[geocentrism] Re: gravity fills my quiver
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:55:00 +0100 (BST)
Dear Philip,
You said to Gary, "If you jump up in a still air you will fall back to the same
spot. Like jumping up and down in a train doing 100mph. According (relative) to
the floor of the carriage you have made a straight vertical motion. Yet
relative to the track, you have made an angular climb."
This seems to be the same confusion that the Bad Astronomers have fallen into.
The essence of Gary's argument is not relative motion, but forces, friction and
energy loss within the atmosphere.
To illustrate, what would happen on your train if the walls suddenly
disappeared? The air that was previously inside the carriage would be pushed
backwards, right? But Newton's laws of motion show us that the air molecules
outside the carriage would also be pushed forwards by those which were
previously contained within the carriage. Those that were outside have lost
energy in bringing the others "back into line." How is this energy loss made up
again. With winds blowing all over the place, the friction and energy losses
would be enormous. The atmosphere, if it were rotating with the World would
soon slow down and stop - and the World would not be long after it.
Neville.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gary, I still cannot get what you are saying. The atmosphere is carried
around with the rotation of the earth in the same way as we are when we do a
high jump. The only difference in degree is that the fluidity of air, allows
for much more diverse effects that do not effect a solid body. We have
westerlies and we have easterlies. But we do also have still air. Still air
that is relative to the spinning globe. If you jump up in a still air you
will fall back to the same spot. Like jumping up and down in a train doing
100mph. According (relative) to the floor of the carriage you have made a
straight vertical motion. Yet relative to the track, you have made an
angular climb.
If the earth was steady, movimg east or moving west, the effects of
atmosphere ic movements wind, etc would all be the same, except for the
coriolis effect, Left or right which as you know must occur if a ball is
rotating.
I do believe Neville's query of the polar star more worthy of consideration.
That has me puzzeled...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary L. Shelton"
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 7:01 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] gravity fills my quiver
Group, In addition to what I stated was my understanding of the
atmospheric argument tonight as it currently stands, I need to add this
wonderful exchange I had with one very adamant fellow on Bad Astronomy. I
needed to counter their objection to my contention that the atmosphere could
not push the airplane along at its original motion. The answer is gravity.
Does it make sense?
It's nearly 4 in the morning here, so I hope it makes sense. Wish it
would have ocurred to me about 8 hours ago.
I will be ending my participation in Bad Astronomy soon. Probably in
one week or less. I need to get a few more responses from these folks.
In geostasis,
Gary Shelton
Quote:
PhantomWolf wrote:
It seems that you still don't understand basic physics, even though it
has been explained many, many, many times in this thread.
Newton's 1st Law of Motion: Any object set in motion will continue in
that motion UNLESS ANOTHER FORCE ACTS ON IT!!!!!!!
Now Gary's Response:
PhantomWolf, I understand Newton's 1st law completely. I have not, perhaps,
expressed it clearly enough, but here goes again: The force that you are
asking me to show you is gravity. The plane cannot just be assumed to be
carried by the air at its original motion up in the sky because it is heavy.
Gravity will prevent its lateral motion very quickly once it has lost
velocity relative to the earth (RTTE). Rob Glover gave us an example a few
days ago of a paper ball being dropped out of an airplane. The point I
obviously failed to get across to you is that a paper ball and an airplane
are different, weight wise. The air will carry the paper ball along because
it can. The air masses of the rotating earth that everyone here is claiming
are flexible enough to allow "localized" air currents are not going to
defeat the gravity that will pull the plane downward, and the plane will
"slip" westward RTTE as it falls because the air mass isn't strong enough to
maintain the plane's "origi
nal [geosynchronous] motion". Is that a bit clearer on my part?
GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
