Sascha
New Member
Came across a new FE assumption recently. One I haven't heard yet (and there I thought I heard them all lol)
Basically it's stating that a plane flying north-south would have to match the increase in tangential velocity of the latitudes in order to stay on the same longitude. In case of north pole - equator the lateral circular velocity the plane would have to keep up with would have to rise from 0 mph at liftoff to the 1000 mph of the equator at landing. The formula that was used was v=ω*r.
It kind of seems like this relies onto the plane nor Earth having any angular velocity but only linear tangential velocity at any given point on Earth (so Earth also has no rpm, rad/s etc. only mph) therefore there's no force to accelerate the plane sideways to match the 1000 mph of the equator, especially seeing as the plane can do just 500 mph normally anyway.
That's the reason he concluded that Earth's not rotating but instead is flat.
Somehow that sounds so wrong... It's like the atmosphere and the plane's angular inertia from even before liftoff are deliberately just left out but sadly I'm not versed enough in that particular field to debunk that one properly (I chose economics back in school instead of maths...)
Basically it's stating that a plane flying north-south would have to match the increase in tangential velocity of the latitudes in order to stay on the same longitude. In case of north pole - equator the lateral circular velocity the plane would have to keep up with would have to rise from 0 mph at liftoff to the 1000 mph of the equator at landing. The formula that was used was v=ω*r.
It kind of seems like this relies onto the plane nor Earth having any angular velocity but only linear tangential velocity at any given point on Earth (so Earth also has no rpm, rad/s etc. only mph) therefore there's no force to accelerate the plane sideways to match the 1000 mph of the equator, especially seeing as the plane can do just 500 mph normally anyway.
That's the reason he concluded that Earth's not rotating but instead is flat.
Somehow that sounds so wrong... It's like the atmosphere and the plane's angular inertia from even before liftoff are deliberately just left out but sadly I'm not versed enough in that particular field to debunk that one properly (I chose economics back in school instead of maths...)