FLAT or ROUND Earth?

[rambot]

Keep in mind that he considers the planets to be stars.
Earth, Moon, Sun, stars.

Despite the fact that they are name differently in Genesis?

Well that's just illogical.

 

[Edwin Wright]

The maths is designed to baffle. The calculations might be correct. However, the entire argument behind the maths is wrong. Not just flimsy.

However, let's go with it. The author of Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth fails to take the argument presented to it's next logical step and final conclusion. This conclusion will blow your mind!

Wind does not exist. Repeat: there is no wind. OK, you can feel wind, but it stops above tree height.

This can be proved using any long flight. We can use the Avianca Flight AV21 which so convincingly proved that the earth is stationary (I haven't actually checked this flight exists, but the authors' calculations gives me confidence).

Wind can allegedly exceed 100 km/hr. Any wind, if it existed, would affect the movement of the airplane. Unlike someone or something on the ground, an aircraft does not have anything to counteract any sidewise force from, for example, the alleged wind.

Let us now consider the hypothetical case of a wind from the east flowing to the west, at a speed of 25.487 km/hr. The force of this alleged wind on the side of the aircraft will result in the aircraft accelerating in a westward direction, according to Newtonian mechanics. This acceleration will not continue indefinitely, but only until the westward component of the aircrafts velocity matches that of the wind. At this point, the westward component of velocity would be 25.487 km/hr.

As the reader will appreciate, on the 5 hr flight, this will result in the aircraft having deviated by 127.435 km. In practice, the offset will be slightly less as an allowance must be made for the initial acceleration to reach the (alleged) wind speed. This will depend on the size and weight of the craft, and will also be affected by the number of passengers and amount of luggage. An American flight would take longer to reach the same speed of the wind than an Asian flight.

What about wind that is not normal (side on, for those not versed in mathematical language) to the aircraft? Well, there will be a vector element blowing the aircraft westward, but to a lesser amount. However, there will also be a vector element opposing the forward motion of the aircraft. This will result in the aircraft not reaching BOG in the timed 5 hours and landing short of the destination.

But in the real world, flights always manage to land on a runway to an accuracy of a few metres, and on time.

--------

Now, I will let someone else explain why this is all nonsense.

This is NOT about wind, it is about tangential velocity. And that is exactly what National Geographic is saying. They have proved the stationary earth in spite of themselves. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

 

[Edwin Wright]

I am pretty certain aircraft are flown by navigating relative to the earth below. But I don't have one.

The analogy in Heliocentrism Refuted: Experimental Proof of a Stationary Earth likening a plane with throwing a ball while on a rotating merry-go-round is wrong in several areas: airplanes fly - they are not thrown, the atmosphere follows the earth as it rotates, besides you could always compensate.

Whether the ball is thrown on a rotating merry-go-round (from the center to the periphery or vice versa), or whether the aircraft actually flies on an allegedly rotating, spherical earth from its center (i.e., its pole) to its periphery (i.e., its equator) or vice versa, the underlying physical principle is exactly the same: the object is departing one radius of a rotating entity with the objective of reaching another radius without compensating for the change in tangential velocity — a physical impossibility. The essential concept is that for both a disk and a sphere (or spheroid) rotating at a constant angular velocity, the tangential velocity is directly and exclusively proportional to the radial distance from the rotational axis.

Hence, at issue for an aircraft on a north-south or south-north flight, is whether the (allegedly) rotating atmosphere "carries" said aircraft sufficiently eastward (on the north-south flight) or westward (on the south-north flight) such that the aircraft's tangential velocity is in synchronization with the earth's tangential velocity that changes with changing latitude. I would argue that if the atmosphere were (conceptually speaking) water instead of air (therefore having a density greater than that of the aircraft), there might be an argument. But of course, the aircraft is heavier (much heavier) than air and is therefore powered, not only to reach its destination but just to stay aloft. Yes, we have tailwinds or headwinds that affect the forward velocity of the aircraft as well as winds from every other direction that influence the aircraft's motion. But there is no possible way that an (allegedly) rotating atmosphere could actually carry the aircraft with it as some have suggested. It is dynamically impossible.

 

[Yttrium]

This is NOT about wind, it is about tangential velocity. And that is exactly what National Geographic is saying. They have proved the stationary earth in spite of themselves. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

Of course it's about wind. The air on average rotates with the Earth. As the tangential velocity at the ground increases, the air speed increases correspondingly. And the plane is affected by the air speed.

 

[HantsUK]

This is NOT about wind, it is about tangential velocity. And that is exactly what National Geographic is saying. They have proved the stationary earth in spite of themselves. See ANALYSIS OF A NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO IMPLIES THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY.

Yes it is. The effects of wind were just ignored in the two Plane Geodesy 'proofs'.

These proofs are invalide because:
1) airplanes fly through the air, they are not thrown.
2) the air above the earth will generally be following the rotation of the earth.
3) pilots navigate relative to the ground below.
4) and failing the above, the pilot could always compensate by aiming to the side.

If someone is swiming across a flowing river (or rowing a boat), they aim for the desired point on the opposite side, so will naturally compensate for the flow of water. Because someone can swim across to a point directly opposite without ending up at a point further downstream is not proof that the water is stationary.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Of course it's about wind. The air on average rotates with the Earth. As the tangential velocity at the ground increases, the air speed increases correspondingly. And the plane is affected by the air speed.

