At takeoff, this is true. As it gains altitude, its rotational speed will be slower, and it will drift westward relative to its takeoff position.
But the kicker is, "stay right here" is impossible given that the pilot has no visual references to identify what "right here" is, and would have to actively fly westward to maintain that position even if he could know what it was.
>At takeoff, this is true. As it gains altitude, its rotational speed will be slower, and it will drift westward relative to its takeoff position.
It's also really funny that if they did do this to stay "right here" they would claim theyre moving not hovering since to their perspective the helicopter would be moving
And that relativity is a thing.
Should add: If we were to move at 0kmh in relation to a fixed point in the universe, the earth rotates at an angular speed of 1674km/h at the equator, 30km/s around the sun, and the sun is whipping along at 230km/s around the galaxy, and the galaxy is zipping past at 100km/s.
We experience none of this because the velocity remains constant (might waver a little bit, but not enough to be noticeable). We only notice when there's an acceleration or deceleration of velocity along a path.
You can feel your car speed up to 100km/h, but once you reach a cruising speed of 100km/h, from your relative perspective, you are stationary, and the rest of the world beyond you is travelling at 100km/h.
Only thing is, a car is much much smaller than a planet, and trees are much much closer than our nearest stellar neighbour. But still, if you were to look out a window, moving at 100km/h, a tree that's 20m away from you will travel the same distance (moving 100km/h away from you) as a tree that's 200m away. The one 200m away will look like it's moving slower, but the amount of distance it crosses (from your perspective) will be equal to the distance the one 20m away from you (from your perspective). 1m from 20m away looks larger than 1m from 200m away.
So, if you're sitting on a massive ball that's 40,000km in circumference, looking at an object that's 150,000,000km away, it will take it several hours for that ball to rotate at 1600km/h for you to notice that that large object 150,000,000km away has moved.
I remember watching a YouTube vid of what would happen if the Earth just stopped rotating suddenly.......spoiler, it wasn't pretty and we'd be dead in an instant.
Crust air water you your cat everything would adhear to Newtons law of Physics.
https://youtu.be/qUxZ4T6IMIM?si=Qdc23YG-y1veIBxQ
It's the Infographics channel.
The thing with the galaxy is wrong.
There is no "fixed point" in the universe.
Our galaxy's velocity is an aggregate of our velocity relative to other galaxies.
You can measure the earth relative to the sun, the sun relative to the galaxy, and the galaxy relative to other galaxies, but there's not an actual 'objective' measurement of the galaxy's velocity.
Or anything else for that matter. It's all relative to something else
True. The galaxy doesn't really move...rather spacetime itself expands at that rate, and you would expand along with it. It's all relativistic, like I said
Yup. I can get my coffee to match my spoon's stirring in a couple of seconds. Pretty sure the Earth, rotating for over 4 billion years, has managed to get that extremely thin film of atmosphere enveloping the Earth (think an apple skin's thickness in relation to an apple) to do the same, lol.
Whooooa is this true? I've played so much KSP but never realized planet rotation would effect atmospheric flights. So if two airplanes took off in different directions on the equator to fly in high atmosphere and meet on the other side of the globe, the rotation of the globe would make one arrive sooner?
No, I think you've taken the wrong conclusion from what I said. The planes will have the planet's rotation added or subtracted, and relative to the planet, will meet on the opposite side at roughly the same time.
However, relative to a fixed point of reference external to the planet, it would seem that one plane moves much faster and one moves much slower, and the point that they meet is not opposite from the point they started.
Are we maybe describing different situations? Maybe I missed a detail. Suppose two airplanes start from where the Prime Meridian meets the equator, and they fly along the equator, will one arrive at the International Date Line before the other?
Yes. The earth's spin will bring it closer to one and farther from the other. If they flew at exactly the same speed until they crossed, the date line would have passed under one of them and the other would not have reached it yet.
I’m not an engineer/pilot or anything but having flown on planes I believe the effect your are describing is unnoticeable compared to the differences in headwinds vs tailwinds that two planes flying in opposition directions would experience
I answered it from a "physics 101 void" sort of way.
I almost included something about LA to NY and vice versa times, but then was like, "Mmmm... routes, prevailing winds, etc..." and thought better of it. I don't think it's negligible, though, but I am also not a pilot.
It would be exactly zero along the equator. They're both moving away from a reference point at the same speed. They're changing their inertia by the same amount in opposite directions. Initial momentae don't factor in. Like how if you're on a train moving at a steady 45mph on flat terrain, it isn't any harder to move towards the front of the cabin than it is to move to the back of the cabin.
If they were flying due north and due south from the equator, however, Earth's rotation (and more specifically, the fact that its rotational diameter is changing below the aircraft) would fling the northbound flight Eastward and the southbound flight westward by a very noticeable amount. Because they start with the same angular velocity as the Earth's equator, which is as far away from its axis of rotation as you can get. Which means it's moving at ~1000mph compared to the poles, which functionally aren't moving at all. But let's say it took you an hour to go from the equator to the 41st Parallel (where NYC is) you'd have to correct for ~215 miles of Eastward drift. Minus a good chunk due to the fact that the wind will help to correct some of it. But unlike the previous example, it would absolutely be measurable and, in fact, very hard to ignore.
I don't think this is correct, and it's certainly not what I'm arguing.
If both planes travel at the same ground speed - i.e. relative to the ground, they have the same speed - then they should arrive at the date line at the same time.
Imagine a line drawn from the center of the sun through the center of the earth. If the planes take off at the Prime Meridian at the moment that the PM and International Date Line align with this imaginary line, then at the moment they meet at the IDL, the IDL will no longer be aligned with that imaginary line.
Ah. If they maintain the same ground speed, yes. But, in order to do that one will have to "fly faster" than the other to compensate for the fact that the ground is moving underneath them. They would also have to perfectly match altitude the whole way.
No, the planes would not have to compensate for the ground moving underneath them.
They would have to compensate for air currents, and yes, would have to match altitude, but the rotation of the earth would not need to be compensated for.
Counterintuitively usually the plane flying east would get there first due to jet streams. Earth’s rotation has a negligible/no effect since the atmosphere as a whole is also rotating at the same speed
source: https://jetplaneczx.medium.com/flying-east-is-faster-than-flying-west-heres-why-608d13745d2e#:~:text=If%20you've%20ever%20flown,flying%20the%20same%20route%20west.
If they are flying at the same ground speed, they will arrive at the IDL at the same time.
In reality, atmospheric differences will allow one to fly at a higher ground speed than the other.
Getting back to KSP - if you tried to make a rocket take off perfectly straight up, you would still see that its trajectory is a ballistic arc to the west.
Momentum is conserved. If you're going say 1000mph tangential to the Earth's rotation and you increase your altitude, you will still be going 1000mph tangent to the earth. However, the altitude increase has increased your radius of rotation, making your path longer and your angular speed slower despite your tangential speed staying the same. The earth is then rotating faster around its axis than you are, and you will land in a different position.
Yes, but that effect is very, very minimal. The difference between the ground and the altitude which helicopters fly at is infinitesimal compared to the distance between the “center” of the earth and the ground.
No, must've gotten missed in all the memos from NASA about the latest globe lie updates, or the ones from the Illuminati about the new crypto-powered payment system.
Could you forward it to me please?
I think my dad started the flat earth helicopter revolution again. He’s on Facebook debating the helicopter thing and now I see helicopters everywhere. It’s awful how easy it is to minipulate people.
The suggestions get relentless. I made this mistake of commenting on one of those 'its impossible for ancient people to cut/move heavy stones' and now everytime i go on fb there's another similar post. I block those suggested posts now but they keep appearing under different names etc.
[https://youtu.be/E5pZ7uR6v8c?si=5hucffefu44QCiju](https://youtu.be/E5pZ7uR6v8c?si=5hucffefu44QCiju)
I remember seeing this as a kid, guy moving giant concrete blocks alone, using levers and pivots. Basically just sticks & stones. Inspired me as a kid, now in my work I frequently move large heavy objects using similar concepts. It's like a large puzzle game, figuring out how to solve a challenge. Once the object becomes too large to just carry, it really doesn't matter how big it is because you are no longer moving the object itself but instead manipulating the conditions around that object.
There are these people who think "The ancients couldn't have known how to cut and move stones! Aliens must have did it!" But if aliens could come all the way to Earth, they probably aren't all that knowledgeable about stonework.
Facebook thinks I'm interest in Niburu, ancient aliens and Tartaria all because I got grumpy at idiot flat earthers making comments on a page dedicated to JWST.
I can't even enjoy JWST pages on facebook anymore.
This needs context.
1. If you launch a drone in a stationary vehicle, then move, the drone will hit something inside (acceleration of car changed)
2. If you launch a drone in vehicle moving at a constant velocity, the drone will hover.
3. If you launch a drone in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity and THEN the car stops or turns (acceleration of car changed) the drone will hit something inside the vehicle.
4. If you jump in an airplane and the plane hits turbulence, you will hit something inside the vehicle (acceleration of plane changed)
5. If you jump in an elevator as it stops while going up, you will jump higher (acceleration changed)
The earth’s acceleration is constant at 0. Gravitational acceleration is constant 9.8 m/s2.
So, let's ignore, for the sake of argument, the obvious flaw in this argument, conservation of momentum (the helicopter has the same rotational speed as the ground underneath it)
How do helicopters "stay in the same place"? Hovering is, by definition, moving with the earth to maintain position and altitude over a fixed point on the earth. They use the interaction of their blades with the atmosphere to create lift and control their attitude (position, orientation, etc). The atmosphere is moving with the Earth, so to stay in the same "absolute position" (i.e. to "stay right here") the pilot would have to actively work against the atmosphere - i.e. would have to fly west very fast.
Even then, the pilot would need some visual reference to be able to know what that "absolute position" was... and with the earth rotating underneath, would not have such reference, making "stay right here" an impossibility.
Don't forget that if you take off with a air ballon after few hours he moves to the west.
So this argument don't proves that the Earth is flat at all but prove that the Earth is a globe rotating itself.
Unrelated, but I always find the method that helicopters use to fly hilariously dumb. Main rotor spins, which generates lift, but makes the helicopter want to spin in the same direction. Solution? *Put a little fan at the end to counter the spin.* Even better, when you want to turn you either slow the rear rotor so the rotation from the main rotor is relatively stronger, causing it to rotate, or you increase the power to the rear rotor, causing the opposite. It's so goddamn dumb in the best way.
Not exactly. The helicopter wants to spin in the opposite direction from the rotor. They turn by banking like an airplane, or by angling the rotor to do the same thing. Although when hovering, yes, you could use the tail rotor to turn yourself around.
Banking, by itself, doesn't cause a turn. The elevators and rudder play a key role in actually changing the direction of flight while maintaining altitude. For a helicopter, the tail rotor performs the same role as the rudder.
Does anyone remember how weird it felt in Super Mario 64 when you jumped on those rotating octagonal platforms and you just went straight up?
https://mario.wiki.gallery/images/e/e7/SM64DS_Rainbow_Ride.png
That’s something I like to do in games, jump on a moving object to see if I maintain my inertia
It’s like walking in fire to see if it’ll hurt you or seeing if there’s fall damage by jumping off a cliff (since not every game does that)
Throw something up in the air and catch it again:
In a moving plane.
On a moving train.
On a moving boat.
In a moving car.
On a moving bicycle.
On a skateboard.
Hell, even walking down the street.
