Oh sure, when we are talking about orbital paths of planets and moons and the sun, relative motion can be said to be valid (and this is completely discounting any aether). But what about when we are talking about motion within a medium such as air? There is obviously a difference the two mediums, space and the air, is there not? How would this affect the calculation of relative motion? Well, the "original motion" component would not be changed, true, but the drag effect sure would. And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

Let's use my favorite airplane flight example to crunch this "original motion" factor. Yes, a plane could be said to be rotating at the 600 mph speed of O'Hare airport in Chicago when it departed. And then, as the plane left the surface of the ground, it separated from what was its obvious "engine" or "original motion carrying force" and was definitely running head on into major drag, the air. Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas. (Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below. And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

It is this fact of the nature of the air is what makes my airplane hypothesis stand proud and tall. Although the airplanes would not prove anything if they were flying around the earth in a vacuum (as if that were possible!), they prove quite a lot by flying in the air. After all the dissecting of the relative motion argument, I can yet show that the planes still have the same conundrum of east/west travel that I first thought they did when I just used common sense.

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Where do you get the notion that a gas cannot push or carry an object? That is what aerodynamics is all about!

An object will keep its velocity unless an external force is applied. In the case of a projectile, the forces are gravity and air resistance. You seem to argue that the atmosphere isn't rotating with the Earth, and thus it would apply a force opposite to the rotation of the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support that notion?

A comparison. The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train (unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with Earth's atmosphere.

edit: speling and clarification.

For the benefit of the rest of the board, Gary believes in a geostatic universe, where the Earth is not rotating.

Gary, what exactly is your assertion about east/west travel with an aircraft? Are you saying that aircraft can't fly in a moving atmosphere? Or that aircraft don't get their lift from the atmosphere?

The thrust from the jet engines or the turboprops? I think you need to define 'original motion' for us here.

Have you ever made a paper airplane? What holds it up?

Rob

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

To carry on the train carriage example. I stand at the back end of a train carriage and you at the front. The train speeds down the track at 120km/h. I take a tennis ball out and throw it to you at 30km/h. To a person on the side of the track, that ball is travelling at 150km/h but I only propelled it to you at 30km/h. It doesn't hit the air and stop because everything in the carriage is travelling at the same speed including the air so when I throw the ball, it's the same as if the train wasn't moving. Of course if the train slammed it's brakes on while the ball was heading your way, you'd suddenly see smething rather different happen.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

One comment on something I suspect is part of your misunderstanding.
Newton's first law states: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

If you don't agree with that law, please say so, because all our answers will be founded on it.

Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must apply a constant force to keep an object in motion. If we change the laws of nature, Newton's first in this case, so that this is the case, I can begin to understand your culprit. Then, the Earth would need some sort of engine to keep it rotating, and the friction would (probably?) not be enough to keep the atmosphere from dragging behind.

However, all observational evidence says that Newton was right. And in that case the air, the airplane, or whatever, does not need an "engine" to keep it in motion.

Better yet, how do kites work? Or parachutes? Or hot air balloons?

Well, hello Rob. I was sorry to see you leave the other board. As you can see, I did take the plunge onto your turf. Thank you for the introduction you made for me here. I was hoping you would show up. We never did finish this debate.

The numbers of participants on BadAstronomy is enormously greater than Dr. Jones' board, isn't it? And just think. Every one of them is as tenacious as you in attacking me. Well, well. We'll see. I appreciate your efforts to be factual, Rob. The way I figure it, the truth will only get sharper, and we'll all only learn. I the most of all. Everyone here is so much more educated than me, and it is so obvious. The only thing going for me is that I am starting out from the correct worldview, unlike all my attackers.

Anyway, the sheer numbers of people against me here is far worse than the opposite ratio for you on the other board, isn't it? It's going to take awhile to reply to all the points. Eventually, I will just have to limit myself to replying to you, I fear, as I am only one person.

In case you ever see the nice things I wrote about you when you left...I never meant a word of it.

The thing that holds the plane up is the force which, again, moves the paper airplane along relative to the ground. Of course, it stays aloft due to aerodynamic properties. But, I maintain most resolutely, this same air cannot at the same time "carry" the little paper plane along at the speed the earth is turning, the plane's "original motion". Assuming we are outside with our little plane, it is obviously true the air would yield to the plane's forward hand-thrown thrust. But what property of the air, Rob, would allow the air to both "yield" to the plane yet also "push" or "carry" the little plane along at 600 mph at Chicago's latitude?

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Just as an aside, people here tend not to attack other people. They attack those peoples' ideas. That's the way science works. If someone attacks someone else here, they get banned.

In respect to your original motion, wouldn't the plane and air be in rest? The only force the plane need to overcome is gravity and drag(from the planes relative motion to the airs original motion).
I would imagine that the jet-winds airliners use to reduce flight time is a good example (partly anyway) to an offset between the earths motion and the airs 'original' motion. Would be kinda windy if the gases that builds up the atmosphere suddenly stopped rotating along with the earth as son as they left wherever they originated.

