Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum?

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 23 Aug 2016 17:14 #1

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
Also, why isnt the groundspeed of an aircraft vastly more than the airspeed when it is travelling in the opposite direction to the earth?
It was always going to happen!!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 23 Aug 2016 17:22 #2

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
wolfy wrote:
Gaia wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Imagine a simple magnetic compass which always points to north.

If you were to hold it in the flat of your hand somewhere in the southern hemisphere, i imagine it would still oint north quite happily.

Why isnt the needle pulled to the base of the compass instead of spinning freely, as that is where "north" physically is located.
Because the magnetic lines run through the Earth and the compass needle simply aligns with them. Why would the compass needle be pulled towards the centre of the Earth?

Not that I expect any answers from the Concave Earth trolls, as none of the questions have been answered so far (shouting "mainstream is wrong" or screaming "light bends" without specifying anything is not answering any questions), but what causes, in the Concave Earth idea:
1 - the shadows cast by the Sun across the day to be different
2 - while the shadow cast on the Moon be constant over a day's length?

In the Convex Earth heliocentric model that is because the Earth rotates and because the Sun is far away (and huge). In the Concave Earth idea the Sun needs to be tiny and close by but that would mean the Moon should experience those changing shadows over the course of a day just like an object on Earth is experiencing.

Self-proclaimed "debunker" of the Convex Earth heliocentric model Conandrum, lost Chandrakavi and Johannes Lang fan Pfizipfei should be able to answer these questions satisfactorily right away; after all the Concave Earth idea is "comfortable" and "consistent" (enough), isn't it? :ponda:

Because relative to the compass, that is where north is.
Huh? The wind directions are defined w.r.t. the Earth's surface as that is where we move around (the tens of kms above it in the sky and the max 12 km mankind has drilled are so close to it compared to rE (~6400 km) that they can be considered as "surface".

In theory your idea would apply to a compass held in a balloon/high flying plane; where the needle would incline slightly towards the Earth, but not on the southern hemisphere?
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 23 Aug 2016 17:28 #3

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
wolfy wrote:
Also, why isnt the groundspeed of an aircraft vastly more than the airspeed when it is travelling in the opposite direction to the earth?
Because in the rotating Spherical Earth model, the atmosphere is rotating with the Earth (due to gravity working on the air particles).

If not, it would be possible to lift a helicopter at the equator, keep it steady (w.r.t. the point in the air) for 1 hour and then land some 1600 km west from the point at surface where you started (let's say you start the helicopter in Quito and end up in Galapagos).
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 23 Aug 2016 17:34 #4

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
Gaia wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Also, why isnt the groundspeed of an aircraft vastly more than the airspeed when it is travelling in the opposite direction to the earth?
Because in the rotating Spherical Earth model, the atmosphere is rotating with the Earth (due to gravity working on the air particles).

If not, it would be possible to lift a helicopter at the equator, keep it steady (w.r.t. the point in the air) for 1 hour and then land some 1600 km west from the point at surface where you started (let's say you start the helicopter in Quito and end up in Galapagos).

Youre not thinking about it.

Of course a helicopter would move with the atmosphere and remain relatively stationary above the earth.

The question is about a plane using thrust to move against the atmosphere.

Again if a plane is using thrust to travel at 500 mph against the atmosphere, why isnt the groundspeed vastly more than 500mph?
It was always going to happen!!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 23 Aug 2016 19:30 #5

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
Gaia wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Gaia wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Imagine a simple magnetic compass which always points to north.

If you were to hold it in the flat of your hand somewhere in the southern hemisphere, i imagine it would still oint north quite happily.

Why isnt the needle pulled to the base of the compass instead of spinning freely, as that is where "north" physically is located.
Because the magnetic lines run through the Earth and the compass needle simply aligns with them. Why would the compass needle be pulled towards the centre of the Earth?

Not that I expect any answers from the Concave Earth trolls, as none of the questions have been answered so far (shouting "mainstream is wrong" or screaming "light bends" without specifying anything is not answering any questions), but what causes, in the Concave Earth idea:
1 - the shadows cast by the Sun across the day to be different
2 - while the shadow cast on the Moon be constant over a day's length?

In the Convex Earth heliocentric model that is because the Earth rotates and because the Sun is far away (and huge). In the Concave Earth idea the Sun needs to be tiny and close by but that would mean the Moon should experience those changing shadows over the course of a day just like an object on Earth is experiencing.