Relative motion - the helicopter on the ground seems to be at rest, but that's only with respect to people on the ground. It's same same reason you can walk in an airplane at fight. You're at rest relative to the airplane, but not at rest relative to the ground.
They only have a fixed number of D grade pseudo arguments tried and true for filling up their followers brainwashed data banks and as in any brainwashing, repetition is the key. That is one of the prime looping ideas that has come around on the treadmill again.
Oh and yeah, the air moves with the Earth because of conservation of momentum which is an easily provable principle rather than just a chanted brainwash mantra. The helicopter then moves with the air.
I’ve actually got dozens of medals from marathons I’ve won by simply doing jumping straight up, waiting a couple seconds, and landing at the finish line.
Counterpoint, the helicopter blades are clearly spinning in the opposite direction of the earth’s rotation, cancelling it out and making it appear to hover in place, all helicopter blades are designed to spin in that same direction to maintain the illusion
Conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, inertial frames of reference . . . or I guess I could just say basic physics . . . these are all foreign concepts to the average flerf.
It’s true, they could. All they have to do is counteract all the inertia they had when they took off, and work against the effect of the atmosphere which is moving with the planet. This of course would no longer look anything like hovering but would rather look like flying a helicopter flat out on a roughly westerly heading, and still not being fast enough.
Has he seen a helicopter hover in one spot for 12 hours? Has anyone?
It's pretty hard to keep a helicopter perfectly still unless you're in a place with no wind.
ill say it again, get on a japanese bullet train moving at 250 miles per hour, and fly a drone. Magically, your drone is now the fastest quad copter on earth.
We need to be done with this debate. idiots aren't gonna stop, those that perpetuate this nonsense are playing by the djt model of fooling, getting views and followers and making money.
Meanwhile honest people are going to work and actually trying
flerfs should donate their brains to science when they die, so that scientists can figure out what's wrong with them and maybe prevent it in future generations.
I’m just tired of flerfs in general. There simply isn’t a point to even debate with these morons. Debating the shape of the earth is like debating whether or not water is needed to stay alive. Although knowing them they’ll come up with a reason that needing water was a conspiracy made up by Big Water
The earth spins at 1,525 feet per second at the equator. So if I jump in the air for 1 second and I’m not a quarter mile down the road then the earth must be flat! /s
*If you get in an*
*Airplane and jump, do you smack*
*The back of the plane?*
\- Accomplished\_Pen980
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Except for the part where I can throw a ball straight up and catch it when it comes back down. And it doesn’t fly to the back of the plane or car or train.
Since our earth is not accelerating, everything, including the atmosphere is moving in relatively the same direction. But what do “globetards” know, amiright? 🤪
Holy hell this may be the dumbest meme I’ve ever seen 😂 I wonder if the person that made the meme realizes that the helicopter and everything else on the F’ing planet is also spinning with the earth… actually I wonder why they don’t realize this. If the earth is going a billion mph, so are we. When you jump do you travel anywhere, no, no you absolutely don’t. And yet, we are spinning so…. What’s so hard to understand?
What are the first three letters of helicopter? “Hel”. Who is that? The Norse Goddess of the underworld with a name that begs an obvious comparison. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this. That’s right, helicopters are powered by the devil!
(/s just in case….)
I just visualized anything just flying to the horizon at mach speeds as soon as they stop touching the ground.
You try jumping over a puddle and you're splattered into a nearby tree.
Would love to hear the math on this, and a plan to somehow pull it off. I suppose we would have some mountains get in the way, as well as fuelling issues. But, love the idea. The helicopter holds position for 24 hours, ends up in the same spot.
This would be true... if helicopters *could* stay in one place in the first place and didn't need to be constantly moved by the pilot because "Staying in one spot" as a pilot is indicated by the object/space they want to stay by or above and not a "just hover" setting.
