall speed. Small planes need to travel at least 60mph, while larger planes like Boeing 747, need to travel at least 200mph to maintain flight. So, once distance is figure out, than divide by minimum speed to get time, but since you only asked what the minimum speed is....
You did say someone would have to fly? Are we pretending superman exists for this illustration? The whole question isn't stated very well. The question is missing a few parts.
By looking how many Flat Earth threads there are, I'm guessing that this is an attempt to undermine the Heliocentric model. To try to add to your argument, I will mention that the Heliocentric model also states, that the Earth is orbiting around the sun at 66,000 mph. Which is one fast space ship! lol We are all astronauts if we believe in the Heliocentric model. ha!
It's far easier in my mind to believe, that earth is stationary, but the moon, sun, starts, and planets move. I would suggest, if the heavenly bodies were scaled downed to size like a Concave Hollow Earth Model would point to, the speeds would be far less extreme for the heavenly bodies. No, I don't have the math for this. lol
I shouldn't have to explain this, but since certain persons don't understand basic physics, I will...
The atmosphere and water, and all fluids, and solids suspended in air or fluid such as balloons, planes, fish, etc., move along with the Earth's surface. Gravity holds them in sync with the Earth's rotation. Here's an illustration:
A car with driver and passenger is travelling at 100 kilometres per hour (~60 mph). Inside the car, the driver picks a penny from the console and lobs it over to the passenger. Does the penny suddenly travel "backwards" in the car at 100 Km/h? No. It continues to travel at the same speed as the car, and lands in the passenger's outstretched hand.
Similarly, a helicopter takes off vertically. The Earth doesn't suddenly "start" moving at 1000 mph beneath it, because the helicopter is moving at the same speed and direction as the Earth beneath. Unless there is a wind, the atmosphere is doing the same thing.
A plane takes off (in any direction) and gets to its cruising speed/altitude. Its airspeed relative to the ground is not 1000 mph plus or minus anything; it is simply the speed relative to the ground, which is almost entirely due to the propulsion of the airplane itself, not due to the ground moving beneath it.
People, this is rocket science, but it's the easy part.
If this is the argument to explain away the effects of the earth moving with a flying object, than same argument could be made that the earth is standing still. Correct!?! lol It really appears that one could view the earth as stationary and not run into problems with flying or driving a car.
I think a stronger argument for a stationary earth, would be to make main street science prove the earth is moving. No matter what the answer is, it could be debated endlessly. More than likely the answer will be, the Sun and/or stars are stationary. Next question would be, prove the Sun and stars are stationary? Circular reasoning from this point.
The quickest and easiest way to destroy the Heliocentric model is to point to airplanes in flight. Commercial airline flights fly nose up at an angle of 2.5 degrees (about 600mph), Concord jet flew nose up at 5 degrees (1,350mph), and SR-71 at 7-8 degrees (2,100mph). Why you might ask? Well, this is the silver bullet to kill the Heliocentric model.
The faster a plane goes, the higher the nose must pitch upward to maintain altitude. Common sense will tell me that, the faster the plane goes, the nose must pitch more downward to maintain altitude at normal cruising speed, if the earth is convex like the Heliocentric model would imply.
That would be a fallacious burden of proof reversal. The ones who claim that the Earth is not roughly spherical are on the hook to prove their claim.
You assume far too much. Try applying your theory to the same airplane at different speeds.
Lift is increased with speed, meaning that in reality the opposite of your claim would likely be true.
Gary would be so proud of me with my quoting here. lol
I see the world outside in from your view point, so the world is round on the inside, not the out. I believe both are on the hook to prove their claim, if it is to be taken serious. No?!?! I have a whole thread dedicated to Concave Hollow Earth, been looking for someone to destroy it, feel free to do so.
You may want to rethink your position here. Phone a friend maybe.
If you think what you posted is correct, please explain in depth.
I see the world outside in from your view point, so the world is round on the inside, not the out. I believe both are on the hook to prove their claim, if it is to be taken serious. No?!?! I have a whole thread dedicated to Concave Hollow Earth, been looking for someone to destroy it, feel free to do so.
You may want to rethink your position here. Phone a friend maybe.
If you think what you posted is correct, please explain in depth.
The minimum speed someone would have to fly in a westerly direction to reach their destination is the minimum speed someone would be able to fly above 0 miles per hour.
I don't think you get it. People who believe in the Heliocentric model, believe that everyone is on a gigantic space ship, so earth's movement has no bearing on flight, according to the local professor at university, or student of accepting view points. I personally think this is non-sense, but I'd rather find much easier points to argue. I forgot the proof that counters this space ship theory and don't want to waste my time finding it. Low hanging fruit is much easier to pick off. lol
I already stated the minimum speeds for a small plane and commercial jet liner.
I think Flat Earthers have a better chance of discrediting the "ball earth" by finding things that everyone can observe, like the Joshua Liwicke photo, and distance. This argument you brought up is only gonna lead to people thinking you don't know science, but that's just my perspective.
If someone refuses to answer my question, it is only going to lead to other people thinking the other person refuses to answer my question because they don't like true science.
I think Dino did his best to answer your question from a Heliocentric model, so it would be your job to argue his points. Saying, it's not true science doesn't give the Flat Earth position any credit, since it showed no work. lol
You would be taken more serious, if you counter Dino's points.
Flat Earth is just bad science, the best thing you could do is give up any hope that it's true.
To switch the argument around like your doing here is showing your lack of understanding of the Heliocentric model. You should of pointed out why the planes can't operate in a convex earth that is spinning a 1,000 miles an hour, instead you ask what is the minimum speed is?
I would say, Flat Earth believers need to stay underground and out of sight, until you can at least show you understand the Flat Earth model, and give valid arguments on why the "ball earth" isn't scientific. Until than, I will just enjoy the comedy. lol I will try to help, if it doesn't take to much time to be fair, as long as it supports the Concave Hollow Earth. Everyone has an agenda. lol
He answered the question the best he could, with the information that was presented.
Are we talking about a man with a jet pack, superman, 747, U2 bomber, or something else? What are the flight conditions? Hurricane and strong winds present, or marginal winds and sunny sky? What's the destination? What are the two points?
Most people who read your question, will think you don't know how to google, or think it's a flat earth thread. At least give some details, if your ask a math question with words.
This is a second grade math question:
"Ariel was playing basketball. 1 of her shots went in the hoop. 2 of her shots did not go in the hoop. How many shots were there in total?" https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/math-word-problems/
Your asking what the minimum speed is, without telling people what type of a plane it is, and also assuming that everyone understands (why for that matter?) why your asking this question in a Flat Earth mindset.
Why don't you ask the question again and state why your asking, what type of plane, distance, and weather conditions if you wanted to go that far?
It's like you want me to ask the question for you, translate the answers for you, and defend the flat earth at the same time. lol
To put it bluntly, your not doing a good job in causing doubt of a "ball earth".
Or they will recognize that you are the one lacking in scientific understanding.
Nobody is obligated to answer your questions, especially when they are nonsensical. To provide a direct answer is to justify your ignorance.