Saudi cleric claims the Earth is stationary

[Rooster]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... airplanes/

I bet the Left thinks that these guys are secret Republicans.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well if it comforts you, Aristotle said the same thing.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Islam is just trying to find common ground with Southerners.

[Wolfman]

Who cares? There are some that believe Obama is a great president.

[Left Seater]

How is this professor any different than hundreds of other "radicals" "teaching" on campuses here?


Meanwhile UMASS has declared that no Iranian students enrolled there can take science classes.

[poptart]

Seater, do you care to comment on what he said here...


-- ...if the Earth was moving, airliners would never be able to reach their destination. --



I guess he's saying, if an airliner is moving the same way the earth is rotating (if it really was rotating), then how would the plane be able to catch up to reach it's destination?

Related factoid:
You might be surprised to know that a spot on the surface of the Earth is moving at 1675 km/h or 465 meters/second.
http://www.universetoday.com/26623/how- ... th-rotate/

How fast can a plane go?
:grin:



Anyway, Seater...
Your comment is ________________ .

[BSmack]

The answer is that airlines moving would be the least of our concerns because if the earth was stationary it would get sucked into the sun.

[Left Seater]

How fast can a plane go?
:grin:

Well, you could ask LTS since he knows far more about every subject than everyone else on this board. :wink:


But when we talk about speed with airplanes it gets complicated. Are we talking about indicated or true airspeed?

Most of the aerodynamic performance "speeds" are based on indicated airspeed. V1, V2, VR, stall, max gear extended, max flaps, turn minimums, etc, etc are all referenced to indicated airspeed. The indicated speed is calculated on the pitot tube and static vents.

True airspeed is a measurement of air over the wing. This is different than ground speed with is a measurement of the movement of the plane over the ground, similar to a car. When flying into a headwind, the true airspeed will be higher than the groundspeed. It flips with a tail wind and the groundspeed will be higher than true airspeed.

Indicated airspeed will always be lower than true airspeed. The reason for this is because Indicated airspeed measures the dynamic pressure of the air moving over the wing. Since air is "thinner" or less dense at altitude the dynamic pressure declines as the plane climbs into thinner air (with constant airspeed.)

There is also a mach number if we want to discuss speed relative to the speed of sound.


Back to your question. Which of the above are you asking about when you say how fast?



As for our cleric professor, he is just a dumb ass. His claim that a plane would never be able to "catch" its destination is third grade in comprehension. I would ask him to perform this simple experiment.

Find yourself and a helper on a moving ship, cruise ship, cargo ship, hell a pontoon boat for all I care. Put a strip of painters tape somewhere on an open section of the deck. Have someone stand with their toes against the tape and ask them to jump as far towards the bow as they can. Then record the distance. Do this 9 more times and record the distance of each. Then have the same person put their toes up against the tape and have them jump towards the stern of the ship. Record the distance of 10 of these jumps. Finally, with their toes against the tape, have the person jump straight up and then measure how far they landed from the piece of tape.

When the "professor" examines these measurements he will likely be shocked to see that the jumper moved basically the same distance when jumping towards the bow of the ship or the stern. He will likely be blown away when he sees the jumper didn't move towards the stern of the ship when jumping straight up.

He will then need to call LTS or climate scientists for help in making up excuses for what his data shows.

[Mikey]

"Speed", or velocity (which has a magnitude and direction), has to be measured relative to a fixed point. Everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else, so it all depends on what your fixed point is. For most people it's the earth's surface which to most peoples' perspective is not moving. Two cars each travelling at 55 mph in opposite directions would have a 110 mph collision. The earth's rotational speed is measured, I assume, relative to its axis. The earth's orbital speed, I assume, is relative to the sun. Your speeds for the solar system and the Milky Way - not sure what those are measured against.

[mvscal]

I know Saudi clerics are always my 'go to' source whenever I need a physics question answered. They'll even validate your ghsuul at the front desk on the way out.

[LTS TRN 2]

Lemmie expand on this a bit .

Ya see, Aristotle predicated his entire philosophy on the earth being stationary. And..Ayn Rand insisted that Aristotle was the only credible philosopher. And...folks like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan (who was the executor of her estate) were devoted to Rand--and initiated financial policy that has wrecked the world's economy. And..other lunatic frauds known as the "Tea Party" continue to promote utter ignorance and stupidity with a robust swagger. And..from the higher levels of government (oh, consider the fatuous fraud currently serving as governor of Kansas) this robust ignorance trickles down, down, all the way down to this palsied forum. Look...over in the Climate Change Denial circle-jerk thread, there's a Tea Bagger, we'll call him Wolfie, who is reciting the absurd idiocy known as "abiotic oil." And indeed this lunacy was embraced by Ayn Rand in her totally fake gibberish tome known as Atlas Shrugged. So, the circle of inane fraudulence comes a big ol' full circle.

[Dinsdale]

Two cars each travelling at 55 mph in opposite directions would have a 110 mph collision.

Uhm, no.

Nice job trying to explain the Theory of Relativity while misrepresenting it.

Closing velocity is covered in that fine book.

Without doing the math, two cars, each traveling at 55mph, would have a closing velocity somewhere around 109.9998MPH.

I'd like to close with the well-worn "but you knew that." Not sure it applies here, though.

[Left Seater]

Two cars each travelling at 55 mph in opposite directions would have a 110 mph collision.

Uhm, no.

Nice job trying to explain the Theory of Relativity while misrepresenting it.

Closing velocity is covered in that fine book.

Without doing the math, two cars, each traveling at 55mph, would have a closing velocity somewhere around 109.9998MPH.

I'd like to close with the well-worn "but you knew that." Not sure it applies here, though.

Cars traveling in opposite directions might not ever hit each other.

[Mikey]

Two cars each travelling at 55 mph in opposite directions would have a 110 mph collision.

Uhm, no.

Nice job trying to explain the Theory of Relativity while misrepresenting it.

Closing velocity is covered in that fine book.

Without doing the math, two cars, each traveling at 55mph, would have a closing velocity somewhere around 109.9998MPH.

I'd like to close with the well-worn "but you knew that." Not sure it applies here, though.

Seeing as how your speedometer is accurate to probably +/- 0.5 mph at best (+/- 2 mph more likely) I'd say that, yes, the closing velocity is 110 mph.

I'm an engineer, not a theoretical physicist.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Two cars each travelling at 55 mph in opposite directions would have a 110 mph collision.

Uhm, no.

Nice job trying to explain the Theory of Relativity while misrepresenting it.

Closing velocity is covered in that fine book.

Without doing the math, two cars, each traveling at 55mph, would have a closing velocity somewhere around 109.9998MPH.

I'd like to close with the well-worn "but you knew that." Not sure it applies here, though.

Seeing as how your speedometer is accurate to probably +/- 0.5 mph at best (+/- 2 mph more likely) I'd say that, yes, the closing velocity is 110 mph.

I'm an engineer, not a theoretical physicist.

Mikey,

You forgot the "Dammit Jim!" part.

[Mikey]

:doh:

[trev]

I understand that the earth revolves around me.

Continue........

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I understand that the earth revolves around me.

Continue........

[Y2K]

Take Five is one of the most rackable songs ever.

yes it is..throw that on the request list anyday.

[Y2K]

I understand that the earth revolves around me.

Continue........

are you sure we are not married ;-)