North-South flights

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...)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Came across a new FE assumption recently
Where?

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.
This is literally true, but it misses a couple of things:

1) The air is moving with the earth, so as you fly south the overall movement of the air will accelerate the plane in that direction

2) If you ignore the air, then it takes a remarkable small about of the total thrust to accelerate to 1000 mph over the course of the 12 hours it would take to fly from the north pole to the equator. A plane can get from 0 to 200 mph in a minute (during takeoff). So to get to 1000 mph it would take 5 times as long (five minutes). Or over 12 hours it could do it with <1% thrust. And of course it would not need to, see #1, above.

This is essentially a variation on "why don't planes correct for the Coriolis effect" argument. The answer is the same - the effect of the air around the plane is a thousand times greater than the effect of the very slow (once a day) rotation of the Earth. Planes have to constantly adjust for the wind velocity relative to the ground, and those adjustments wipe out anything else.
 

Sascha

New Member

In Quora of all places. There are quite a few flat earthers trying to spread their "science"


I already thought that a few things are missing.

to 2) One of his points was that the plane can't get to 1000mph to begin with as it's not made for those speeds.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2) One of his points was that the plane can't get to 1000mph to begin with as it's not made for those speeds.

That shows either a deep misunderstanding of the physics involved, or someone who is trolling. I'd lean towards the latter.

The only relevant speeds for a plane are ground speed and air speed. At no time would a plane exceed their design limits in either of those speeds (and ground speed is an irrelevant limit once you are in the air)
 

Sascha

New Member
It looks like he's spending too much time on that to be trolling, especially as he puts a lot of effort to try adding some sciency sounding words in. I think he actually believes all that.
But definitely there's a lot of misunderstanding going on, not just about this.

Thanks for clearing that up. When such a topic isn't your expertise such topic can get quite frustrating if the other party just keeps repeating such misdirections lol
 

Cedtomcat

New Member
To explain my deleted post, I took the problem on the wrong Earth.
The base objection stay the same : as the plane environnement is the air, it move with it.
If it has to compensate for the rotation ( or even a translation) of the Earth it mean the air don't move with the earth.

So, where is the 1000mph wind at the equator?
 

Sascha

New Member
So, where is the 1000mph wind at the equator?

They just put that as reason that there's no rotation ;)
All observations showing rotation have to be ignored but that's not a problem.

My favourite was one asking why we just can't accept that Earth acts the way it does and that it's not understood why (star trails, southern cross, etc.)
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
To explain my deleted post, I took the problem on the wrong Earth.
The base objection stay the same : as the plane environnement is the air, it move with it.
If it has to compensate for the rotation ( or even a translation) of the Earth it mean the air don't move with the earth.

So, where is the 1000mph wind at the equator?


If I'm reading your post correctly, you're having difficulty understanding why the Earth's surface doesn't move out from under the atmosphere. Let me ask you a question. As you can see, the cruise ship in this video is clearly moving. Typical speed for a cruise ship is 25 knots (28 mph - 46 kph). Why doesn't the ship move out from under the diver?





Watch these (fake) bombs dropping from this B-24. Why do the bombs continue to "follow" the plane? They have no source of power, yet they remain moving forward with the plane all the way to the ground. Why?


Put your mouse cursor on the bombs just after they drop. You'll see that the cursor stays right on them.



People walk around, jump, and throw balls to one another just fine on the deck of a moving ship.

 
Last edited:

Cedtomcat

New Member
It was the contrary I know how it work, it's just that, if th plane has to compensate the speed of the spinning of the earth ( like in the claim) the air as to not spin with it.
It can be easily debunked by showing that the air spin with the earth because there's no constant 1000mph wind at the equator. There's no need to look at the specs if rhe planes...

Not only the conspracy theorist get their post deleted sometimes ;)

( English is not my native language, I can make strange sentenses constructions sometime)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: Michael Hastings Crash Engine Found North of Crash going South? Conspiracy Theories 43
Mick West TFTRH #32 - The Skeptic of the North: Former Conspiracist, Current Skeptic Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Joe Hill False Narrative: "North Tower Antenna Dropped Before Roof Line" 9/11 3
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mendel Homemade Gyrocompass finds North by Spin Flat Earth 0
Clouds Givemethewillies North Wales beneath the sea Flat Earth 10
TEEJ Virgin Atlantic Airbus - Different coloured contrails, Kernersville, North Carolina 16th March 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Mackdog Claim: SONY hack was inside job Conspiracy Theories 6
FuzzyUK North magnetic pole moved 160 miles in 6 months? Conspiracy Theories 15
N Weird fireballs in South China Sea (Google Maps) UFOs and Aliens 6
Mick West Meteorite (or Space Junk?) over South Papua, Indonesia. May 3 2020 ? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Priyadi The Origin of the "Polaris is visible from south of the equator" Myth Flat Earth 2
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
J Explaining the white smoke from the base of the South Tower 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 13
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West A Slightly Square Cloud South of Australia Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Rocket Contrail, South of Monterey, California [ Trident II Test] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Marin B Three Planes Turn Right, South of San Francisco Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
Mick West Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America Flat Earth 276
Trailspotter Strange cloud formation in South Indian Ocean Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Trailblazer Jellyfish clouds over South Australia (altocumulus floccus) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Leifer Flightradar24 + Satellite Overlay - Contrails over South England and London Contrails and Chemtrails 4
scombrid Debunked:9/9/2012 -- HAARP ring outbreak -- Midwest to South USA HAARP 12
Mick West Clinton's Flights on Epstein's Plane, the "Lolita Express", did not go to the Island Conspiracy Theories 2
G Flight data for Flights 11 and 175 9/11 4
Mick West Flights being quarantin Current Events 0
ki_cz Help identifying odd flights Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Mick West F-WWQF high altitude test flights Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Provemewrong Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe Flat Earth 106
Trailspotter Racetrack contrails near Genoa, Italy on December 26 [Air France and EasyJet flights on hold, Fog] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West HAL47 and HAL9981 Two Hawaiian Flights Diverted to Oakland Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Trailblazer Pair of jets flying in formation? [Two commercial flights] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
MyMatesBrainwashed BBC - Longer flights to curb vapour trails Contrails and Chemtrails 144
SR1419 Use Siri to See What Flights Are Above You Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
ralph Leo Weather Modification Inc - Are Their Flights Tracked? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Hitstirrer The general difficulty of the 9/11 flights 9/11 140
Mick West Contrail Science Interactive Flights Map (beta) Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA Contrails and Chemtrails 36
Related Articles







































Related Articles

Top