Flat Earth?

[6Foot2]

Acutally, I've always wondered that (or variations of it) myself. How can a fly hover in a car travelling at 70mph as though it were stationary? Is the fly technically also travelling at 70mph? And how does that factor into the whole E=MC(2) speed of light thing? If you had a rocket travelling at half the speed of light and fired another rocket inside it also travelling at 0.5C wouldn't the second rocket be travelling the speed of light?

Relativistic effects of moving at high speed or being in the presence of very strong gravitational fields are outside of everyday experience: Applying a 'common sense' approach simply does not work in these circumstances.

[jinnantonnixx]

Flintoff said, ‘If you’re in a helicopter and you hover why does the Earth not come to you if it’s round?

 

Why should it? What would cause the helicopter to move in relation to the earth's surface? The helicopter doesn't 'know' the earth is turning. Its frame of reference is the ground, and if no force acts upon it it will not move (in relation to the earth) or retard its motion (in relation to a point in space).

 

 

Edit: Seriously, I can't believe people waste their time of flat earth stuff. Though it is good fun I suppose.....

Edited November 20, 2018 by jinnantonnixx

[elsiegee40]

Why should it? What would cause the helicopter to move in relation to the earth's surface? The helicopter doesn't 'know' the earth is turning. Its frame of reference is the ground, and if no force acts upon it it will not move (in relation to the earth) or retard its motion (in relation to a point in space).

 

This is the satellite thing. Some are geo-stationary and some aren’t.

 

The pilot of a helicopter is using instruments to stay in one place... they have to because of the wind.

 

If the pilot were to just go up and hover for hours without using instruments, and there was no wind at all then yes the planet would revolve below the helicopter

[jinnantonnixx]

This is the satellite thing. Some are geo-stationary and some aren’t.

 

The pilot of a helicopter is using instruments to stay in one place... they have to because of the wind.

 

If the pilot were to just go up and hover for hours without using instruments, and there was no wind at all then yes the planet would revolve below the helicopter

 

No lateral force is acting on the helicopter in relation to the earth's surface, so it wouldn't move in relation to the earth's surface. Only a force can shift the helicopter. Where is this force coming from?

[elsiegee40]

No lateral force is acting on the helicopter in relation to the earth's surface, so it wouldn't move in relation to the earth's surface. Only a force can shift the helicopter. Where is this force coming from?

 

The helicopter is a machine controlled by instruments. Its engines provide forces that keep it in a constant place specified by a pilot.

 

The planet isn’t a laboratory with perfectly stable conditions; the air itself moves with weather patterns. There are so many forces acting that the helicopter’s instruments are constantly taking action to keep it in place.

 

We are into theoretical physics which few, if any of us, can understand... let alone explain... to describe what would happen to helicopter without weather, gravity, the pull of the moon, etc.

[mavhc]

Without anything the helicopter would travel in a straight line at a tangent to the earth's surface, never stopping, never slowing down. Gravity provides a force to pull it in a curve (or curves space so it's still going in a straight line).

 

Same reason the fly is going at 70mph, because that's what things do, go at whatever velocity they're at already. If you accelerate your car to 70mph in your standard 3 seconds, then the fly, and the passengers, try to resist, and relative to the car look like they're going backwards. If your fly isn't wearing its seatbelt then it's in trouble.

[jthompson]

Bear in mind that the helicopter is an aircraft, so when hovering it's only maintaining its position in the air. If there's zero wind, that body of air will be moving with the ground: both are hurtling through space together, along with the little helicopter. Rather like treading water in a swimming pool on the deck of a cruise ship at full chat.

 

Now, if a helicopter took off from a moving cruise ship on a windless day and maintained zero air speed, the cruise ship would indeed disappear off from beneath it, but that is because the air the helicopter is flying in is not beholden to the cruise ship in the way that it's beholden to the Earth's surface.

[mavhc]

But what if your wind powered car goes faster than the wind? And what if you're in a plane taking off on a conveyor belt that going in the opposite direction at the same speed the plane is going?