See my response to HantsUK.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As a plane moves, the local coordinate system is continuously changing.

An airplane at the equator moving north is not pointing the same direction as it points three hours later when it's at some latitude, even though it is still heading north. Its pitch (if I have that right) has to change to match what is locally down.

Similar to those incremental and unnoticeable changes in pitch, in a non-inertial frame (like a spinning earth), these continuous infinitesimal shifts include little continuous boosts of velocity to match the local frame.

it is

 

[Michael Snow]

Your referenced article does not appear to have a named author. The following does:

https://planegeodesy.com/part-c-bible-verses-confirming-planar-earth-geocentrism.

I don't see an author on either. Both appear to be blogs and require sign in to find info on author.
But author is irrelevant. The first article deals with truth, the second is a bunch of bunk

https://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/augustine-on-genesis/

 

[rambot]

Wait...so put simply the air around the world is spinning with the world? And the plane is riding inside that movement as well as making course corrections as needed.

 

[sjastro]

Let's take wind out of the equation altogether.
One of the earliest tests for relativity was the Hafale-Keating test in 1971 where atomic clocks were placed on planes which flew in eastward and westward directions and compared to atomic clocks on the surface.
Due to a combination of general and special relativistic effects the clocks on the planes ticked at different rates relative to the clocks on the surface.

Note how theoretical results agree with the experimental results and how the time differences of the eastward and westward journeys depends on whether the planes are flying in the same or opposite direction to the earth's rotation respectively.

 

[Paul4JC]

What does the QANTAS flight from Johannesburg to Sydney look like on that map?

Does it look 6,800 miles long?

Have you flown it?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have you flown it?

Weak. Sauce.

 

[Edwin Wright]

I don't see an author on either. Both appear to be blogs and require sign in to find info on author.
But author is irrelevant. The first article deals with truth, the second is a bunch of bunk

Augustine, On Genesis

If you would actually read the page (of the second article) you'll see the author's name at the very bottom of the page by the copyright. Yes, it does make a difference whether or not people assign their name to their point of view. If they do not, then as far as I am concerned, they are flakes. Here is a comment by Saint Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle's De Caelo et Mundo: SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS’ COMMENT ON A STATIONARY EARTH BEING NECESSARILY PLANAR. Again, check the bottom of the page for the author.

 

[Edwin Wright]

Let's take wind out of the equation altogether.
One of the earliest tests for relativity was the Hafale-Keating test in 1971 where atomic clocks were placed on planes which flew in eastward and westward directions and compared to atomic clocks on the surface.
Due to a combination of general and special relativistic effects the clocks on the planes ticked at different rates relative to the clocks on the surface.

View attachment 338317

View attachment 338318​

Note how theoretical results agree with the experimental results and how the time differences of the eastward and westward journeys depends on whether the planes are flying in the same or opposite direction to the earth's rotation respectively.

It is not the earth that is rotating, it is the aether. See Airy's Failure, Michelson's Interferometer, Heliocentrism Refuted: The Michelson-Morely Experiment (1887), Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction, Einstein´s Special Theory of Relativity, The Sagnac Experiment, and The Ring Laser Gyroscope.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is not the earth that is rotating, it is the aether. See Airy's Failure, Michelson's Interferometer, Heliocentrism Refuted: The Michelson-Morely Experiment (1887), Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction, Einstein´s Special Theory of Relativity, The Sagnac Experiment, and The Ring Laser Gyroscope.

Non-responsive. You're just throwing up chaff. What's your explanation for the difference in elapsed time between westward and eastward travel?

 

[Edwin Wright]

Non-responsive. You're just throwing up chaff. What's your explanation for the difference in elapsed time between westward and eastward travel?

Non-responsive. You're just throwing up chaff. What's your explanation for the difference in elapsed time between westward and eastward travel?

As I said, it's the aether. In one case the plane is flying in the same direction as the aether; in the other case, the plane is flying against the aether. You really need to know that it is the aether that is moving, not the earth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As I said, it's the aether.

What effect does aether have on atomic clocks? How was that established?

In one case the plane is flying in the same direction as the aether; in the other case, the plane is flying against the aether.

How can you differentiate between the aether spinning and the earth spinning? Why should the aether spin?

 

[Paul4JC]

Weak. Sauce.

So why are all these flights taking such a "dumb" detour?

https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Johannesburg/Sydney#r/Fly-to-Sydney/s/3

...no brave new world.

 

[prodromos]

So why are all these flights taking such a "dumb" detour?

https://www.rome2rio.com/map/Johannesburg/Sydney#r/Fly-to-Sydney/s/3

...no brave new world.

They probably don't have enough passengers flying just between Sydney and Johannesburg. AFAIK, Qantas is the only airline still flying non-stop between the two cities.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So why are all these flights taking such a "dumb" detour?

Look, if a QANTAS flight (or some other piece of empirical evidence) torpedoes your theory, your choices are to modify the theory or abandon the theory.

It's just sad for you to say, "Oh, ignore that and look at the data that is consistent with my theory!"

That is, if one is trying to do science, as opposed to pseudoscience.