Self-proclaimed "debunker" of the Convex Earth heliocentric model Conandrum, lost Chandrakavi and Johannes Lang fan Pfizipfei should be able to answer these questions satisfactorily right away; after all the Concave Earth idea is "comfortable" and "consistent" (enough), isn't it? :ponda:

Because relative to the compass, that is where north is.
Huh? The wind directions are defined w.r.t. the Earth's surface as that is where we move around (the tens of kms above it in the sky and the max 12 km mankind has drilled are so close to it compared to rE (~6400 km) that they can be considered as "surface".

In theory your idea would apply to a compass held in a balloon/high flying plane; where the needle would incline slightly towards the Earth, but not on the southern hemisphere?

Its a simple experiment.

Hold a simple compass directly below the south pole of a magnet on a flat plane.

What happens to the needle?

Why doesnt this happen to a simple comass in australia?
It was always going to happen!!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 24 Aug 2016 00:00 #6

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
I've watched the clips of the Moon (part 1 and 2) and the animation "fly inside Concave Earth". Unfortunately they do not explain the questions I asked, it's more; they bring up new questions and problems.

Part 1:
The model shows an inner circle (closer to Earth surface, so outer circle from the "centre of the Celestial Sphere") = Moon and an outer circle (or inner w.r.t. to the celestial sphere centre), which is the Sun.

How come we have solar and lunar eclipses then?
-> solar eclipse = Moon between Earth and Sun
-> lunar eclipse = Earth between Moon and Sun

In this idea, it is impossible to have a lunar eclipse.

Part 2:

In this clip the Moon is orbiting around a central point.
So it should show its back side to an observer and in any case show a different side of the Moon when viewed from different parts of the Earth's surface.

Yet, we don't see this at all; the Moon always shows her same side to us, no matter where you are on Earth and what time of the year. The moon phases are also not explained by this animation.

Also, as the Moon (and Sun) are behind the Celestial Sphere in this idea, we should see the stars (and planets) in front of the Moon (and Sun).

Also this has never been observed.

E.g.:

- 2 observers on the equator (for ease), one in Quito and one in NE Brazil, let's say Recife
- Time zone difference is 2 hours
- So @ 00:00 from Recife, observer A sees the full Moon high in the sky
- At this moment it is 22:00 in Quito and observer B sees the full Moon lower in the sky

Yet both observers see the SAME side of the Moon, just the position in the sky is different.

In Concave Earth this would be impossible; observer A in Recife should see a DIFFERENT part of the Moon than observer B in Quito.

It gets even more difficult if we add 2 more observers; one in eastern Canada (C), north of Recife, same longitude; same time and same full Moon side, but lower in the sky and one in central Canada, north of Quito (D), same longitude as Quito, same latitude as C, so at 22:00. Same full Moon as A, B and C, lower in the sky than B, and lower in the sky than C. Both Canadian observers (C and D) see the Moon under a different angle/tilted than the ones (A and B) at the equator), but they ALL see the same side of the Moon; the only side we ever see.

In a Concave Earth idea this is impossible; all observers should see a different side of the Moon.

Adding more observers to the south (Chile/Argentina) and east (Western Europe, early morning and Western Africa, idem) only increases the problems.

It is these simple observations anyone can make that debunk this Concave Earth idea. It is just impossible, and can therefore never be called a "theory". Even a hypothesis it is not, because we have all the tools to verify it with our own eyes and then the idea becomes bullshit.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 10:46 #7

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 18938
  • Likes received: 8925
On the groundspeed/airspeed... the answers given to this seem to be the following or variations of it... the earths atmosphere apparently/is said to move with the earth (as do land based objects obviously) So it doesnt make a difference either way, the plane is always moving with the earth at the same relative speed regardless of whether its in the air or on the ground, because the atmosphere the plane is in is for the most part moving with the earth rotation.

If this wasnt the case then you would jump up off the ground for lets say a second at the equator where its speed is 460m/s... and youd land many meters away from where you were... obviously this doesnt occur... therefore the only thing that will change your landing position relative to the starting point is left or right thrust when youre in the air.

Now either thats right or the earth just isnt turning at all. :hahano:
I remember the good old days, when 90+ year olds in nursing homes lived forever. Darn this pesky virus.

1365 = 1

1.1365 = 1,283,305,580,313,352
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 13:25 #8

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
On the groundspeed/airspeed... the answers given to this seem to be the following or variations of it... the earths atmosphere apparently/is said to move with the earth (as do land based objects obviously) So it doesnt make a difference either way, the plane is always moving with the earth at the same relative speed regardless of whether its in the air or on the ground, because the atmosphere the plane is in is for the most part moving with the earth rotation.

