I'm 66 years old and when I went to school they didn't teach the world was flat. In fact, they taught that only superstitious/ignorant people, hundreds of years ago taught that. People, long ago also thought that when one reached the edge, they would fall off. Is that what you're trying to teach in 2016, DD? Have we come full circle (No pun intended) and returned to a time of ignorance and superstition?
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Stop minding my business, pal.
A bullet traveling about 1,000 mph will miss it's distant target if proper adjustment is not made for the rotation of the earth moving any where from 1000 to 800 mph.
So a plane landing at about 200 mph would have to be adjusted for an runway that is moving at 800 mph or more.
Sorry that is just not possible and is not what we see. Adjustments are made for wind not for a rotating earth.
--Dave
So a plane landing at about 200 mph would have to be adjusted for an runway that is moving at 800 mph or more.
Sorry that is just not possible and is not what we see. Adjustments are made for wind not for a rotating earth.
--Dave
Your math is wrong. (To keep things simple, let's assume that the plane is traveling east.) If the earth is rotating at 1000 mph, and a plane takes off from the earth, the plane will be moving slightly faster than the earth's rotation. If a plane then starts to land and slows to 200mph, then it's only traveling 200 mph faster than the Earth's spin. To account for Earth's spin, the pilot would need to go slightly faster than 200 mph so as to not come down short of the runway.
If the plane was traveling west, then the plane would only be traveling 200 mph slower than the spin of the earth. The pilot would have to go slightly slower than 200 mph so as to not overshoot the runway.
If traveling north or south, the plane would have to aim slightly east to account for spin.
And again, all of this is hardly noticeable, because the amount of adjustment needed is so miniscule.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
We're not saying that the pilots don't ALSO account for spin, we're saying that they account for spin in addition to wind and other factors.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
So discount the hundreds of people who've traveled to the South Pole over the years?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I understand what you're saying but planes flying from LA to NY at 600 mph cannot be adjusted for a globe moving at 800 mph beneath it.
--Dave
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Your math is wrong again. If a plane takes off from LA and flies to NY, the plane is traveling 600 mph faster than the earth is spinning. That means it's technically going 1600 mph, but since everyone on earth is already toing 1000 mph, we subtract the difference from the object that's moving faster.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
What about all the modern people that go to the Station there?
Perhaps, they need to go to another station and listen to some nice soft music?
Visiting a station is not the same as leading a naval task force with an air craft carrier to explore the vast region of the antarctic.
Do some research on Admiral Byrd a see what he had to say about his exploration.
--Dave
Again, do you discount the hundreds of scientists and other people who have been to the South Pole?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I'm glad you made this argument.
I'll do my best to explain the "false equivalence" of this argument.
There are two opposing presuppositions being used to make this case.
1. A bullet and it's equivalent, a plane, "do not" rotate with the earth.
2. A bullet and the plane "do" rotate with the earth.
All propositions properly begin with an "if".
If a bullet and a plane rotate with the earth then it is true that the speed of both are actually moving at their own speed plus the speed of the rotating planet. Thus it would be correct to say that a plane is moving at 600 mph plus 1000 mph which equals 1600 mph. A bullet moving at 1000 mph would actually be moving at 2000 mph.
It would follow that "no" correction or adjustments would be necessary for a plane moving at the same speed of the rotating earth in flight or in landing accept for wind.
It would follow that "no" correction or adjustments would be necessary for the flight of a bullet also accept for wind.
But the coriolis effect presupposes that a bullet must be adjusted for the rotation of the earth because it "does not" rotate with it.
If it is true that a speeding bullet does not rotate with the earth then it would be "equivalent" that a moving plane would also "not" be moving with a rotating earth.
If this is the case then a plane moving at 600 mph must be adjusted for a globe that is moving at 1000 mph. Which would be impossible.
--Dave
I would point out that there is a huge contradiction about this. Which is why we have look at both views before we can determine who is right and who is wrong.
--Dave
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
jack sparrow did
That's a pretty slow bullet. A high powered rifle's bullet moves at about 2300 mph, not 1000 mph.
As I said above in one of my previous posts, adjustments are already made by the pilot of any plane for the rotation of the earth. A plane heading east would have to travel slightly faster than 1600 mph, and a plane traveling west would have to travel slightly slower than 1600 mph, whereas a plane traveling north or south would not have to adjust it's speed, but would have to adjust it's direction.
You may want to have a look at this website. It explains all of this in far greater detail than I ever could.
https://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-effect-6-theory-section/
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Deuteronomy 19:15
"15*“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established."
I'm going to trust a group of people more than any one person. The only thing you have to rest on with this argument is that there's a conspiracy, so then we're back to square one, what would be the purpose of such a conspiracy? What benefit is there to covering things up?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
My analysis is absolutely correct.
The speed of bullets do vary but that does not alter the argument.
--Dave
- Status