Yeah. If anything rises "perfectly straight up in the sky" and "hovers" (assuming by "hover" we mean "fly without moving" as is the common usage of the word), then whenever it lands, no matter how much later in the future, it will be at the same spot it took off at. I'm not sure what the point of the comment is, these are just the definitions of words.
Also, if you take off and fly straight north at 500 miles per hour for one hour and then land, you will be 500 miles north of your starting point (assuming you started more than 500 miles away from the north pole). Also just definitions.
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
OK. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how people have a hard time understanding this. I used to think that flat earth was all fake and there weren't actually people who believed it. I have come around to the idea that some people really do believe it in good faith, and those people are generally allies on most issues.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just find it bizarre I guess. As far as hovering goes, what someone does when they hover a helicopter is they hold it steady over a spot on the earth. That is what the word "hover" means in English. The way the pilot knows he is hovering is by watching the earth and adjusting the craft to stay over the same spot. So, by definition, the craft is staying over the same spot. The pilot is just adjusting the controls to ensure that this happens based on what he sees the craft doing relative to the ground.
This is why I said "if you fly 500 miles per hour north for an hour, you land 500 miles north of where you started." It is literally the same thing as hovering being remaining over one spot. You are just stating what the pilot is doing using English words.
If u go back to my first comment I explained pretty clearly but ill be more specific
if the coptor goes straight up in the air 90° straight up
Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement..
The coptor after hours of being in the sky in that same position will come back down to the ground in the exact same spot it took off from. Exact same spot.
What I am saying is conventional physics would say "goes straight up in the air 90° straight up" and "Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement" are contradictory to each other. Maybe this is obvious to me because I am an engineer. In the real world, the only way something would remain in the same place like that is because it is being controlled, either by a human or a computer. The major disturbances preventing this are the wind and mechanical imbalance in the helicopter, and buried under these is the effect of the earth's rotation.
But what if we make a perfect helicopter that can push straight up in perfect balance with no sideways thrust and run it on a day with absolutely no wind?
In this theoretical situation, then the prediction would be that that such a helicopter would drift slowly due to the earth's rotation. If such a perfect helicopter and windless atmosphere existed, and the copter were flown to a mile of altitude near the equator, then while up there we would expect it to drift westward a bit more than a quarter mile per hour due to to the earth's rotation.
This experiment is pretty much impossible to do though. Any hovering helicopter is being controlled by a pilot or a computerized flight control system.
I'm curious can't a helicopter be adapted with a program to maintain its spot in its position ? a spot that it has measured that sits somewhere IN SOACE where I assume our planet will move away from said spot and 1 year later return to it. thus spot in "space". sorry I'm dumb.
It sounds like you are asking if a helicopter can remain in a single place in the earth's orbit and have the earth return to it a year later. I'm not sure if this question is serious, but clearly the answer is no. The helicopter flies in the earth's atmosphere. If it remained in a single place in the earth orbit for a year, it would be in empty space until the earth returned. Doing this would involve, from the perspective of someone on earth, the helicopter flying up into space and then remaining in a single spot there despite the force of the sun's gravity. Helicopters only fly up to a mile or two, and they certainly cannot hover in a vacuum (although not too much is needed to counteract the sun).
Generally, the flat earth arguments are along the lines of the helicopter being expected to remain at one place relative to the earth center with the earth rotating underneath it. The long thread above is me trying to convince one of them that this is not in fact an argument that the globe is invalid, no matter what Eric Dubey and Dave Weiss say. A hovering helicopter hovers above the ground, and since the ground is moving as a part of earth rotation, so is the hovering helicopter (at the same speed), as is the air (up to the difference caused by wind).
From a broader perspective, even remaining in one place in the earth orbit is still "moving" since the whole solar system orbits the galactic center. So saying "I want to stay still relative to the earth orbit and see it return next year" is still arbitrary, as you are following the solar orbit around the galaxy. And the galactic center of mass moves relative to others as well.
Incidentally, this "motion upon motion" is always cited by flat earthers as completely preposterous and not explainable by conventional science. This is all false, the principles are all very simple.
LOL. The video basically demonstrates that relative velocity works exactly as "globetards" say it does. Note that while on the truck, definitely do not hang your arm or leg over the side and hit a sign passing by, as it will be moving 80 km/hr. Also note that while getting launched down the bed of the truck, definitely do not hang and arm or leg over the side and hit anything attached to the truck, as it will be moving 80 km/hr.
But, if you do the experiment correctly, you land on the street as planned. Also, just to be a stickler, the video is entitled "He Trusted Physics..." but this is not quite right. Only some fool would not trust "physics" when it is a concept as simple as relative velocity. What this guy actually trusted, and this is much less certain and scarier, is engineering. If the sled launching system had a 10% error, the guy would have had to land at 8 km/hr, which is 5 mi/hr. Every additional 10% on the error would be another 5 mi/hr when hitting the pavement.
