Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum?

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 18:29 #21

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
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?

If it doesnt register air moving due to the earths rotation when sitting stationary on the ground, why would this be any different up in the air, if we assume the air (atmosphere) moves with the earth.

Imagine if you could make a pitot sensor, or entire plane for that matter, that is parked on the ground, weightless for a moment, so the force we know as gravity wouldnt pull it down...in theory it would float up and turn with the earth and atmosphere as one (if we ignore any added wind effects for this thought experiment)... the pitot tube would still read nothing but the plane would be moving at the speed of the earths rotation.

wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
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?

Yes, i agree that should be the case if moving from outside the earths atmosphere through it and entering inside it

But that is a seperate argument to objects that are inside the earths atmosphere.


wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
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.

Airspeed is calculated from pressure, you dont register more or less pascals/psi by orientating your measuring equipment with or against the earths rotation on the ground when measuring pressure, our measuring equipment does not pick this up, effectively they are 'zeroed' to the earth as it is, so again the same goes for up in the air... and this then factors into the airspeed calculation.


wolfy wrote:
I think the shuttle and train puzzle highlight the paradox perfectly
wolfy wrote:
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???

The model train is indeed travelling at 50mph relative to the real train. If the model train began travelling at the front of the real train at an average speed of 50mph.. it would reach the rear of the real train in 12 minutes, right? (since you made the train 10 miles long)

So imagine the real train is then earth, the front of it is one city and the rear is another city 10 miles away... the model train has just made a 10 mile journey in 12 mins with an average speed of 50mph. If you then turned the model train around, it could do the exact same journey in reverse in the same time at the same speed and energy requirement.

In this example, anything outside the big train could be likened to space... it is irrelevant how fast the little train is moving relative to space, only the little trains movement inside the big train is relevant to us..we want to get from point A to point B, we dont care whats going on outside the train.
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? 28 Aug 2016 18:58 #22

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:

If it doesnt register air moving due to the earths rotation when sitting stationary on the ground, why would this be any different up in the air, if we assume the air (atmosphere) moves with the earth.

Imagine if you could make a pitot sensor, or entire plane for that matter, that is parked on the ground, weightless for a moment, so the force we know as gravity wouldnt pull it down...in theory it would float up and turn with the earth and atmosphere as one (if we ignore any added wind effects for this thought experiment)... the pitot tube would still read nothing but the plane would be moving at the speed of the earths rotation.

You keep missing the important bit, the thrust of the aircraft.

I accept that without thrust, any object would move with the rotation of the earth and register no effect.

Yes, i agree that should be the case if moving from outside the earths atmosphere through it and entering inside it

But that is a seperate argument to objects that are inside the earths atmosphere.

Its not seperate at all, it is fundamental.

At what point in your head would the shuttle lose the resistance against the earths rotation?

if you accept the shuttle would meet more resistance travelling against the atmosphere why not the aircraft?

The atmosphere becomes stonger the closer the shuttle gets to the earth.

What you are saying is illogical.

Airspeed is calculated from pressure, you dont register more or less pascals/psi by orientating your measuring equipment with or against the earths rotation on the ground when measuring pressure, our measuring equipment does not pick this up, effectively they are 'zeroed' to the earth as it is, so again the same goes for up in the air... and this then factors into the airspeed calculation.

Again, you are not accounting for thrust.
The model train is indeed travelling at 50mph relative to the real train. If the model train began travelling at the front of the real train at an average speed of 50mph.. it would reach the rear of the real train in 12 minutes, right? (since you made the train 10 miles long)

But relative to the observer it is not moving at all.

Now imagine you are observing the airplane from outside our atmosphere.

Why do you see a difference?

So imagine the real train is then earth, the front of it is one city and the rear is another city 10 miles away... the model train has just made a 10 mile journey in 12 mins with an average speed of 50mph. If you then turned the model train around, it could do the exact same journey in reverse in the same time at the same speed and energy requirement.

No, imagine the train is a circle, just like the earth and imagine the model train as an observer.

The model train would never move.

Think about it.
In this example, anything outside the big train could be likened to space... it is irrelevant how fast the little train is moving relative to space, only the little trains movement inside the big train is relevant to us..we want to get from point A to point B, we dont care whats going on outside the train.

of course.

