Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:47 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Okay so by your logic, a stationary grounded plane is travelling at 1000 mph, the plane travelling eastward is speeding at 1500 mph obviously, so a westward travelling plane must be travelling against the earths spin at -500 mph. And both planes travel time is exactly identical with the exception of jet stream. This proves the earth does not spin.

Also if the stationary grounded plane is travelling at 1000 mph and a car drives past going eastward that car is travelling at 1030 mph whilst the other car travelling westward is travelling -970 mph. Absolute drivel, The western travelling plane / car should reach their destinations quicker through the earths spin. Thats why you put variables within your answer, 500 mph here 1500 mph there. Gotcha...

It was quite funny last night watching the two buffer's buffering their variable answers, flexing their vexed abominations in the genuine analogy that proved the stationary earth. Funny.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:04 am  

whothefeckisalice wrote:

It was quite funny last night watching the two buffer's buffering their variable answers, flexing their vexed abominations in the genuine analogy that proved the stationary earth. Funny.

You're quite the word salad master for a clown. If I was to be impressed by nonsensical ramblings you'd be on top of my Zebramass card list. We said the same thing in differing levels of detail. You just choose to ignore it.

Can I not interest you in a cube earth? Looks flat but spins like a ball. Everyone's a winner.

Gordon is calling for you, he says that new converts get the double pepperoni.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:11 am  

Didn't Isaac Newton cover all of this off quite neatly some time ago?

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:12 am  

Please let me clarify in Layman's terms.
Flight times you say ? Well they prove a globe earth don't they ? You may be surprised to learn that the answer is, in fact, No. They prove a stationary earth. Now, it is well known that certain creatures assist the times of flights and even ships in the southern "hemisphere". However, it's in the northern "hemisphere" that I will explain to you how flight times prove a stationary earth.

A flight from New York to London takes on average between 7 to 7.5 hours. Conversely, it takes about 8 to 8.5 hours for a flight to cross from London to New York. The difference here, as any Globe Earther will tell you, is tailwinds, another strong factor in the alleged discrepancy in southern flight times. More on that later though, first let me walk you though a thought experiment.

Imagine the Globe Earther's concept of the earth; a sphere suspended in space. Imagine you're looking at it miles and miles above the surface so you can see it in its entirety (or as much as the Globe earth model allows). Look down from the North Pole. A Globe Earther will tell you that it is rotating Anti-clockwise. Now, look closer. Take note of planes making the trip from New York to London and back. For a moment, recall your lessons of Newtonian Physics; the first law to be precise. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. A brief spark of doubt clouds your thoughts and a question arises. If the planes are no longer in contact with the earth and being slowed by wind resistance, how is it that the ones going from London to New York aren't concluding the flight much quicker than the ones going from New York to London. After all, they are no longer in contact with the earth and it should be spinning independently underneath them as they make their transatlantic flight, thus shortening it considerably.

To rephrase, it would stand to reason that a flight flying from London to New York would be shorter than one flying from New York to London because the earth would spin New York closer to you as you flew. In other words, the spinning of the earth would move New York directly towards you, just as it would spin London away from you if you were crossing from New York to London.

In reality though, the opposite is true. Due to tail/headwinds, flights from New York to London are shorter than the opposite. Tailwinds and headwinds account for much of the variance in flight times in the southern "hemisphere" and can be seen on a smaller scale here.

To conclude, let me reiterate. If the earth did spin as in the round-earth model, then flight times would be shorter when flying from London to New York. As that is not the case (an in fact the opposite is true due to high altitude winds) the world is clearly not a spinning ball and provably stationary. Simples.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:26 am  

TheButcher wrote:

You're quite the word salad master for a clown. If I was to be impressed by nonsensical ramblings you'd be on top of my Zebramass card list. We said the same thing in differing levels of detail. You just choose to ignore it.

Can I not interest you in a cube earth? Looks flat but spins like a ball. Everyone's a winner.

Gordon is calling for you, he says that new converts get the double pepperoni.

Told you. The Butcher cannot stand being outdone or out challenged hence the personalized attacks. You've lost the plot matey.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:55 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Told you. The Butcher cannot stand being outdone or out challenged hence the personalized attacks. You've lost the plot matey.

If your definition of outdone is 'Babble barely coherent nonsense while ignoring reality' then yes, you've outdone me by quite a way. Well done.

I haven't personally attacked anyone, just their ridiculous ideas. As for losing the plot, you might want to run a forum poll to see who else agrees with you. We'll then see whether your verbal drivel has managed to persuade anyone. Of course, if it doesn't go your way it will be everyone else's fault or a big conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be you, Stan, and your alter-ego. Everyone else is wrong, but you're definitely right...

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:45 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Please let me clarify in Layman's terms.
[b][i]Flight times you say ? Well they prove a globe earth don't they ? ...

No, they are not evidence of either a globe or otherwise.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

I will explain to you how flight times prove a stationary earth.

Go on, then...

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

A flight from New York to London takes on average between 7 to 7.5 hours. Conversely, it takes about 8 to 8.5 hours for a flight to cross from London to New York. The difference here, as any Globe Earther will tell you, is tailwinds, another strong factor in the alleged discrepancy in southern flight times. More on that later though, first let me walk you though a thought experiment.

Imagine the Globe Earther's concept of the earth; a sphere suspended in space. Imagine you're looking at it miles and miles above the surface so you can see it in its entirety (or as much as the Globe earth model allows). Look down from the North Pole. A Globe Earther will tell you that it is rotating Anti-clockwise. Now, look closer. Take note of planes making the trip from New York to London and back. For a moment, recall your lessons of Newtonian Physics; the first law to be precise. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest and objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Indeed. I explained this to you yesterday. It is a pity that you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it. You obsess about the speed of rotation and you gave an example of a rotation speed, where the plane starts from, of 1000 mph. I explained in terms a child could understand why this is nor relevant to the issue. You ignore the explanation. I specifically addressed the above point. As the plane is on the Earth before it takes off, then if the rotation speed is 1000 mph at that point, the plane is also travelling in that particular vector or curve at that speed. Once it takes off, it doesn't "lose" that "speed", only a force acting on a object can accelerate or decelerate it.