If this wasnt the case then you would jump up off the ground for lets say a second at the equator where its speed is 460m/s... and youd land many meters away from where you were... obviously this doesnt occur... therefore the only thing that will change your landing position relative to the starting point is left or right thrust when youre in the air.

Now either thats right or the earth just isnt turning at all. :hahano:

Yes i know the accepted explanation, it makes no sense though and somebody jumping is different to an aircraft being thrusted at mach 1 in the opposite direction to the planet, atmosphere.

Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
It was always going to happen!!
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 14:08 #9

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
wolfy wrote:

Yes i know the accepted explanation, it makes no sense though

Why not? Which arguments do you have? It makes sense to me; see my post about it. I haven't ignored anything.
and somebody jumping is different to an aircraft being thrusted at mach 1 in the opposite direction to the planet, atmosphere.
It's obviously different, but what makes it problematic for the airplane?
Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

If not, you'd be right, but like novum says: the observations show that either the Earth + atmosphere don't rotate, or that they do, but in an integrated way.

Taking the one (rotating Earth) and the other (static atmosphere) does not seem possible.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 27 Aug 2016 14:09 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 16:33 #10

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
Gaia wrote:
Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

If not, you'd be right, but like novum says: the observations show that either the Earth + atmosphere don't rotate, or that they do, but in an integrated way.

Taking the one (rotating Earth) and the other (static atmosphere) does not seem possible.

You're not thinking about it.

Lets accept your definition:
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

So we are saying that as 1 integrated system, the air is travelling at 1400mph in one direction.

Which would explain why when we jump the earth doesnt travel below us.

I will explain a little about how aircraft work out how fast high they are, one of the systems is Pitot Static system, which is basically a tube on the front of the Aircraft and it uses the speed and pressure of the air to work out Speed, velocity etc.

Now, if we accept that the air is travelling in one direction at a constant speed, surely the direction and speed of the aircraft relative to the rotating air would have an effect on what the system reads.

But it doesn't, it remains constant regardless of which way the aircraft is travelling.

This does not make sense!!
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 27 Aug 2016 16:37 by wolfy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 17:07 #11

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
wolfy wrote:
Gaia wrote:
Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

If not, you'd be right, but like novum says: the observations show that either the Earth + atmosphere don't rotate, or that they do, but in an integrated way.

Taking the one (rotating Earth) and the other (static atmosphere) does not seem possible.

You're not thinking about it.

Lets accept your definition:
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

So we are saying that as 1 integrated system, the air is travelling at 1400mph in one direction.
No. Air is static. with respect to the only area we can measure; surface. That 1600 km/h (not 1400 miles per hour) is irrelevant. The angular velocity close to the poles is much less than 1600 km/h, but also irrelevant.

Only if you could take space as reference, you'd be right, but we can't, so the rotation speed of the Earth is irrelevant.
hich would explain why when we jump the earth doesnt travel below us.

I will explain a little about how aircraft work out how fast high they are, one of the systems is Pitot Static system, which is basically a tube on the front of the Aircraft and it uses the speed and pressure of the air to work out Speed, velocity etc.

Now, if we accept that the air is travelling in one direction at a constant speed, surely the direction and speed of the aircraft relative to the rotating air would have an effect on what the system reads.

But it doesn't, it remains constant regardless of which way the aircraft is travelling.

This does not make sense!!
I don't know about that thing. But wind speed is also relative to the Earth's surface, like everything.

You are constantly taking a non-existing point as reference; an imaginary point in space that doesn't exist; the Earth is orbiting too, so there is no reference point, only a line.

The only reference we ever have is surface. And wind excluded, air is static above that point (in the CEHM because of gravity).
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 17:57 #12

  • GMP
  • GMP's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 3506
  • Likes received: 858
Gaia wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Gaia wrote:
Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

If not, you'd be right, but like novum says: the observations show that either the Earth + atmosphere don't rotate, or that they do, but in an integrated way.

Taking the one (rotating Earth) and the other (static atmosphere) does not seem possible.

You're not thinking about it.

Lets accept your definition:
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

So we are saying that as 1 integrated system, the air is travelling at 1400mph in one direction.
No. Air is static. with respect to the only area we can measure; surface. That 1600 km/h (not 1400 miles per hour) is irrelevant. The angular velocity close to the poles is much less than 1600 km/h, but also irrelevant.

