Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Oh -- actually, depending on the interpretation of your word 'easier', the opposite will be the case: if you run against the earth's rotation, you get (eg.) half way round the earth sooner than if you run with it. The reason is that the earth's spin brings your destination towards you sooner than it does if you are running with the spin. Intuitively, I think it sounds insane. Sorry. http://mathinscience.info/teach/612_science/physical_sciences/spinning_earth/spinning_earth.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 http://mathinscience.info/teach/612_science/physical_sciences/spinning_earth/spinning_earth.htm So if two rockets are launched. One in the direction of Earth's rotation, and the other against it. Both are going around Earth, back to the original point. Which one will arrive first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation. Ah. --- So Newton was wrong too? No, he was right, in what he said in the form of mathematical models. Those who reformulated him (based on mistranslatios) were wrong, and *it is all the relativists (and Popperians) who wrongly say he was wrong*. Incidentally, I can't believe you missed my post on the subject of F = ma, what with all that stuff about the infinitessimal and calculus that we went off on a tangent about (PI) -- you, me and Stryper, about 3 weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. That's the pretentious asshole attitude we all love and long for. Keep it coming. It sure helps your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 http://mathinscience...nning_earth.htm So if two rockets are launched. One in the direction of Earth's rotation, and the other against it. Both are going around Earth, back to the original point. Which one will arrive first? If by 'point' you mean geographical location, then the one that is flying against the spin. Even a relativist wouldn't diagreee with that. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. That's the pretentious asshole attitude we all love and long for. Keep it coming. It sure helps your point. It's not pretentious -- I have been far more patient with you than most physicists would be. If I was just contemplating all these ideas for the first time, it would be a different matter, but I am not. I have been through them and learnt lessons, some of them the hard way and some of them the very hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 No, he was right, in what he said in the form of mathematical models. Those who reformulated him (based on mistranslatios) were wrong, and *it is all the relativists (and Popperians) who wrongly say he was wrong*. So, he was right, but what was right was a mistranslation of what he said... ??? Explain, is F=ma right or wrong? Is it a mistranslation or not? Who was right, Euler (with his mistranslation) or Newton (original E≠ma)? Incidentally, I can't believe you missed my post on the subject of F = ma, what with all that stuff about the infinitessimal and calculus that we went off on a tangent about (PI) -- you, me and Stryper, about 3 weeks ago. I tend to just look at a few things. I don't care to bother to read all the blabbering bullshit you throw around. Sometimes, even a blind hen finds a corn... but it's still blind. Well. I'm done. I tried honestly to understand your point of view in the last couple of hours and ask seriously what you meant. Your response only shows how full of yourself you are. So I'm done humor your self-gratifying attitude any longer. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. That's the pretentious asshole attitude we all love and long for. Keep it coming. It sure helps your point. It's not pretentious -- I have been far more patient with you than most physicists would be. If I was just contemplating all these ideas for the first time, it would be a different matter, but I am not. I have been through them and learnt lessons, some of them the hard way and some of them the very hard way. Ok. I concede defeat. You won. I humble myself for your majestic knowledge and superhuman intelligence. You're the master of the universe. No one can measure up to your greatness. And I'm so sorry for have tried your patience so much by attempting to ask a few honest questions. You happy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If by 'point' you mean geographical location, then the one that is flying against the spin. Even a relativist wouldn't diagreee with that. Good night. I'm so sorry your Highness, perhaps I should have not challenged your mind by such a simple statement. I was considering the same point to mean the exact same geographic location, i.e. latitude and longitude, of the departure. It was my fault of not being clear enough. I can't truly understand how you can bow down and even consider answer my lowly question. So I appreciate that you were so kind of allowing your time be soiled by such a silly and inexact question by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I also hope that the night will be restful for such a great mind of yours. We, the public fooled by all the scientists, can't wait to be taught yet again by the all knowing and superior intellect as yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Couldn't darned well sleep, because, come to think of it, I knew I had got something the wrong way round; it's a while since I ventured into this subject. In fact, it is the beam that has the receptor brought towards it, by virtue of the rotation, that has the shorter optical path, so reaches the receptor the sooner. This is the beam that is directed 'backwards' from the emitter (which is also the receptor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If by 'point' you mean geographical location, then the one that is flying against the spin. Even a relativist wouldn't diagreee with that. Good night. I'm so sorry your Highness, perhaps I should have not challenged your mind by such a simple statement. I was considering the same point to mean the exact same geographic location, i.e. latitude and longitude, of the departure. It was my fault of not being clear enough. I can't truly understand how you can bow down and even consider answer my lowly question. So I appreciate that you were so kind of allowing your time be soiled by such a silly and inexact question by me. Now go and address DeGaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Now go and address DeGaul. The Master is asking of much of poor silly me. I know I should not dare question your Excellence's wishes, but ... you seriously don't realize that you are full of yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Couldn't darned well sleep, because, come to think of it, I knew I had got something the wrong way round; it's a while since I ventured into this subject. I wouldn't dare question your wisdom and knowledge in this area any further, and if I did have any concerns or needs of deeper explanation, I will keep it to myself since it tends to hurt your self-esteem too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Since Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator, are you suggesting that a person walks and runs faster/easier with Earth's rotation than against it? Oh -- actually, depending on the interpretation of your word 'easier', the opposite will be the case: if you run against the earth's rotation, you get (eg.) half way round the earth sooner than if you run with it. The reason is that the earth's spin brings your destination towards you sooner than it does if you are running with the spin. So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph? Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph? Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east? Oh-oh. You should not challenge the Great Master's knowledge and understanding of the world. The King of Science might think lesser of you now for such a breach of His trust! He must be allowed to speak His wisdom without the threat of the simple pondering of minions. We are far to unintelligent to have independent thoughts. We must hear and obey His words! Surely, you can see the error in your thoughts. You have not provided the correct specification of the geographic latitude and longitude in question for the "take off" point. Since you have not provided accurate and distinct definition of the elements of your question, you have, naturally, failed to ask the question in the proper fashion. In other words, you're wrong, because it contains only hot air and no balloon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Couldn't darned well sleep, because, come to think of it, I knew I had got something the wrong way round; it's a while since I ventured into this subject. In fact, it is the beam that has the receptor brought towards it, by virtue of the rotation, that has the shorter optical path, so reaches the receptor the sooner. This is the beam that is directed 'backwards' from the emitter (which is also the receptor). Which sounds really cool but is incorrect. If that was the case then changing the length of the fibre would make no difference, yet, it does... You need to venture some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Oh, I remember learning the hard way the experience of jumping. Very very painful. I jumped only a little, but once I was no longer connected to the Earth I flew at 1000mph. Luckily I hit a huge hay stack . Imagine if I hit a building!!! I vowed never again to jump. Its too damned dangerous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Unlike some I know my limitations and can freely admit when I'm out of my depth. Y'know, it's quite a liberating and refreshing feeling to fess up and say so. I highly recommend it! BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If by 'point' you mean geographical location, then the one that is flying against the spin. Even a relativist wouldn't diagreee with that. Good night. I'm so sorry your Highness, perhaps I should have not challenged your mind by such a simple statement. I was considering the same point to mean the exact same geographic location, i.e. latitude and longitude, of the departure. It was my fault of not being clear enough. I can't truly understand how you can bow down and even consider answer my lowly question. So I appreciate that you were so kind of allowing your time be soiled by such a silly and inexact question by me. If you can drop the sarcasm for a second -- and I feel you ought to, being a moderator -- you might give some though as to why I asked. A point doesn't move, but the surface of the earth does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Couldn't darned well sleep, because, come to think of it, I knew I had got something the wrong way round; it's a while since I ventured into this subject. In fact, it is the beam that has the receptor brought towards it, by virtue of the rotation, that has the shorter optical path, so reaches the receptor the sooner. This is the beam that is directed 'backwards' from the emitter (which is also the receptor). Which sounds really cool but is incorrect. If that was the case then changing the length of the fibre would make no difference, yet, it does... You need to venture some more. It makes a difference because the diference in optical path length is not so great. The difference in path length is caused by the multiple occasions that the beam is reflecteed off the fibre -- the more it does it, the more the sum difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 So if a hot air balloon takes off at the equator it begins traveling west at 1000mph? Cars get better gas milage traveling east-west than west-east? Yes. You've got to think of a vehicle as something that has an inertia, as though it were to some extent detached from the earth. The spin of the earth brings the destination towards it as its inertia tries to keep it stationary (but not that is not, specifically, stationary with respect to the earth -- rather, to the cosmos). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 For a moment yesterday, I started to consider that you maybe had something that was worth considering, but... Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. This patronizing comment only proved to me that you're yet another arrogant prick who doesn't really take your own views serious. If you did take your views serious, and if you really did have something worthy to share, your condescending remarks would not be required. You would be happy by being right and knowing it, but it's not enough for you, you have to do it in a stuck-up, put-down way. Too bad, you almost had me there for a minute. If you can drop the sarcasm for a second -- and I feel you ought to, being a moderator -- you might give some though as to why I asked. A point doesn't move, but the surface of the earth does. It wasn't the point or the asking, but your smug attitude when I asked for clarification from you. Your reaction to people asking you questions is showing that you think you're the master guru who should be worshiped. My sarcasm only gave you what you really want. If you truly knew these things for sure, and you had conviction, you wouldn't be such an asshole about it. You had your chance to convince me, but I don't think you're really interested in sharing your knowledge. You only want to use your knowledge to put people down. Well, so be it. Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 For a moment yesterday, I started to consider that you maybe had something that was worth considering, but... Am going to bed now. Let me know when you guys have conceded defeat. This patronizing comment only proved to me that you're yet another arrogant prick who doesn't really take your own views serious. If you did take your views serious, and if you really did have something worthy to share, your condescending remarks would not be required. You would be happy by being right and knowing it, but it's not enough for you, you have to do it in a stuck-up, put-down way. Too bad, you almost had me there for a minute. I don't know why you object so vehemently -- you should see some of the things I have had to put up with by headstrong people thinking they are right (and you are not perfect on that count yourself). If I might be provocative once more, I imagine that AlphaToOmega's recently more subdued style of replying is something to do with his having made an attempt at working out the problem using geometry, as I had suggested from the start. If you want me to be all gentle and keep receiving A-to-O's (and other people's) snide comments as though I am just a punchbag whose sad lot is to keep repeating the simple, common-sense, well-recognised (though sadly not well-recognised enough) scheme that I have spelt out all along, then I am sorry, but I have my limits. So, Ouroboros, how come you never speak to that condescending jerk, DeGaul in the way that you speak to me, above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts