[i 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.[/i

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.

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.

Question for you Stanley - If you jump into the air on a moving train, do you land in the same spot or slightly further back?

[iWe aren't talking about a simple one foot jump or leap from a moving train We are talking about a transatlantic flight lasting hours and hours. By your "train' jumping" analogy, I could jump perpendicular from a train moving at 60 mph, hang glide off a mountain top in direction I jumped, then hit the ground going 60 mph in the trains original direction. Thanks for 'clearing' things up though. [/iicon_thumb.gif

WHOOSH......!

Insecurity is proven with your poll suggestion. I'm sure Stan will forgive you.!

Are you and I reading the same forums?

Odd.

[iAre you on the right forum. Amnesia setting in through the angst.[/i

Flex the vex. Ha

Hahaha he's a wounded Zebra at the minute. Better leave him alone.

One of us is making himself look foolish, and it's not me. But your style (example "Hahaha Keep digging your hole"icon_wink.gif is a bit pathetic for a supposed adult involved in an adult discussion. But, you are only showing yourself up. Your choice.


Innumerate nonsense, I'm afraid. As the atmosphere is rotating at the same speed as the ground surface (broadly speaking) the plane flying at 500 mph west will cross the ground at the same rate as would a jet powered road vehicle driving the same way at a similar speed.
Can you explain why you still keep making the same mistake over and over again? Your proposition is an obvious non sequitur.

Planes are neither travelling "with" the Earth's spin, nor "against" the Earth's spin. The earth's spin is irrelevant to flight times. The only frames of reference of relevance to the plane and its passengers are (a) its airspeed and (b) its groundspeed.

Once airborne, all the plane has to do is use its engines to push its way through the mass of the atmosphere until it reaches its destination. The rotation of the Earth is not material to the issue. In broad terms, the atmosphere is as a whole rotating at the same speed as the rest of the planet, and that is the reason.

As I keep saying, but as you improbably feign not to understand.

Keep digging. Your broad terms are again blown out the water. If the atmosphere is spinning with the so called planet its travelling with the 1000 mph Eastward spin then as you highlighted above its travelling too at 1000 mph meaning it affects all motion including westward bound flights. You can't have a global atmospheric eastward spin of 1000 mph and it not affect a westward bound flight. The reason flight times are identical both ways is because the Earth is stationary [url=https://youtu.be/S-DP-TqHcdkExplained thoroughly Here[/url You're making a fool of yourself.

You can't have it both ways to suit your argument. Yeah the Earths 1000 mph eastward spin doesn't count on earth. Jargon.

Fabulous link by the way, The youtuber My perspective gets his message through. Theres no doubt theres an issue with rotation. Nice video

He's awesome My Perspective. One of the best persons to source evidence on perceptions.

It's like having a conversation with people from the middle ages. I'm getting bored now. There's only so much conversation you can have with a brick wall.

Stan, with all seriousness, please go and see a psychiatrist. You're so far from reality, just from what you've written on here, that I'm genuinely concerned. You are way up the scale for Schizotypal personality disorder.

Get yourself checked out, because reinforcing the craziness you come out with on these forums is doing you no good upstairs. Also, because of this, I'll refrain from anymore conversations on these kind of topics from now on as I don't think I'm doing you any favours in the long run.

Don't jump on your high horse either. This isn't an attack on you, it's a genuine post.

My heads fine Mr Zebra. I 'll still forgive you for your cranial last resort insults. Always remember Jesus loves you. Adios.

What an appalling post. well done with that solemn reply. HURGH Atheism.

You reveal a deep-rooted need to award yourself imagined 'victories'. You can't see the wood for those trees.


Yes, but only from the perspective of someone watching the Earth rotate. From the perspective of the observer on the ground, the rotation is not felt (as no accelerations or decelerations are experienced) so for practical (earthbound) purposes he is stationary.


yes you can and yes you do. To fly somewhere else, the plane only needs to fly at a speed differential to the air mass. that speed would be the same speed regardless of the rotation speed of the globe.
On a still day, a hot air balloon will rise straight up. If it could stay up for 24 hours, it would from the perspective of space have completed one full "orbit" along a circle of the globe. From the perspective of someone on the ground, or in the balloon, they would be in the same place on Earth when they landed as they had been when they floated up.

So, the global spin would have had no effect, at all, on the balloon. Because the earth below and the atmosphere in which the balloon is suspended, at that point, are spinning at an equal speed.

If there is a slight wind in any direction, then the balloon will travel relative to the ground at the speed of that wind in that direction. if the wind is 20 mph the balloon will have an airspeed of zero 9as it is not moving againstthe air flow but keeping station with it0 and wil have a groundspeed of 20 mph.

From the point of takeoff, ONLY the air flow will affect the speed of the balloon relative to the ground.

Unless you have never watched a hot air balloon, you have witnessedall this for yourself many times.


One of us is, but it's not me. Flight times aren't identical, they vary depending on prevailing winds. Just one instance of the stupidity of your "identical" suggestion is flight times from UK to USA, which can be and are often considerably speeded up by the Jet Stream. For flights to have identical times, there would have to be no jet stream. Don't you believe in the Jet Stream either Stan?

Du you accept the Coriolis effect? If not, why do storms rotate one direction in the northern hemisphere, and the opposite in the southern hemisphere? None of this would happen but for the Earth's spin.


I didn't say it "doesn't count on Earth", I said it doesn't count for the purpose of YOUR example of a 1000 mph spin and a 500 mph plane. Of course the spin "counts" on Earth as part of the bigger picture, it drives much of our weather, and gives us our 24 hour day, to name but two things. I'd say it counts quite a lot. It does not count at all, though, in your argument. That is the point you somehow fail to grasp, or pretend to.