And the little train would never move.

Just like the aircraft should be effected by the earths rotation wrt space.

but as we know, it doesn't.

Why?
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 19:06 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 19:03 #23

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
Here is a mind bender relative to this topic that will test your rational thinking.

Imagine a conveyor belt with an airplane on it.

The coneyor belt will automatically travel in the opposite direction proportionally to the thrust/speed of the aircraft.

Will the aircraft ever take off?
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:19 #24

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
No, imagine the train is a circle, just like the earth and imagine the model train as an observer.

The model train would never move.

Think about it.

I have thought about it.. yes it would never move relative to terrain outside of the train yes of course.. but when we fly from point a to point b on earth (inside the big train) thats all we care about.. we dont reference space when flying from London to NY.

The terrain outside of the trains can be likened to space, and if you were observing from inside the little train, yes i agree you wouldnt move relative to outside of the big train (space) .. but you would move relative to the big train! Ergo you have travelled to a different point on the train.

wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
In this example, anything outside the big train could be likened to space... it is irrelevant how fast the little train is moving relative to space, only the little trains movement inside the big train is relevant to us..we want to get from point A to point B, we dont care whats going on outside the train.

of course.

And the little train would never move.

Just like the aircraft should be effected by the earths rotation wrt space.

but as we know, it doesn't.

Why?

But the little train does move inside and relative to the big train, it has travelled.

It depends on your point of reference or vantage point if you will.

Another example.. i conceed that if you were at a fixed point in space above the earth, and not affected by its forces hence not moving with it or because of it whatsoever.. and you watched a plane take off and fly opposite to the earths rotation, and lets say it flew at the speed of earths rotation to make thing simple.. yes from your vantage point, the plane wouldnt appear to be moving.

But the earth under it would be moving, ergo it has travelled relative to the earth.
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
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 19:21 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 19:27 #25

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
But the little train does move inside and relative to the big train, it has travelled.

It depends on your point of reference or vantage point if you will.

Another example.. i conceed that if you were at a fixed point in space above the earth, and not affected by its forces hence not moving with it or because of it whatsoever.. and you watched a plane take off and fly opposite to the earths rotation, and lets say it flew at the speed of earths rotation to make thing simple.. yes from your vantage point, the plane wouldnt appear to be moving.

But the earth under it would be moving, ergo it has travelled relative to the earth.

So,

The question becomes.

Does the little train travel to its destination faster or slower, or the same speed, depending on its direction, wrt our vantage point outside the train (earth)

Any answer on the coneyor belt?
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 19:35 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 19:36 #26

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
Here is a mind bender relative to this topic that will test your rational thinking.

Imagine a conveyor belt with an airplane on it.

The coneyor belt will automatically travel in the opposite direction proportionally to the thrust/speed of the aircraft.

Will the aircraft ever take off?

Yes it will, since a plane creates/gets its lift from airflow over the wings, once the planes engines generate enough thrust it will lift and take off, just like if it was on the ground.
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:41 #27

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
So,

The question becomes.

Does the little train travel to its destination faster or slower, or the same speed, depending on its direction, wrt our vantage point outside the train (earth)

From an outside perspective, outside of all the trains, of course that will change depending on direction, but if you were observing from inside the big train, it wont.

In your model, outside of all the trains becomes space, not earth. The big train is like earth and the little train is like a plane flying in earths system.
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:48 #28

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
wolfy wrote:
Here is a mind bender relative to this topic that will test your rational thinking.

Imagine a conveyor belt with an airplane on it.

The coneyor belt will automatically travel in the opposite direction proportionally to the thrust/speed of the aircraft.

Will the aircraft ever take off?

Yes it will, since a plane creates/gets its lift from airflow over the wings, once the planes engines generate enough thrust it will lift and take off, just like if it was on the ground.

So, would the plane move forward?
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:51 #29

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
No, but it would lift, then it would move forward relative to the ground once its off the conveyer.
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:54 #30

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
From an outside perspective, outside of all the trains, of course that will change depending on direction, but if you were observing from inside the big train, it wont.

In your model, outside of all the trains becomes space, not earth. The big train is like earth and the little train is like a plane flying in earths system.

So, we have a situation that if you were observing a plane travelling to its destination from space and from earth.

it would reach its destination in two different times?

or to make it simpler.