I probably dont know what Im talking about, but anyway.

Ok, I am not Rob, but I'll try to answer this. The surface of the earth and the atmosphere is moving along at the same speed(To simplify it we just say there is no wind just now), the plane is on the surface getting ready to take of. Before it accelerates it is all ready moving at the same speed as the surface, when it accelerates it applies energy to get a speed in relation to the surface and so also the atmosphere.

Now, it is important to remember that an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon, that is what happens when the plane takes off, it will have a certain speed in relation to the rotational speed of the earth, so if you fly with the rotation, you move the surface speed plus the velocity measured by your instruments if seen by an observer that is not rotating with the earth. If you fly against the rotation, the speed is surface minus the measured, so you move slower, or perhaps even accelerate in the opposite direction as seen by the observer.

So, the plane is already moving when standing on the ground, just not in relation to the surface or atmosphere, but it has to have to move relative to the air to get lift. The energy to change its speed comes from the fuel of course, and the engine does the work of acting against the atmosphere. Since there is some friction/drag against the air, you must continue to apply energy, or sooner or later you will be moving to slow in relation to the air to get adequate lift to keep the craft up, as no speed in relation to the air is the rotational speed of the earth, you are still moving from the observers point of view.

Of course if a wind starts up, energy from the wind will be transferred to the plane, this is like if you were floating along in the water and suddenly a wave washes you up on the beach, some of the waves energy got transferred to you.

__________________
Game over, you lose, we hope you enjoyed playing the exciting game of Thermodynamics...

I smell a troll... butt...

Let's use your example and say the Earth is rotating at 600 mph at your latitude and altitude (yes, altitude is a factor too). You toss a paper airplane from West to East at a velocity of 10 mph. Because both your arm and the paper airplane were already traveling at the rotational velocity of the Earth prior to launch, the velocity of the airplane in flight (10 mph) is combined with its velocity at rest (600 mph). So for the time the plane is aloft and before it succumbs to the forces of friction and gravity it is actually traveling at a speed of 610 mph relative to a rest position framed at the moment you let go of the plane.

This is an example of relative motion and we demonstrated it within a gaseous medium but how do you really see it? How do you know the motion isn't being caused by air currents?

A better example of relative motion would be to use a steel ball because it is less affected by friction and the atmosphere. Fire off two cannon balls (one east, one west) each at a velocity of 600 mph. Using the same factors we used in the airplane example, the cannon ball traveling East has a combined velocity of 1200 mph relative to the rest frame snapped at the moment the cannon balls were fired. Ths is because the imparted motion of the Earth is added to the directional velocity of the cannon ball. So that means that the cannon ball traveling West has a combined real velocity of 0 (zero) mph relative to the same rest frame. Both cannon balls travel exactly the same distance along the ground. But if viewed from the rest frame only the East bound cannon ball has gone anywhere. In either case they both land at exactly the same time. Now you can definitely see the effects of relative motion with something that is very much bound to Earth, not to orbit.

__________________
"Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time... and your government when it deserves it." - Mark Twain

Dear Robert,

I think my latest reply to Rob Glover tonight makes my position clearer.

I do not deny that aerodynamics provides the factor of lift, yes, and will carry a plane aloft. When a plane is flying along it is obviously employing these factors. My argument centers on the breakdown of what makes up "relative motion". I describe it as having two components. The first is the "original motion". The second is a thing's absolute motion relative to the thing it was riding upon.

[you said] "An object will keep its velocity unless an external force is applied. In the case of a projectile, the forces are gravity and air resistance. You seem to argue that the atmosphere isn't rotating with the Earth, and thus it would apply a force opposite to the rotation of the Earth. Do you have any evidence to support that notion? "

I couldn't agree more, and yes I feel I have evidence. (Please read my post to Rob tonight). Here, it seems you have answered your own point from the first sentence to the second. The air and gravity will both certainly act to slow a projectile. I believe the the atmosphere isn't rotating because to believe so is to necessitate an air that is so tenacious to the ground that our 8000 mile diameter earth cannot shake it, yet I as a mere mortal man can displace it by a wave of the hand or simply breathing it in. Plus, I see the wind "blow". If the air was SO tenaciously adhering to the incredibly speedy ground rotation below it, the air would never do anything but turn with the earth. When would you ever see it waste time dawdling by playfully swirling up leaves and blades of grass?

[you wrote:] "A comparison. The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train (unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with Earth's atmosphere."

Robert, this comparison is not accurate. You are talking about something that sounds plausible, but you are comparing a closed system (the train) going a mere 60 mph to a comparitively open system (the earth and its atmosphere) supposedly turning at 600 mph. Also, any air inside this train is obviously trapped by the FOUR WALLS of the train car (which makes for an obvious container) and is plainly moving the same speed as the train. This air WOULD provide a resistance to the slowing down for a jumping man simply because it is moving. I agree to that much. But the problem here is going to be the inexactness of your metaphor.

Try with me to visualize the air and what kind of thing that it is. Let me try this angle. Let's say the air is turning with the earth as you say. Now we all know there are all sorts of winds. They pop up constantly and in almost random directions. First, what force would cause the air to break from the rotation of the earth? And secondly, what force, do you suppose, would cause all these randomly moving air molecules to re-align themselves with the earth's west to east rotation? Do you not suppose all these various molecules would bump into each other and slow each other down? Wouldn't the air/atmosphere logically, therefore, work itself to a stop? And if so, then what do you have? A turning earth with a freely roaming atmosphere, that's what.

And very high winds, Robert.

That's the best I can do tonight. Please read my post to Rob.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Now, if that isn't the height of arrogance...

Ok, I'm going to work from two major assumptions here.

1) You believe the Earth to be the centre of the solar system.
2) You believe the Earth to be entirely at rest (rotation free).

Now, I'm going to ask a number of questions.

A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?

B) How do birds fly?

C) What causes the winds?

E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?

F) Explain stellar parallax.

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The nearest galaxies?

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Dear Quartermain,

I'm no troll. I may be provacative. And it could plainly be said to be on purpose. But I don't think my provacativeness is gratuitous enough to warrant that label.

[you wrote:] "Let's use your example and say the Earth is rotating at 600 mph at your latitude and altitude (yes, altitude is a factor too). You toss a paper airplane from West to East at a velocity of 10 mph. Because both your arm and the paper airplane were already traveling at the rotational velocity of the Earth prior to launch, the velocity of the airplane in flight (10 mph) is combined with its velocity at rest (600 mph). So for the time the plane is aloft and before it succumbs to the forces of friction and gravity it is actually traveling at a speed of 610 mph relative to a rest position framed at the moment you let go of the plane."

This is a very good example, Quartermain. I disagree with only one point. When you say that the plane is travelling at 610 mph while it is aloft, I would immediately tell you that you are assuming a resistance-free environment for the plane's "original motion" of 600 mph. Now in a vacuum such as between planets (assuming space is a vacuum for the argument) this "original motion" of the plane/rocket would indeed be maintained. But you cannot ignore the factor of the air and how it acts on the original motion of the paper airplane you threw, which, at the point of release was going the same speed as the turning earth. But for how long was this speed maintained? Obviously a paper airplane is short-term example. That's why I refer to airplanes instead.

[you wrote:] "Ths is because the imparted motion of the Earth is added to the directional velocity of the cannon ball."

Quartermain, this would be accurate if there were no resistance to the original motion "imparted" as you say by the earth to the cannonball. But how can you not see that the air provides resistance to both the original motion component of the cannonball, and its fired velocity relative to the earth?

A vacuum offers no resistance, but the air does.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Dear Phantom Wolf,

As I told Robert Andersson, this train example is really a problem-filled and inexact metaphor. Please see the post reply I made to him.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Dear TrAI,

[you wrote:] "Now, it is important to remember that an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon, that is what happens when the plane takes off, it will have a certain speed in relation to the rotational speed of the earth, so if you fly with the rotation, you move the surface speed plus the velocity measured by your instruments if seen by an observer that is not rotating with the earth."

Yes, TrAI, an object in motion will continue to move unless acted upon. I couldn't agree more. Newton was a fine man. And that is precisely what must happen when the plane leaves the ground. A force of resistance, the air, will act upon the plane. When the plane is on the ground it maintains the exact turning speed of the earth below it. Once it leaves this "propulsion" by taking off the ground, it immediately loses this "propulsion" because the air acts as resistance to both the "original motion" of the plane at the point of take off (rotational speed of the earth), as well as the forward thrusting speed relative to the earth due to its engines.

You state the case for the airplane very well, TrAI, if we were talking about an environment where there is no resistance to the "original motion" component of the plane's speed. Of course, the air does provide resistance. And it provides it to both the original motion (earth's rotational speed at point of take-off) and the self-propelled speed born out by its engine thrust relative to the ground.

What kind of thing is the air, TrAI? Think about that. And please read my other posts tonight. Thank you,

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

__________________
Gary Shelton

Psalms 19:6 "His [the sun's] going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it."

Hello again, Robert,

[you wrote:] "Newton's first law states: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

"If you don't agree with that law, please say so, because all our answers will be founded on it."

"Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must apply a constant force to keep an object in motion."

Robert, I do agree with what you say. I just say that there is a difference between a vacuum and a medium like the air, and the way you are applying Newton's law. In space, a thing's motion could be said to go on forever, as there is nothing to resist it. (ignoring aether for the sake of argument here) In the atmosphere, though, we not only have gravity pulling downward, we have atmospheric resistance. And this resistance MUST act on both components of a plane's motion through the air. That is, its original motion from the earth's rotation at the point of take-off, and it's thrusted speed forward due to its engines.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

__________________