Yes - please explain how a plane heading west at 500mph while the earth beneath moves east at 1000mph the plane can turn around and catch up to where it took off. If you want to use the equator then by all means do so.
Then tell me why ALL aeronautical calculations/navigations are based upon a nonrotating stationary flat earth.
Its because the atmosphere that the plane is in is not moving 1000 mph against it.
What has the atmosphere got to do with the earths alleged rotation? Is it supposedly moving eastward with the earths alleged rotation? If so, then why do clouds often move in different directions simultaneously ? westward/northward/southward/eastward etc. etc. etc.
The plane is using the atmosphere to fly.
Wind blows in many different directions.
Then tell me why ALL aeronautical calculations/navigations are based upon a nonrotating stationary flat earth.
I am interested why you believe this ridiculous claim, which is no closer to true than the claim that modern medicine is based on homeopathy. Please do tell us what unreliable source you believed.
What has the atmosphere got to do with the earths alleged rotation? Is it supposedly moving eastward with the earths alleged rotation? If so, then why do clouds often move in different directions simultaneously ? westward/northward/southward/eastward etc. etc. etc.
I have taught you before that nothing moves in more than one direction simultaneously. Everything moves from one point to one other point, which is easy (for most people) to see is one direction.
Unfortunately, one concept that seems too advanced for you is that of relative velocity. Given N objects, there are N x N relative velocities which are related to each other in a way which means there are only (N - 1) independent velocities.
Eg if you have 3 objects A, B, C in a classical context, then N = 3, N-1 = 2, and V_AB and V_BC suffice to determine all the relative velocities, with V_AC = V_AB + V_BC. [Exercise for a reader with noodles' level of knowledge but some sense would be to derive the other 6 relative velocities].
Again in a classical context, a convenient choice is to pick some arbitrary reference object (eg a stationary point on the ground) and call "the velocity" of another object, the velocity relative to the reference object.
Any child can look up and see clouds moving in different directions.,
It takes an adult to convince them they are moving in the same direction.
A child looks up and sees the sun/moon and knows they are they same size.
It takes an adult to tell them not to believe their own eyes.
A child knows they are not blasting through space 25 to 30 times faster than a speeding bullet.
It takes an adult to tell them they are not only faster than a speeding bullet but just as fast as the speed of light.
A child knows more than most adults believe!
Elroch - according to the religion of Heliocentrism.......Nothing is Stationary.
Any child can look up and see clouds moving in different directions.,
Throughout my life I have observed clouds moving in roughly the same direction. It is very pleasant in summer to lie in a field and watch them pass by. (This is because the wind velocity at a substantial altitude does not change rapidly with location).
I am not sure where you get your strange idea from, but I suspect it involves navel-gazing.
It takes an adult to convince them they are moving in the same direction.
Not me. I always used my eyes. And I pointed them towards the sky, not my navel.
A child looks up and sees the sun/moon and knows they are they same size.
A smart child looks and and sees the sun and moon subtend the same angle. Such a child is well aware that things look half the size when they are twice as far away, a tenth of the size when they are ten times as far away. And so on.
It takes an adult to tell them not to believe their own eyes.
It is fair to say that some (particularly very young) children might need a smart adult to help their understanding. To be blunt, the same appears to be true of a small minority of adults (though the large majority certainly understand that things look smaller the further away they are).
A child knows they are not blasting through space 25 to 30 times faster than a speeding bullet.
Not one who likes science. They can learn far more than you have before they are 10.
It takes an adult to tell them they are not only faster than a speeding bullet but just as fast as the speed of light.
A child knows more than most adults believe!
Who designed the device you are using? A child or someone with substantial scientific knowledge? How well do you think it would work if a baby who didn't understand that things look smaller when they are further away had designed it?
Elroch - according to the religion of Heliocentrism.......Nothing is Stationary.
"Stationary" is a meaningless concept in isolation. Two things have a relative velocity. If it is zero, each thing is stationary with respect to the other. For example, your backside is stationary relative to whatever you are sitting on. Meanwhile, your backside is not stationary relative to the Andromeda galaxy. And a baby has more chance of understanding that than you have (because its neurons have plenty of capability to learn).
As I said, these are concepts you have trouble with. A frame is just a way of associating numbers with locations (in the rotating frame, time is independent). It is a construct that allows a numerate person to analyse the physical situation.
Just to check, do you accept that locations on the equator do stay at (very close to) constant distances from each other? If so, you should be able to understand the definition of the frame I gave. Here it is again in big letters:
**Let's call x the number of miles East of the starting point.**
[x is, of course, negative for points to the West of the starting point. We only deal with distances up to say 10,000 miles in either direction, for simplicity]
Of course, you may have cultured personal dysfunction to such an extent that even such a definition is beyond you. Is this so?
noodles, since you have failed to respond to this key post, did this help your understanding at all? I felt I expressed the definition of the necessary frame in a way that was not beyond your intrinsic capability to understand.
Elroch - If you said you looked up in the sky and observed a sun 100's of times larger than the moon, you would be a liar.
If you said you looked up and observed stars light years away you would be a liar.
If you said you observed a rotating moon you would be a liar.
If you said you observed the earth speeding around the sun some 67,000 mph, 25 times faster than a speeding bullet, you would be liar.
If you said you observed the earth moving at all you would be a liar.
Heliocentric theories derived via the imagination. That simplistic fact, ought to be obvious!
***First comes Imagination. Then your beloved mathematics/theoretical formulas comes next in order to attempt to validate/fit those imaginations. Only then do they try to convince/persuade others that is what is being "observed" simply because it was "proved" on a chalkboard/piece of paper***
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla
Elroch - If you said you looked up in the sky and observed a sun 100's of times larger than the moon, you would be a liar.
That is what you and I see.
To deduce it (not sure if that is a concept you are familiar with) you need to determine how FAR the two objects are. The Sun is at about 150,000,000 km, the Moon is at about 400,000 km. So you are correct - the ratio in size is hundreds (since they have similar angular diameter).
If you said you looked up and observed stars light years away you would be a liar.
Again, this can be deduced. It requires numeracy.
If you said you observed a rotating moon you would be a liar.
Here is a sequence of photos of the Moon. If you can't see it rotating, you are what is know as BLIND.
The reason only limited rotation is visible is of course because it rotates with the same period as its orbit around the Earth. The reason some rotation is visible is that the orbit is not circular. But as I say, you need to be blind not to see it rotating in that sequence of photographs.
If you said you observed the earth speeding around the sun some 67,000 mph, 25 times faster than a speeding bullet, you would be liar.
If you said you observed the earth moving at all you would be a liar.
Heliocentric theories derived via the imagination. That simplistic fact, ought to be obvious!
***First comes Imagination. Then your beloved mathematics/theoretical formulas comes next in order to attempt to validate/fit those imaginations. Only then do they try to convince/persuade others that is what is being "observed" simply because it was "proved" on a chalkboard/piece of paper***
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla
That quote is obviously NOT TRUE of physics that has been empirically tested, including all of quantum mechanics and general relativity (although some of the tests were after Tesla's death).
Tesla was smart enough to realise that but I am not confident that you are.
Like I said, heliocentric theory(s) is/are not observed.
For instance, in order to claim the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, it is necessary to first Imagine the sun 10's of millions of miles away.
One can claim the sun is 1000 times larger than the moon and 1 billion miles away from earth.
Go ahead Elroch, I know you can prove that via a theoretical physics formula(s).
You shall receive the Noodles Astronomical Cosmological Award
You are a crackpot who ignores the undeniable confirmation of these facts by resorting to an infantile conspiracy theory.
It's all about ego - a balanced person who cannot calculate the path of a cannonball understands that other people are more competent than him/her on the relevant physics. You are not such a person, so you need to live in a fairy tale of self-satisfied ignorance. Unfortunately, it makes you look like the village fool: if that is the aim, it's a success.
Elroch - you have made it perfectly clear that you are an establishment man. I do not adhere to the status quo. Call it what you will.
This guy said it best.
The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.
You can fool yourself with such nonsensical waffle but who else?
Everyone understands that knowledge that works in the real world is good. This is knowledge you lack and which is possessed by those who you obsessively and without foundation claim are wrong.
Takes less than an hour of open-minded and honest investigation in order to see how NASA performs their little tricks to deceive the masses. It's not that NASA fakes their so-called outer space adventures that is problem, it is the Lie and what that Lie(s) reveals that scares the Hell out of most people! Much easier to pretend to believe the Lies than to accept the truth.
As the saying goes, the truth shall set you free......but first it will piss you off
Hint: NASA is full of people who can not only calculate the path of a cannonball, they can calculate the path of a rocket to space, and design the rocket to do it.
This enormously superior knowledge is why they are able to be right and you aren't. It's the arrogant incompetents who construct foolish conspiracy theories rather than rockets.
[EDIT: this responded to a deleted post]
Why is your scam better than all the other scams out there that gullible people can be fooled by?