Only if you could take space as reference, you'd be right, but we can't, so the rotation speed of the Earth is irrelevant.
hich would explain why when we jump the earth doesnt travel below us.

I will explain a little about how aircraft work out how fast high they are, one of the systems is Pitot Static system, which is basically a tube on the front of the Aircraft and it uses the speed and pressure of the air to work out Speed, velocity etc.

Now, if we accept that the air is travelling in one direction at a constant speed, surely the direction and speed of the aircraft relative to the rotating air would have an effect on what the system reads.

But it doesn't, it remains constant regardless of which way the aircraft is travelling.

This does not make sense!!
I don't know about that thing. But wind speed is also relative to the Earth's surface, like everything.

You are constantly taking a non-existing point as reference; an imaginary point in space that doesn't exist; the Earth is orbiting too, so there is no reference point, only a line.

The only reference we ever have is surface. And wind excluded, air is static above that point (in the CEHM because of gravity).
A co-ordinate is a ( usually) triangulated point in space and time.
Some co-ordinates may be on the surface, others won't be.
Pretty lost here.
Are any posters claiming that the Earth is NOT the ball-shaped sphere (with some lumpy bits) that it actually is?
Why do that?
:)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 18:06 #13

  • rodin
  • rodin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Spam Killer
  • BELIEF IS THE ENEMY OF TRUTH
  • Posts: 4862
  • Likes received: 1818
GMP wrote:
[quote="Gaia" post=228972
Are any posters claiming that the Earth is NOT the ball-shaped sphere (with some lumpy bits) that it actually is?
Why do that?
:)

There are, and why do it? Perhaps one of them actually believes it is concave, absolute rubbish of course. More likely its a well poisoning operation
To understand who rules over you look to whom you tube can't criticise

The media isn't there to cover the news
It's there to cover the news up

All establishment lies pass through three stages
First, they are accepted as being self evident
Second, they are exposed by diligent research
Third, they are enforced

"Communism is the bloodiest, most difficult and the most terrible way from capitalism to capitalism" from Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Gaia

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 18:16 #14

  • GMP
  • GMP's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 3506
  • Likes received: 858
rodin wrote:
GMP wrote:
[quote="Gaia" post=228972
Are any posters claiming that the Earth is NOT the ball-shaped sphere (with some lumpy bits) that it actually is?
Why do that?
:)

There are, and why do it? Perhaps one of them actually believes it is concave, absolute rubbish of course. More likely its a well poisoning operation

Pretty zany idea.
Still and all...
It takes all sorts.
:)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 18:27 #15

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
gaia wrote:
No. Air is static. with respect to the only area we can measure; surface. That 1600 km/h (not 1400 miles per hour) is irrelevant. The angular velocity close to the poles is much less than 1600 km/h, but also irrelevant.

Only if you could take space as reference, you'd be right, but we can't, so the rotation speed of the Earth is irrelevant.

We could measure it from the moon, and it would be anything but static, its own orbit and its orbit around the sun could me measured with great accuracy.

And that measurement would show a rotational movement of around 1600 km/h.

Yes, with reference to the surface of the earth there is no movement of the atmosphere, that doesn't mean that it isn't moving and as soon as you put movement of an object into the calculation, that object is moving in relation to the surface of the earth and the air in the atmosphere.

So again,

Why doesn't an aircraft using thrust to travel at mach 1 against the movement of the earth and atmosphere register the air and atmosphere one little bit more than if it were flying in the same direction as the air atmosphere?

You are constantly taking a non-existing point as reference; an imaginary point in space that doesn't exist; the Earth is orbiting too, so there is no reference point, only a line.

The only reference we ever have is surface. And wind excluded, air is static above that point (in the CEHM because of gravity).

We can ignore the orbit of the earth for this, the only thing that matters is the relation of the aircraft to the atmosphere and surface of the earth.

From the vatage point of the moon the earth and the atmosphere spins, so if we could see the aircraft, why when we see it flying against the rotation of the earth do we not see it travelling faster than if it were flying in the same direction?
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 27 Aug 2016 18:33 by wolfy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 19:37 #16

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7675
  • Likes received: 1668
wolfy wrote:
gaia wrote:
No. Air is static. with respect to the only area we can measure; surface. That 1600 km/h (not 1400 miles per hour) is irrelevant. The angular velocity close to the poles is much less than 1600 km/h, but also irrelevant.

Only if you could take space as reference, you'd be right, but we can't, so the rotation speed of the Earth is irrelevant.

We could measure it from the moon, and it would be anything but static, its own orbit and its orbit around the sun could me measured with great accuracy.

And that measurement would show a rotational movement of around 1600 km/h.

Yes, with reference to the surface of the earth there is no movement of the atmosphere, that doesn't mean that it isn't moving and as soon as you put movement of an object into the calculation, that object is moving in relation to the surface of the earth and the air in the atmosphere.

You keep trying.

The rotation velocity of the Earth at equator is 1600 km/h but as we will never be able to leave that, we will never feel it.

The solar system (and thus the Earth) is traveling with what? 25,000 km/h? Nothing we will feel of that either. Or a perfectly smooth train that runs 300 km/h, you don't feel it.

So again,

Why doesn't an aircraft using thrust to travel at mach 1 against the movement of the earth and atmosphere register the air and atmosphere one little bit more than if it were flying in the same direction as the air atmosphere?
Because there is only wind/air movement in the atmosphere, nothing else.

So the movement of the atmosphere around the Earth is just as static (w.r.t. Earth) as the air in a 300 km/h train.

Your "Moon position" is like the observer seeing the train and air pass by.

You are constantly taking a non-existing point as reference; an imaginary point in space that doesn't exist; the Earth is orbiting too, so there is no reference point, only a line.

The only reference we ever have is surface. And wind excluded, air is static above that point (in the CEHM because of gravity).

We can ignore the orbit of the earth for this, the only thing that matters is the relation of the aircraft to the atmosphere and surface of the earth.

From the vatage point of the moon the earth and the atmosphere spins, so if we could see the aircraft, why when we see it flying against the rotation of the earth do we not see it travelling faster than if it were flying in the same direction?
A device that would be independent of atmosphere you'd see that. But those don't exist and never will. So thats why I say it's irrelevant. Jut like the speed aroud the centre of the Milky Way is irrelevant.

The rotation of the Earth is impossible to feel in the atmosphere (apart from day and night temperatures of course).
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 21:58 #17

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 18938
  • Likes received: 8925
wolfy wrote:
Gaia wrote:
Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

If not, you'd be right, but like novum says: the observations show that either the Earth + atmosphere don't rotate, or that they do, but in an integrated way.

Taking the one (rotating Earth) and the other (static atmosphere) does not seem possible.

You're not thinking about it.

Lets accept your definition:
Because there is no separation of air/atmosphere and land, in the accepted model. It is 1 integrated system rotating.

So we are saying that as 1 integrated system, the air is travelling at 1400mph in one direction.

Which would explain why when we jump the earth doesnt travel below us.

I will explain a little about how aircraft work out how fast high they are, one of the systems is Pitot Static system, which is basically a tube on the front of the Aircraft and it uses the speed and pressure of the air to work out Speed, velocity etc.

Now, if we accept that the air is travelling in one direction at a constant speed, surely the direction and speed of the aircraft relative to the rotating air would have an effect on what the system reads.

But it doesn't, it remains constant regardless of which way the aircraft is travelling.

This does not make sense!!

I think the answer here is that the equations these measurments are based on already have the earths rotation factored in (or lack of it, if that is indeed the case) .. either way they have a zero point reference that doesnt change regardless of the earths rotation... both for pressure and sound. ( if the atmosphere is considered to move with earth then you wont hit the speed of sound in one direction easier than the other)

If you sit a pitot tube on the ground and look at the data from it (after its been through the calculated algorithms).. it will not register any air speed on the ground whether you point it in the direction of the earths rotation, or opposite of that (lets exclude any surface wind for this, assume its a still day, no wind)

Ergo why should it be any different up in the air, if atmo spins with earth? So again the only thing that can change it is the planes thrust plus or minus any winds.

Pitot tubes are just a mechanical sensor, as youd already know they dont directly tell you airspeed.. the airspeed is calculated from equations using pressure readings from the tube. These equations can be considered to already have the earths rotation factored in to put it in laymans terms, you wont get a pressure reading difference in pascals either by turning a pressure gauge with or against the earths rotation either, the static pressure reading doesnt change on the ground, and wont in the air from this either (if we remove other forces from the consideration such as wind speed)

Heres the calcs pitots use...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_pressure

And the same goes for mach 1, since sound doesnt travel faster whether its directed with or against the earths rotation... so again everything is relative to a zero reference point that is all of earth, atmosphere included.
wolfy wrote:
Yes i know the accepted explanation, it makes no sense though and somebody jumping is different to an aircraft being thrusted at mach 1 in the opposite direction to the planet, atmosphere.