The "Jesuits" do not say that the earth is "spinning 66k mph." "Modern" astronomy (where "modern" means the past 400 years or so so is a bit of a stretch of the term) says that the earth and everything on it, including you, is moving about 66k mph in orbit around the sun. Not feeling that motion does not require the sled launching system demonstrated here. Anytime you sit in any vehicle moving at a significant speed, that vehicle is moving at a speed which would kill you if it were to hit you, and yet you feel stationary in your seat because you are moving the same speed as the vehicle. Do you feel like you are moving >500 mph when you are on a jet plane?
Incidentally this "modern Jesuit" astronomy states that the spin of the earth causes 1k mph motion at the equator, but the speed caused by this spin is latitude dependent and is 0 at the north and south poles. To see why this is the case, just get any ball and spin it.
Yeah, of course. Lemaître was basically the first proposer of a theory along the lines of what is now called "The Big Bang," although he apparently (according to Wikipedia) used the phrase "primordial atom." Something like the Hubble Law (which is officially called the Hubble-Lemaître Law) and its implications on the distant past / universe origins has nothing to do with the orbital motion of the earth around the sun. The solar system model predates The Big Bang, Lemaître, Einstein, and Relativity by centuries.
And yes, he was a Jesuit priest. If you reject The Big Bang because the original theory is from a Jesuit then I guess that is your right. I personally do not have strong feelings about it, as it seems difficult to me to look at the present view of outer space and project that backwards to when the universe was supposedly smaller than an atom. I don't mind that people do that, I guess, it is just not something I care too much about.
I personally always thought it amusing that modern "anti bible thumper trust the science" people, who have replaced The Book of Genesis with The Big Bang, seemed totally unaware that it was a Catholic priest who came up with this theory. When one considers that it seems to harmonize science with religion, it is a bit interesting.
If u raise a helicopter off the ground perfectly straight up in the sky at maximum altitude..
hover for hours..
bring it straight back down....
you'll land in the exact same spot u took off at.
Thanks you!
Yeah. If anything rises "perfectly straight up in the sky" and "hovers" (assuming by "hover" we mean "fly without moving" as is the common usage of the word), then whenever it lands, no matter how much later in the future, it will be at the same spot it took off at. I'm not sure what the point of the comment is, these are just the definitions of words.
Also, if you take off and fly straight north at 500 miles per hour for one hour and then land, you will be 500 miles north of your starting point (assuming you started more than 500 miles away from the north pole). Also just definitions.
I thought it would've been assumed that it makes no sense for that to happen because of the supposed spin of the earth.
Exactly what the post is about..
That is what I was assuming you meant. I figured that this was some Eric Duvey "200 proofs" sort of argument. That is why I posted that something that is "hovering" will remain over the same spot on the ground simply by the definition of the word "hover," and since it remains over the same spot on the ground, when it descends it lands on the same spot it raised off of initially. There is nothing mysterious about this happening.
I gotta say, I really try to remain open to the flat earth and other "globe rejecting" people. I'm not "triggered" by flat earth, as the meme goes. I try to hear them out and watch their documentaries or whatever to see if anyone has a good argument for their position. I always see things like this, and as respectfully as possible, this is why so many people do not take flat earth people seriously.
There is a difference between thinking the globe model is wrong and saying you have found a situation where the globe model makes an incorrect prediction. If you think "the spinning ball" is false then that is fine, people are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. But saying you found someplace where it makes an incorrect prediction is not an opinion, it is a factual claim. In all honesty, do you really believe that helicopter hovering is mechanically inconsistent with and cannot be explained by the globe model? I mean, is that honestly your understanding of the so called "spinning ball"?
Its nice you're open minded to question things. It's called critical thinking
What u said there lacked any all common sense. If something is hovering over a spinning earth than it should not land in the same spot. Simple as...
I'll go with what my eyes, ears and plain old common sense over what a bunch of masons and jesuits changed world wide a couple of centuries ago.
U keep on trusting the word of known liars but again try to be a lil more opened minded. I was guilty of that arrogance myself not to long ago.
OK. I guess I just have a hard time understanding how people have a hard time understanding this. I used to think that flat earth was all fake and there weren't actually people who believed it. I have come around to the idea that some people really do believe it in good faith, and those people are generally allies on most issues.
I don't really have a problem with it. I just find it bizarre I guess. As far as hovering goes, what someone does when they hover a helicopter is they hold it steady over a spot on the earth. That is what the word "hover" means in English. The way the pilot knows he is hovering is by watching the earth and adjusting the craft to stay over the same spot. So, by definition, the craft is staying over the same spot. The pilot is just adjusting the controls to ensure that this happens based on what he sees the craft doing relative to the ground.
This is why I said "if you fly 500 miles per hour north for an hour, you land 500 miles north of where you started." It is literally the same thing as hovering being remaining over one spot. You are just stating what the pilot is doing using English words.
If u go back to my first comment I explained pretty clearly but ill be more specific
if the coptor goes straight up in the air 90° straight up
Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement..
The coptor after hours of being in the sky in that same position will come back down to the ground in the exact same spot it took off from. Exact same spot.
How is that possible if the earth is spinning?