If you say it was in motion like the ground it stood on at 1000 mph, then once it takes off, the only forces that can alter that speed are the air flow / resistance, and the thrust of the plane's engines.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

A brief spark of doubt clouds your thoughts and a question arises. If the planes are no longer in contact with the earth and being slowed by wind resistance, how is it that the ones going from London to New York aren't concluding the flight much quicker than the ones going from New York to London. After all, they are no longer in contact with the earth and it should be spinning independently underneath them as they make their transatlantic flight, thus shortening it considerably.

Again, i have already explained this, more than once. You assume for some reason that there is in your model a spinning globe, yet the atmosphere does not spin with it. Somehow, it remains stationary. So the whole population of Earth permanently experiences this as super-mega-hurricane winds, permanently, of 1000 mph at the equator.

But it is obvious that the atmosphere rotates with the globe, because we do not have such winds, and so (again) you are basing your point on an obvious fallacy, and a very basic misunderstanding. You pin your case on a "stationary" atmosphere. This is frankly nonsense.

You can see any amount of video live from space of, for example, hurricane systems and apart from their proper motion relative to the ground, it is crystal clear that in general terms, they rotate along with the rest of the world. If they didn't, then a hurricane approaching Florida or Mexico would approach at over 1000 mph. They don't.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

To rephrase, it would stand to reason that a flight flying from London to New York would be shorter than one flying from New York to London because the earth would spin New York closer to you as you flew. In other words, the spinning of the earth would move New York directly towards you, just as it would spin London away from you if you were crossing from New York to London.

No, it is nonsense, because you are not on the ground,y you are in the air, and you can ONLY move relative to the mass of air in which your plane is located. Again, such an elementary point.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

.... Due to tail/headwinds, flights from New York to London are shorter than the opposite. Tailwinds and headwinds account for much of the variance in flight times in the southern "hemisphere" and can be seen on a smaller scale here.

Of course they do, as i keep repeating, a plane can only fly at whatever airspeed it can muster. This depends on the wind speed and direction. There are prevailing winds (and currents) around the globe and these are very well known. The Jet Stream, for example. Aircraft naturally take advantage where possible (cheaper/quicker) and it is all basic common sense.

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

To conclude, let me reiterate. If the earth did spin as in the round-earth model, then flight times would be shorter when flying from London to New York. As that is not the case (an in fact the opposite is true due to high altitude winds) the world is clearly not a spinning ball and provably stationary. Simples.

To conclude, you simply fail to grasp that the atmosphere is spinning with the rest of the globe (this, despite the fact you can watch as much of this as you want on video) and so your "point" really is an utter non-point. the rotation of the globe has no direct significant measurable effect on flight times at all (there is the Coriolis effect which planes must contend with but it isn't in itself a significant factor in flight times)

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:46 pm  

TheButcher wrote:

TheButcher Wrote; I haven't personally attacked anyone just their ridiculous ideas. As for losing the plot, [i]You might want to run a forum poll to see who else agrees with you. We'll then see whether your verbal drivel has managed to persuade anyone. Of course, if it doesn't go your way it will be everyone else's fault or a big conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be you, Stan, and your alter-ego. Everyone else is wrong, but you're definitely right...
You're quite the word salad master for a clown. If I was to be impressed by nonsensical ramblings you'd be on top of my Zebramass card list. Gordon is calling for you, he says that new converts get the double pepperoni.[/i][/b]

So there's proof of your personalized attacks and your Blasphemous babel. You're actually begging and calling out for the assisted cavalry charge now suggesting a poll. Hahahaha how pathetic. Do you think i care what other posters think. You being EGOTISTIC obviously needs that secure blanket of a poll to boost your EGO. You sad Atheist.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:56 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

To conclude, you simply fail to grasp that the atmosphere is spinning with the rest of the globe (this, despite the fact you can watch as much of this as you want on video) and so your "point" really is an utter non-point. the rotation of the globe has no direct significant measurable effect on flight times at all (there is the Coriolis effect which planes must contend with but it isn't in itself a significant factor in flight times)

Hahahaha. Keep digging your hole. If the atmosphere is spinning with the globe then westward travelling planes are travelling against the earths spin at -500 mph. Meaning they should reach their destination quicker. Gotcha Again.

Re: Flight tracking : Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:03 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

So there's proof of your personalized attacks and your Blasphemous babel. You're actually begging and calling out for the assisted cavalry charge now suggesting a poll. Hahahaha how pathetic. Do you think i care what other posters think. You being EGOTISTIC obviously needs that secure blanket of a poll to boost your EGO. You sad Atheist.

What a lovely Christian you are.

You do realise that 'blasphemy' is basically outrage from those insecure in their own faith? I'm not allowed to criticize your ridiculous belief? Why not? If you exchange your God for an iceberg lettuce it seems silly yes? At least Lettuce exists I suppose...The difference between your God and the hundreds of thousands of other gods consigned to history is time. One day it will be classed as mythology like all the rest. You do realise that if you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd be writing about your faith in Allah, or if you were born in Japan you would follow shinto. They all think they're right to. Your belief is an accident of geography and culture, yet you expect me to not question this 'faith'? A belief without evidence?

It's a shame that your whole existence revolves around this ridiculous interpretation of the writings of bronze-age sheep-herders. What a waste of life.