[sted]

But what if your wind powered car goes faster than the wind? And what if you're in a plane taking off on a conveyor belt that going in the opposite direction at the same speed the plane is going?

i think wind powered vehicles can go faster than the wind round them but cant remember how/why

 

the plane example the aircraft would be doing effectively 0mph relative to the ground/air and would have the same aerodynamic lift that a stationary plane does net result wasted fuel you arnt going anywhere you can roughly test this by letting go of a paper plane it pretty much just falls as there is no forward motion to generate much lift

[mikeprice]

It is all based on forces

 

stop thinking about powered flight and put a balloon in its place - carefully set up to have zero buoyancy - hence the force of gravity is countered by its tendency to float

 

now, assuming that there is no wind at all - it would be expected to just float in the same place. The same would happen with a bubble in a tank of water

[elsiegee40]

 

Where the heck is this going?

 

Or has it been for that matter?

 

Discussion of flat earth theories seems to have morphed into the need for detailed physics of how a helicopter flies.

 

Let’s try to keep this on topic

 

[DJ-1701]

 

Where the heck is this going?

 

Or has it been for that matter?

 

Discussion of flat earth theories seems to have morphed into the need for detailed physics of how a helicopter flies.

 

Let’s try to keep this on topic

 

 

If I may be so bold... I believe the detailed physics are trying to help prove or disprove the flat earth theory by matter of scientific debate... in which case this might be best in politics... which maybe better to rename as debates...

 

To be honest though, to me it's a stupid topic anyway, we already have our answer.

 

[elsiegee40]

If I may be so bold... I believe the detailed physics are trying to help prove or disprove the flat earth theory by matter of scientific debate... in which case this might be best in politics... which maybe better to rename as debates...

 

To be honest though, to me it's a stupid topic anyway, we already have our answer.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51079[/ATTACH]

 

I thought the answer was 42

[korifugi]

I thought the answer was 42

 

Only if you're multiplying 6 by 9.

[DJ-1701]

Only if you're multiplying 6 by 9.

 

I knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe... though that does appear to work in base 13...

[Andrew_C]

The Turtle moves...

[atcoates]

Former England cricketer ‘Freddie’ Flintoff revealed last year that he was obsessed with a podcast called the Flat Earthers – and coming round to their ideas.

 

Flintoff said, ‘If you’re in a helicopter and you hover why does the Earth not come to you if it’s round?

It's difficult to argue with logic like that!

[Dos_Box]

It's difficult to argue with logic like that!

 

No, it's not. Just very, very tiring.

[atcoates]

I'd love to see how many of these people have ever changed their mind on this. I'd imagine once they've convinced themselves the earth is flat, no amount of evidence would change their minds.

[ICTDirect_Dave]

I imagine you'd have to send them up for a loop around the moon and back. But even then, getting them to publicly admit it would be tough enough!

[mavhc]

i think wind powered vehicles can go faster than the wind round them but cant remember how/why

 

the plane example the aircraft would be doing effectively 0mph relative to the ground/air and would have the same aerodynamic lift that a stationary plane does net result wasted fuel you arnt going anywhere you can roughly test this by letting go of a paper plane it pretty much just falls as there is no forward motion to generate much lift

 

Because the air can pass the sail/blades at a faster speed to the vehicle's direction of travel, so it can go faster than the wind, wind doesn't push a sail/blade, it pulls it.

 

Turns out plane wheels aren't powered, they're just free to rotate, so the rest of the plane takes ~0 notice of how the wheels are spinning, so it makes almost 0 difference to how the plane takes off.

[mikeprice]

I imagine you'd have to send them up for a loop around the moon and back. But even then, getting them to publicly admit it would be tough enough!

 

No - that would not be good enough

 

The view of the Earth would have been caused by the thickness and curvature of the glass and the shape of the continents and oceans would be because of

er - OK dunno - I'm running out of daft arguments and getting distracted by facts

 

anyway - it is the same as trying to 'prove' to a fundamental religious person that their Holy Book is not the total and whole truth

i.e. there is no point in arguing with deeply held beliefs - especially if those beliefs go against widely held accepted facts

[mavhc]

I was amused to hear of the religious mother who was upset her son started believing in unprovable ideas from a cult or something, so unexpected!

[mikeprice]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/09/flat-earth-cruise-nautical-navigation

 

Maybe someone will lend them a pair of binoculars when they sail away from the land so they can prove that things don't disappear below the horizon - thus proving they are right

 

 

 

or not

[Arthur]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/09/flat-earth-cruise-nautical-navigation

 

"Had the Earth been flat, a total of three satellites would have been enough to provide this information to everyone on Earth. But it is not enough, because the Earth is round."

... but if the Earth is flat, a total of three satellites is enough.

 

I don't think ex-captain Henk Keijer will be able to convince the flat-earthers.