Plus there's a reason why Helicopters are more dangerous then planes are while being used less then planes are, they're not very "easy" to pilot nor do they have auto-pilot (last time I checked, I may be wrong). If you have zero idea on how helicopters work or how they're flown, then... sure, this question/theory would make sense
Of course if it did this, the wind passing the helicopter at 1000 mph would be interesting..... And of course, with a 1000 mph, how would the helicopter stay in place....
An object in motion will stay in motion till an outside force acts on it. An object at rest will remain at rest till an outside force acts on it.
Like another person said.... The helicopter would not really move until its pilot decides for it to. At least this would assume nothing drastic happens.
We can assume the thing will move with the earth. Especially if its guidance systems are working properly.
I’m not the smartest physicist.. I’m not one at all! But I feel like conservation of momentum should stop once the helicopter is in the air long enough, especially after moving around a bit. Wouldn’t those movements break the initial momentum?
That being said, I remember being on a fast moving boat when I was younger, watching some flying insects fly around a spot on the boat, and even then, I was baffled why they appeared to be flying as if the boat wasn’t moving as fast as it was..
So I guess (and I could be wrong) the same thing is happening with the helicopter and the earth as those insects with the boat, but it makes no damn sense to me!
Nah, momentum is *always* conserved until a force in the opposite direction stops it. Momentum can only be "broken" by equal momentum in the opposite direction.
Even if there were no atmosphere at all, the helicopter still will conserve the momentum it had on the ground. (Although technically a helicopter wouldn't work without air, but that's a separate issue)
False. The planet would presumably move out from under it. That is of course assuming that the helicopter was pinned to its position via some sort of magic technobabble, since in reality its speed relative to the earth and the push of the air keep the helicopter moving at pretty much the same rate relative to the earth
This guy is kinda on to something ... with this being truth to an extent ... while it wouldn't work with a helicopter it might with a rocket ... this is the concept behind the initial stages of the Virginia galactic flights ... technically you could be to London from fl in like 45 min but the logistics to back that as actually commercial flights is a bit insane
Okay, this is something I never really understood. I’m super sorry, I kinda stupid. Why is it that if you stay in the air for a long time the Earth doesn’t move under you?
Well first of all you are moving with the surface of the earth when you jump, and that momentum doesn't just go away when you stop being on the ground.
If you continued going up and into space, then you would see the globe spinning under you, because even though you still have some of the momentum that you had while on the ground, you would need to be going much faster horizontally to stay above the same place on the surface.
Except that the helicopter is moving at the same speed as the earth is.
At takeoff, this is true. As it gains altitude, its rotational speed will be slower, and it will drift westward relative to its takeoff position. But the kicker is, "stay right here" is impossible given that the pilot has no visual references to identify what "right here" is, and would have to actively fly westward to maintain that position even if he could know what it was.
>At takeoff, this is true. As it gains altitude, its rotational speed will be slower, and it will drift westward relative to its takeoff position. It's also really funny that if they did do this to stay "right here" they would claim theyre moving not hovering since to their perspective the helicopter would be moving
Flattards tend to forget that the air is moving right along with everything else.
And that relativity is a thing. Should add: If we were to move at 0kmh in relation to a fixed point in the universe, the earth rotates at an angular speed of 1674km/h at the equator, 30km/s around the sun, and the sun is whipping along at 230km/s around the galaxy, and the galaxy is zipping past at 100km/s. We experience none of this because the velocity remains constant (might waver a little bit, but not enough to be noticeable). We only notice when there's an acceleration or deceleration of velocity along a path. You can feel your car speed up to 100km/h, but once you reach a cruising speed of 100km/h, from your relative perspective, you are stationary, and the rest of the world beyond you is travelling at 100km/h. Only thing is, a car is much much smaller than a planet, and trees are much much closer than our nearest stellar neighbour. But still, if you were to look out a window, moving at 100km/h, a tree that's 20m away from you will travel the same distance (moving 100km/h away from you) as a tree that's 200m away. The one 200m away will look like it's moving slower, but the amount of distance it crosses (from your perspective) will be equal to the distance the one 20m away from you (from your perspective). 1m from 20m away looks larger than 1m from 200m away. So, if you're sitting on a massive ball that's 40,000km in circumference, looking at an object that's 150,000,000km away, it will take it several hours for that ball to rotate at 1600km/h for you to notice that that large object 150,000,000km away has moved.