The little train could reach its destination in a shorter time if I were watching from outside the train than if I were observing inside the train?

How is that possible?
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? 28 Aug 2016 19:55 #31

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
No, but it would lift, then it would move forward relative to the ground once its off the conveyer.

Wrong ;)
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:07 #32

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
From an outside perspective, outside of all the trains, of course that will change depending on direction, but if you were observing from inside the big train, it wont.

In your model, outside of all the trains becomes space, not earth. The big train is like earth and the little train is like a plane flying in earths system.

So, we have a situation that if you were observing a plane travelling to its destination from space and from earth.

it would reach its destination in two different times?

or to make it simpler.

The little train could reach its destination in a shorter time if I were watching from outside the train than if I were observing inside the train?

How is that possible?

Now youre talking nonsense wolfy. (so im not suprised PFIZ thanked you for it , thus displaying just about zero knowlege on this 'conundrum' :larf: )

Ive already outlined a scenario in your example where we want to travel from point A up front of the big train, to point B at the back of the big train, 10 miles apart.

The travel time would be would be 12 minutes regardless of your vantage point.. the small train, travelling from front to rear of the 10 mile long big train at an average speed of 50mph, would reach the rear of the big train in 12 minutes.

If you were viewing from inside the little train, it would take 12 minutes for the little train to get to the back of the big train.

If you were viewing from anywhere inside the big train (and assume you could see from one end to the other) , it would take 12 minutes for the little train to get to the back of the big train.

If you were viewing from outside the trains, it would take 12 minutes for you to see the little train get to the back of the big train.

Why would the travel time from point A (front of the big train) to point B (back of the train) be any different?

It wouldnt be.
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
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 20:09 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 20:10 #33

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
wolfy wrote:
novum wrote:
From an outside perspective, outside of all the trains, of course that will change depending on direction, but if you were observing from inside the big train, it wont.

In your model, outside of all the trains becomes space, not earth. The big train is like earth and the little train is like a plane flying in earths system.

So, we have a situation that if you were observing a plane travelling to its destination from space and from earth.

it would reach its destination in two different times?

or to make it simpler.

The little train could reach its destination in a shorter time if I were watching from outside the train than if I were observing inside the train?

How is that possible?

Now youre talking nonsense wolfy. (so im not suprised PFIZ thanked you for it , thus displaying just about zero knowlege on this 'conundrum' :larf: )

Ive already outlined a scenario in your example where we want to travel from point A up front of the big train, to point B at the back of the big train, 10 miles apart.

The travel time would be would be 12 minutes regardless of your vantage point.. the small train, travelling from front to rear of the 10 mile long big train at an average speed of 50mph, would reach the rear of the big train in 12 minutes.

If you were viewing from inside the little train, it would take 12 minutes for the little train to get to the back of the big train.

If you were viewing from inside the big train (and could see 10 miles ahead) , it would take 12 minutes for the little train to get to the back of the big train.

If you were viewing from outside the trains, it would take 12 minutes for you to see the little train get to the back of the big train.

Why would the travel time from point A (front of the big train) to point B (back of the train) be any different?

It wouldnt be.

Did you forget what you just wrote a few minutes ago?

So,

The question becomes.

Does the little train travel to its destination faster or slower, or the same speed, depending on its direction, wrt our vantage point outside the train (earth)

From an outside perspective, outside of all the trains, of course that will change depending on direction, but if you were observing from inside the big train, it wont.
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:14 #34

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
Well obviously i didnt word that correctly at all , my bad.. my subsequent post shows what i was thinking.

Now you can pick at that mistake, or get to the point youre trying to make about things moving in relation to eachother?
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:16 #35

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
Well obviously i didnt word that correctly at all , my bad.. my subsequent post shows what i was thinking.

Now you can pick at that mistake, or get to the point youre trying to make about things moving in relation to eachother?

So, now you are saying that regardless of the speeds of the two trains relative each other and to the outside vantage point, they will both reach their destinations at the same time?

edit, the model train will reach its destination at the same time regardless of the parametres.
It was always going to happen!!
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 20:19 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 20:22 #36

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20381
  • Likes received: 7951
novum wrote:
Now youre talking nonsense wolfy. (so im not suprised PFIZ thanked you for it , thus displaying just about zero knowlege on this 'conundrum' :larf: )


Wow! Just Wow!