Do you realise that an aircraft travelling at 500 mph into a 100 mph headwind has a groundspeed of 400 mph ?

If an aircraft is travelling at mach 1 against the spin of the earth, how is it possible for the plane to be travelling at mach 1 when the earth is travelling at 1400 mph in the opposite direction?
I remember the good old days, when 90+ year olds in nursing homes lived forever. Darn this pesky virus.

1365 = 1

1.1365 = 1,283,305,580,313,352
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 27 Aug 2016 22:03 #18

  • GMP
  • GMP's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 3506
  • Likes received: 858
rodin wrote:
GMP wrote:
It takes all sorts.
:)

Not paedophiles, not murderers, not liars, we' d be better off without all of those

+1
Never gonna happen though.
Some people are just wrong uns.
On the scale of zany though this concave or flat or hollow-earth shit do take some beating IMO.
Right up there with Icke's reppies for sheer whackiness.
Even if any one theory was right- how would that matter.
The Tide comes in and goes out just the same, seasons change and we live our lives as best we may.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 16:53 #19

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
"Gaia" post=229004]
You keep trying.


I keep trying because you cant see it.
Because there is only wind/air movement in the atmosphere, nothing else.

So the movement of the atmosphere around the Earth is just as static (w.r.t. Earth) as the air in a 300 km/h train.

Your "Moon position" is like the observer seeing the train and air pass by.

Ok, lets use your train example.

Imagine a train travelling on a track at 50mph

Now imagine a model train set inside the train travellin in the opposite direction at 50mph.

(And lets imagine this train is ten miles long)

How fast is the model train travelling???
A device that would be independent of atmosphere you'd see that. But those don't exist and never will. So thats why I say it's irrelevant. Jut like the speed aroud the centre of the Milky Way is irrelevant.

Of course it is relevent!! it is 100% relevent.

Imagine the space shuttle coming back to earth, at some point it has to enter back into the earths atmosphere and as you point out that atmosphere is spinning in the same direction as the earth.

Logically, if a space shuttle entered that atmosphere against the roation of it, there would be more resistance than entering it going with the flow.
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 16:57 by wolfy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 17:08 #20

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
I think the answer here is that the equations these measurments are based on already have the earths rotation factored in (or lack of it, if that is indeed the case) .. either way they have a zero point reference that doesnt change regardless of the earths rotation... both for pressure and sound. ( if the atmosphere is considered to move with earth then you wont hit the speed of sound in one direction easier than the other)

But gaia says it is irrellevent as there is no effect of the earths rotational atmosphere on the readings.

FWIW they don't have the equations factored in for the rotation of the earth.
If you sit a pitot tube on the ground and look at the data from it (after its been through the calculated algorithms).. it will not register any air speed on the ground whether you point it in the direction of the earths rotation, or opposite of that (lets exclude any surface wind for this, assume its a still day, no wind)

Of course it wouldn't, it needs airflow to register anything.

Which is what the thrust of the aircraft gives it.

The question is, why doesn't it register more air flow as it is thrust into the earths atmosphere?
Ergo why should it be any different up in the air, if atmo spins with earth? So again the only thing that can change it is the planes thrust plus or minus any winds.

See the shuttle example above.

Do you accept that it should experience more resistance from the atmosphere travelling from no atmosphere, into a spinning atmosphere into the opposite direction?
Pitot tubes are just a mechanical sensor, as youd already know they dont directly tell you airspeed.. the airspeed is calculated from equations using pressure readings from the tube. These equations can be considered to already have the earths rotation factored in to put it in laymans terms, you wont get a pressure reading difference in pascals either by turning a pressure gauge with or against the earths rotation either, the static pressure reading doesnt change on the ground, and wont in the air from this either (if we remove other forces from the consideration such as wind speed)

Why would they be factored in, if it has no effect?

You are tacitally agreeing to what I am saying, by saying the equations would have to have it factored in, so logically if they didn't they would register the atmosphere.
And the same goes for mach 1, since sound doesnt travel faster whether its directed with or against the earths rotation... so again everything is relative to a zero reference point that is all of earth, atmosphere included.

Mach 1 is just a speed of the aircraft.

Nothing to do with sound.

I think the shuttle and train puzzle highlight the paradox perfectly
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 17:09 by wolfy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
A Corpse, 67 Tons of Cash and an Impounded Airplane - CIA Operation Gone Wrong?7.83Saturday, 12 March 2016
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
56%
Most Recent Donation $122 USD
4th January 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
 
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
 
More Info: Donation options for TZ
 

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.