What I am saying is conventional physics would say "goes straight up in the air 90° straight up" and "Hovers for hours, no adjustments no controls just stay hovering without any lateral movement" are contradictory to each other. Maybe this is obvious to me because I am an engineer. In the real world, the only way something would remain in the same place like that is because it is being controlled, either by a human or a computer. The major disturbances preventing this are the wind and mechanical imbalance in the helicopter, and buried under these is the effect of the earth's rotation.
In this theoretical situation, then the prediction would be that that such a helicopter would drift slowly due to the earth's rotation. If such a perfect helicopter and windless atmosphere existed, and the copter were flown to a mile of altitude near the equator, then while up there we would expect it to drift westward a bit more than a quarter mile per hour due to to the earth's rotation.
This experiment is pretty much impossible to do though. Any hovering helicopter is being controlled by a pilot or a computerized flight control system.
I'm curious can't a helicopter be adapted with a program to maintain its spot in its position ? a spot that it has measured that sits somewhere IN SOACE where I assume our planet will move away from said spot and 1 year later return to it. thus spot in "space". sorry I'm dumb.
It sounds like you are asking if a helicopter can remain in a single place in the earth's orbit and have the earth return to it a year later. I'm not sure if this question is serious, but clearly the answer is no. The helicopter flies in the earth's atmosphere. If it remained in a single place in the earth orbit for a year, it would be in empty space until the earth returned. Doing this would involve, from the perspective of someone on earth, the helicopter flying up into space and then remaining in a single spot there despite the force of the sun's gravity. Helicopters only fly up to a mile or two, and they certainly cannot hover in a vacuum (although not too much is needed to counteract the sun).
Generally, the flat earth arguments are along the lines of the helicopter being expected to remain at one place relative to the earth center with the earth rotating underneath it. The long thread above is me trying to convince one of them that this is not in fact an argument that the globe is invalid, no matter what Eric Dubey and Dave Weiss say. A hovering helicopter hovers above the ground, and since the ground is moving as a part of earth rotation, so is the hovering helicopter (at the same speed), as is the air (up to the difference caused by wind).
From a broader perspective, even remaining in one place in the earth orbit is still "moving" since the whole solar system orbits the galactic center. So saying "I want to stay still relative to the earth orbit and see it return next year" is still arbitrary, as you are following the solar orbit around the galaxy. And the galactic center of mass moves relative to others as well.
Incidentally, this "motion upon motion" is always cited by flat earthers as completely preposterous and not explainable by conventional science. This is all false, the principles are all very simple.
??? so physics works in practice as the theory says so
LOL. The video basically demonstrates that relative velocity works exactly as "globetards" say it does. Note that while on the truck, definitely do not hang your arm or leg over the side and hit a sign passing by, as it will be moving 80 km/hr. Also note that while getting launched down the bed of the truck, definitely do not hang and arm or leg over the side and hit anything attached to the truck, as it will be moving 80 km/hr.
But, if you do the experiment correctly, you land on the street as planned. Also, just to be a stickler, the video is entitled "He Trusted Physics..." but this is not quite right. Only some fool would not trust "physics" when it is a concept as simple as relative velocity. What this guy actually trusted, and this is much less certain and scarier, is engineering. If the sled launching system had a 10% error, the guy would have had to land at 8 km/hr, which is 5 mi/hr. Every additional 10% on the error would be another 5 mi/hr when hitting the pavement.
Thinking is hard
The "Jesuits" do not say that the earth is "spinning 66k mph." "Modern" astronomy (where "modern" means the past 400 years or so so is a bit of a stretch of the term) says that the earth and everything on it, including you, is moving about 66k mph in orbit around the sun. Not feeling that motion does not require the sled launching system demonstrated here. Anytime you sit in any vehicle moving at a significant speed, that vehicle is moving at a speed which would kill you if it were to hit you, and yet you feel stationary in your seat because you are moving the same speed as the vehicle. Do you feel like you are moving >500 mph when you are on a jet plane?
Incidentally this "modern Jesuit" astronomy states that the spin of the earth causes 1k mph motion at the equator, but the speed caused by this spin is latitude dependent and is 0 at the north and south poles. To see why this is the case, just get any ball and spin it.
Every hear of Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître?
Yeah, of course. Lemaître was basically the first proposer of a theory along the lines of what is now called "The Big Bang," although he apparently (according to Wikipedia) used the phrase "primordial atom." Something like the Hubble Law (which is officially called the Hubble-Lemaître Law) and its implications on the distant past / universe origins has nothing to do with the orbital motion of the earth around the sun. The solar system model predates The Big Bang, Lemaître, Einstein, and Relativity by centuries.
And yes, he was a Jesuit priest. If you reject The Big Bang because the original theory is from a Jesuit then I guess that is your right. I personally do not have strong feelings about it, as it seems difficult to me to look at the present view of outer space and project that backwards to when the universe was supposedly smaller than an atom. I don't mind that people do that, I guess, it is just not something I care too much about.
I personally always thought it amusing that modern "anti bible thumper trust the science" people, who have replaced The Book of Genesis with The Big Bang, seemed totally unaware that it was a Catholic priest who came up with this theory. When one considers that it seems to harmonize science with religion, it is a bit interesting.