.
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Airplane Airspeed/Groundspeed Conundrum? 28 Aug 2016 20:24 #37

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
What im saying is that a little train travelling at 50 mph in another (big) moving train, will travel 50 miles in that train in an hour, obviously. It doesnt matter what speed the big train is doing.

And you could replace 50 with any other number, at 100mph the little train would move 100 miles inside the big train in an hour.

This is high school stuff of course.. so what are you getting at?

I simply made a mistake higher up because i wasnt reading closely, thats all, so disregard that.
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:26 #38

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
edit, the model train will reach its destination at the same time regardless of the parametres.

Of course it will, your overarching point being with this train example (and plane examples) ?
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:31 #39

  • wolfy
  • wolfy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2938
  • Likes received: 976
novum wrote:
What im saying is that a little train travelling at 50 mph in another (big) moving train, will travel 50 miles in that train in an hour, obviously. It doesnt matter what speed the big train is doing.

And you could replace 50 with any other number, at 100mph the little train would move 100 miles inside the big train in an hour.

This is high school stuff of course.. so what are you getting at?

I simply made a mistake higher up because i wasnt reading closely, thats all, so disregard that.

I am getting at the original problem.

Why when an aircraft travelling with thrust against the atmosphere doesn't its instruments register a higher speed?

You accept that a shuttle entering the atmosphere against the rotation of it would meet more resitance than entering with it.

Why don't you accept that an airplane wouldn't experience the same effect in a thicker atmosphere?

You worked uot the conveyor belt probelm yet?
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? 28 Aug 2016 20:56 #40

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 19001
  • Likes received: 8956
wolfy wrote:
I am getting at the original problem.

Why when an aircraft travelling with thrust against the atmosphere doesn't its instruments register a higher speed?

OK so were flying against the earths spin, for arguments sake... Why would the instruments register a higher speed, when the atmosphere is moving with the earth, ergo the entire plane is moving with the atmosphere and with the earth , so its instrumentation is effectively moving with the earth and atmosphere, its only going to read what is created by the plane (thrust) (plus any additional wind speed)

If you could hypothetically elevate the plane up in the air with no forward or backward thrust, and there was no wind... it would just spin with the earth and its instruments wouldnt register any speed.

You do know that pitots use pascals/pressure to calculate air speed.. now pressure gauges dont pick up the earths rotation either, so the pitot wont (if indeed there is rotation, lol)

Same reason these things just hang down when theres no wind.. why doesnt the earths rotation push them out sideways?


You worked uot the conveyor belt probelm yet?

Once the plane lifts and isnt subject to the conveyor belt forces, wouldnt it begin to move forward relative to the earth? If not then what does it do?

wolfy wrote:
You accept that a shuttle entering the atmosphere against the rotation of it would meet more resitance than entering with it.

Why don't you accept that an airplane wouldn't experience the same effect in a thicker atmosphere?

Consider a vortex of water, turning clockwise.



And i wanted to enter the vortex from above, lets say for example sake on a corkscrew decline, not straight down..

if i was descending while travelling against the vortex direction, counter clockwise... at the moment of hitting the water id need considerable more force of course to maintain my trajectory (course and speed) (against the direction of water flow) relative to where i was outside of the water.

conversely, id need much less force if i was descending in a clockwise direction.

ok so thats a no brainer really.

But what happens if im already in the vortex, and want to move my position in relation to my current position in the vortex (not a point of reference outside the vortex) ... do i need more force to move within the vortex if i move against the direction it is turning, than the other way, in order to move the same distance inside the vortex relative to my starting position in the vortex.

I say no, moving either way would require the same amount of force through the water, whether i wanted to move 1 meter left or right through the water (not with it obviously)

Obviously ive simplified the water example somewhat as with a vortex its a little more complex than just left and right vectors.. but you could imagine the same kind of thing with a straight moving stream of water running from left to right.. if youre already in the water (moving with it) .. you still need the same amount of force to move 1m left or 1m right through the water (not with it) , right?
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
Last Edit: 28 Aug 2016 22:46 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
A Corpse, 67 Tons of Cash and an Impounded Airplane - CIA Operation Gone Wrong?7.84Saturday, 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.