But I am sticking to your simple example (1000 mph spin, 500 mph plane) as it is bad enough trying to get you to concentrate on that, let alone widening the discussion.

Unless there was a significant increase or decrease in the speed of rotation, it is what it is. Like gravity, a constant. Like sitting in a plane at a steady 350mph, you don't feel the forward motion once you have reached cruising speed, because you and the plane are travelling at the same speed.

[iFirstly, Copy Paste Repeat and not your literature or thought process utter plagiarism. Secondly I was the one who suggested and mentioned the Jet stream in my original question. Without the Jet stream the flight times would be identical, proving no spinning ball as i have already proven[/i

[iThirdly, nice diversion tactic when beaten change the topic like you did on the Nuclear thread. Fourthly. The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth. [/i

[iWhile the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.[/i
[i
The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate Anti-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behaviour and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind?[u What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?[/u [uWhy does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all[/u?[u If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and Anti-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force?[/u [uAnd if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently?[/u Coriolis’s Effect and[u Foucault’s Pendulum[/u are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes. The Earth is stationary. [/i

OK i chaleneg you - find any passage from my post that is cut /paste / plagiarized.

The FACT is - there is none. But you couldn't care less about making (the same repeated) false accusation, despite having no evidence, because that is the way you approach the rest of factual information. But i will thank you to "put up or shut up". LINK to where you say I plagiarized from or else you are shown up to be a liar and a fantasist.


As explained ad infinitum, the flight times given theoretical zero wind conditions would be the same, because the air would be still, relative to the ground. Even for someone as brainwashed by your own dogma as you are, you must see this is no "proof" of any such thing. Given spinning ball and atmosphere, or given non-spinnig ball and atmosphere, the journey times would be the same. For reasons which should be so obvious they are not worth repeating. So, a fundamental error Stan - again.


You are the master diversion tactics man not anyone else! You are also the delusional who claims there are no nuclear bombs nor ever were, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions never happened. I did try to explain this to you but you are set in that delusion so crack on.


Wow. Well, there is a conclusive argument.A bare, bald assertion, that flies in the face of a zillion pieces of evidence, research, physics and facts. Yes, that really was worth saying, wasn't it?

[i[uLMAO. No, No No. The earth is stationary. As you said, the air moves with the earth spin,[/u[/i=#BF0040[i[u Well how do i see clouds moving in all directions eh? Not just west to east, they go north to south, and east to west! That in itself proves the earth doesn't spin[/u[/i.


[i
Also if the earth is moving at the 1000 mph eastward spherical spin, all stars would wander perpetually. We would never have discovered your so called 'planets', as all the stars would be moving, and the your planets would have no significance. I agree that Polaris moves, very slightly. But, given the 'fact' that earth revolves around the sun, and the sun supposedly revolves around the galaxy, there is no way any star would remain in a fixed position. Understand. [/i

Clouds are in Earth's atmosphere and will move relative to the ground, along with anything else in the air, including planes. In terms of their movement, nothing to do with the Earth spinning, just weather systems (which you may want to read up on).

The stars move across the nights sky as the Earth is spinning innit.

Our Solar System orbits the centre of the Milky Way, but so do all the rest, and the position of our Solar System and the stars around us (which is what we can see) relative to each other, are fairly fixed. I say fairly as over millions of years the positioning will change slightly, but not noticeable in our lifetimes, certainly not 'wandering' as you're imagining.

The whole galaxy is one huge spiral, of which we're towards the ends of one of the 'arms' it is believed.

It proves that there are winds. But you are becoming increasingly bizarre and it is difficult to find the enthusiasm to relate with this level of numbskullery, which sounds much more like trolling.


the figure of 1000 mph is just from your example. That is the approx. figure at the Equator. It decreases in proportion until you get to the poles, where you would rotate on the spot. (ignoring for this purpose precession, another well understood motion)

The stars do exactly what you would expect them to do if the Earth spins and orbits as science has proved it spins and orbits. And the proof of that pudding is that we can predict, with extremely high precision, where any given celestial body will appear in the sky hundreds of years into the future, and where it was in the past.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[We would never have discovered your so called 'planets', as all the stars would be moving, and the your planets would have no significance. '"

All celestial objects are in motion. Even the millions of stars. Because they are so distant, the motion only becames apparent over long periods of time, but we can still detect and measure that motion.

The planets do of course move much more against the general background of stars, as (a) they are nearer (b) we and they are in orbit around the sun. Using standard Newtonian mechanics their orbits are also entirely predictabel and thus we knew that from yesterday 5 of the planets would be all visible and nicely aligned in the pre-dawn sky. These planets incidentally will all still be visible pre-dawn till 20 Feb if you want to check, but the neatest alignment was predicted for Wednesday and -would you believe - happened precisely as predicted. Funny, that.



I have already told you that all stars are in motion. NONE remain "in a fixed position". But due to the vast distances involved, by the scale of human lifetimes they can be regarded as "fixed" in the sky for practical purposes, as any noticeable shift in position would not be visible for many thousnads of years (though can of course be detected wit appropriate instruments).

There are catalogues of stars providing you with ephemera in the most minute detail, readily available. Polaris is in fact a multiple star system. the main star which you can see with the naked eye, is a supergiant with 2 close companion stars and 2 more distant companions.

Most naked-eye visible stars are broadly speaking in a similar path around the galaxy as is the Earth.

The most visibly moving star in our sky (and here I mean proper motion, against the general background of stars, and not apparent motion) is Barnard's Star, about 6 light years distant, which over a period of a year can be seen to have change position as it goes merrily along its way. Here it is in a composite from 2004-2008: