|
Air travel
Jan 13, 2016 16:57:30 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ethernaut on Jan 13, 2016 16:57:30 GMT -8
A plane taking off from the earth in any direction at 500 mph is going to cover the same distance because the plane is already moving on the surface at the earth rotational speed. As soon as it is airborne, it's speed increases from a relative 0 mph irregardless of direction. Think of a fly in a car traveling 60 mph. The fly can fly in any direction in the car but it only can fly at a speed determined by its own energy even though in the car it is already moving at 60 mph.
|
|
|
Post by aplanetruth.info on Jan 13, 2016 17:58:38 GMT -8
You make zero sense. A car travels upon the Earth's surface, a plane is in the air not held by ground forces and free to go in any direction it travels The Earth is said to spin at 1,000 mph West to East. We travel with it when on the ground, yet in the air, the plane is not restricted to attachment to the Earth's surface, so it can go in any direction while the round ball spins below it in always the same direction I should be able to hover a helicopter directly above and let the Earth pass below me, but it does not, even though the Earth spins at 16 miles per minute. Helio-Copernicious Theory says that we are in a cocoon called "atmosphere" that holds all in until we reach the edge of our atmosphere where magically, "poof" no more tractor beam of Earth holding the flying object above, yet a butter fly can flit here and there, clouds meander in all directions, smoke will follow local winds and jet streams in any which direction. so what is it, does smoke, butterflies and flapping ones arms magically escape the "gravity atmosphere" where planes of thousands of pounds are held to the spinning ball no matter what direction it flies and never has to account for a spinning Earth below? some reading for you: Is the Earth a Sphere? Cruisin’ at 30,000 ft. aplanetruth.info/18-is-the-earth-a-sphere-cruisin-at-30000-ft/Is The Earth a Sphere? Why Then So Many Failed Heliocentric Experiments? aplanetruth.info/2015/03/29/21-is-the-earth-a-sphere-why-so-many-failed-heliocentric-experiments/ Bonus, how much more gravity must the Earth have when lying 23.5 on its back, must hold the might oceans being held in by "gravity" along with the 1,000 mph spin? And why is water heavier towards the ocean bottom if water is being thrust outward, should not the oceans water be heaviest at its outward point.
|
|
|
Post by ethernaut on Jan 14, 2016 8:14:10 GMT -8
To start with, I am very open to constantly testing new ideas and learning new things every day.That's not to say that I physically test everything I read about because I accept some things which others have already proven or disproven.I don't have to hit myself with a hammer to know that it would hurt. I understand the logic by which flat earth theorists attempt to prove their propositions. I have studied most of "a plane truth's" literature including having just finished the "kings of astronomy" articles. I tend to agree with the notion that the early astronomers accepted previous theories as fact and therefore built on errors. I also would like to believe flat earth science because it would justify creation over evolution. To that end, I must attempt to prove our existence by what is observable by my senses. But disproving one theory doesn't automatically prove another. It is necessary to prove the theory that is proposed. When it comes to determining how the universe works, we can't observe it from outside so we must test theories relative to any motions or forces which might already exist. In a previous post, I used the example of a car accelerating to 60 mph. Anything inside of the car (air,people,water,flies)are now traveling at that speed. Is the flies ability to fly around in the car in any direction hampered by the car's motion? Assuming that a bucket of water is prevented from turning over in the car, the water will move as the car accelerates and will continue its foward motion if the car suddenly stops. But at 60 mph, the water will appear relatively motionless. Your example of a helicopter hovering and the earth rotating under it is not proof of either theory because it is being observed either from the ground or from the helicopter both of which are moving or not moving relative to the planet. Only an observer outside the earth's orbit would see whether the earth was rotating away from the stationary helicopter or the helicopter and earth both rotating under the observer. That is assuming that the observer was perfectly stationary with respect to any other motions of the universe. So you see that our observations of anything are relative to our perspective.
|
|
|
Air travel
Jan 17, 2016 20:48:30 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by aj on Jan 17, 2016 20:48:30 GMT -8
It appears that the whole science fiction fantasy thought up by the Doctors of Physics and Astronomy et al. promoting a Star Trek type universe is coming to an end. Even all the free space opera e-books in the world won't help the agenda anymore. Do a simple search for calculating the speed of objects in the 'near vacuum' of outer space and you'll quickly see how ridiculous the experts system is, of measuring the 'relative' speed of planets, stars and galaxies etc. And why even use the word vacuum if there no such thing as a perfect vacuum. These NASA boys and girls definitely have an answer for everything...but I guess it always helps when they are the ones making up the questions in the first place. He he. helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ms.htmlUsing analogies of flies in cars and buckets of water etc are not helping. You can feel yourself moving in a car even at relatively slow speeds...so why can't we feel the breathtaking speeds of our planet hurtling through space? Because we are not moving. That's why.
|
|
|
Post by kittyhawkcva63 on Mar 3, 2016 18:16:04 GMT -8
"Fe Res," I was on an AmTrak train some years back that was running on new continuous track; it had no ends coming together. In other words, you could not hear the clakity clak of the rails. I would close my eyes at a stop, which there were a number of them over a 60 mile stretch here in northern California. I kept my eyes closed. After a minute, I would open my eyes. The train was so smooth and quiet on the tracks and the engineer so smooth on the throttle, I was unable to tell that the train had started moving and was doing at least 50 miles an hour. I did this several times and I could never tell when the train started moving after it had come to a complete stop.
|
|
ainvision
Just Learning
"One has to be SANE to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane!" Nikola Tesla
Posts: 8
|
Post by ainvision on Apr 29, 2016 23:26:03 GMT -8
There are many videos pursuing this line of thought (flight distances on a Flat Earth) that say a flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia does not exist. It did back in 2009 when I returned To Australia from Recife, Brazil. This was the flight log:
1. Recife to Sao Paulo (3.5 hours) and a wait of 5 hours for the connecting flight to Santiago, Chile. It was late of course! 2. Sao Paulo to Santiago, Chile (5 hours) and an over-night stop due to our late arrival (after midnight) into Santiago airport. Santiago airport closed at midnight in 2009. 3. Santaigo to Auckland, New Zealand (14 hours) and then a 1 hour stop for the plane to refuel. 4. Auckland to Sydney, Australia (3.5 hours)
I have presented this NOT to disprove the 'extended' flight paths and times in the Southern Hemisphere but quite the contrary to PROVE that the Earth is FLAT! A straight flight from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia should take 15 hours on a spherical (globe) Earth. Why then should our flight have taken 3.5 hours longer? I have included the hour stopover in Auckland, New Zealand. The air speed of the AirBus A320 is 541mph (865kph) so the extra 2.5 hours (16.5 hours actual flight time - 15 hours predicted time on a globe) of flight add to a flat distance of around >1200kms.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
|
|
Just think about it
Guest
|
Post by Just think about it on Sept 18, 2016 2:44:00 GMT -8
Have you ever been at the seaside when a strong wind is blowing along the coast, and a light aircraft travels past into the wind. Notice that the speed of the plane is much slower then the speed of another plane traveling in the opposite direction! If both took off at the same time, which would cover the distance between airports faster? Airlines try to find the best routes to maximize wind conditions and even avoid storms, so virtually no flight will be a direct route between 2 places. If the flight is predominantly into a headwind, then it will take longer and the 'air' distance traveled would be further.This argument has nothing to do with FE. Now calculate the distance the flight would have had to have been on a flat earth map. I bet the trip from Santiago to Auckland would be at least twice the actual distance covered. That is a FE deabate, and many FE'ers don't believe these flights to be real. Thanks for admitting to being on one. (Just like all professional sport players in the Southern Hemisphere playing matches, like the rugby series between Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa at the moment, will all be able to tell you how long their flights take. They do not take the routes with stop overs in Dubai or Tokyo as they want to arrive as fast as possible.
|
|