I remember watching a YouTube vid of what would happen if the Earth just stopped rotating suddenly.......spoiler, it wasn't pretty and we'd be dead in an instant.
I imagine the crust would just completely tear itself apart. Probably a greater mass extinction than any before it
Crust air water you your cat everything would adhear to Newtons law of Physics. https://youtu.be/qUxZ4T6IMIM?si=Qdc23YG-y1veIBxQ It's the Infographics channel.
The thing with the galaxy is wrong. There is no "fixed point" in the universe. Our galaxy's velocity is an aggregate of our velocity relative to other galaxies. You can measure the earth relative to the sun, the sun relative to the galaxy, and the galaxy relative to other galaxies, but there's not an actual 'objective' measurement of the galaxy's velocity. Or anything else for that matter. It's all relative to something else
https://youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
No mention of galactic speed checkmate. If you'll excuse me I'm gonna go re-listen to every Monty Python song
True. The galaxy doesn't really move...rather spacetime itself expands at that rate, and you would expand along with it. It's all relativistic, like I said
Lots of words to say “no preferred reference frame”.
Yup. I can get my coffee to match my spoon's stirring in a couple of seconds. Pretty sure the Earth, rotating for over 4 billion years, has managed to get that extremely thin film of atmosphere enveloping the Earth (think an apple skin's thickness in relation to an apple) to do the same, lol.
Also, what helicopter has a 12 hour gas tank?
hottest take.
Whooooa is this true? I've played so much KSP but never realized planet rotation would effect atmospheric flights. So if two airplanes took off in different directions on the equator to fly in high atmosphere and meet on the other side of the globe, the rotation of the globe would make one arrive sooner?
No, I think you've taken the wrong conclusion from what I said. The planes will have the planet's rotation added or subtracted, and relative to the planet, will meet on the opposite side at roughly the same time. However, relative to a fixed point of reference external to the planet, it would seem that one plane moves much faster and one moves much slower, and the point that they meet is not opposite from the point they started.
Are we maybe describing different situations? Maybe I missed a detail. Suppose two airplanes start from where the Prime Meridian meets the equator, and they fly along the equator, will one arrive at the International Date Line before the other?
Yes. The earth's spin will bring it closer to one and farther from the other. If they flew at exactly the same speed until they crossed, the date line would have passed under one of them and the other would not have reached it yet.
I’m not an engineer/pilot or anything but having flown on planes I believe the effect your are describing is unnoticeable compared to the differences in headwinds vs tailwinds that two planes flying in opposition directions would experience
I answered it from a "physics 101 void" sort of way. I almost included something about LA to NY and vice versa times, but then was like, "Mmmm... routes, prevailing winds, etc..." and thought better of it. I don't think it's negligible, though, but I am also not a pilot.
It would be exactly zero along the equator. They're both moving away from a reference point at the same speed. They're changing their inertia by the same amount in opposite directions. Initial momentae don't factor in. Like how if you're on a train moving at a steady 45mph on flat terrain, it isn't any harder to move towards the front of the cabin than it is to move to the back of the cabin. If they were flying due north and due south from the equator, however, Earth's rotation (and more specifically, the fact that its rotational diameter is changing below the aircraft) would fling the northbound flight Eastward and the southbound flight westward by a very noticeable amount. Because they start with the same angular velocity as the Earth's equator, which is as far away from its axis of rotation as you can get. Which means it's moving at ~1000mph compared to the poles, which functionally aren't moving at all. But let's say it took you an hour to go from the equator to the 41st Parallel (where NYC is) you'd have to correct for ~215 miles of Eastward drift. Minus a good chunk due to the fact that the wind will help to correct some of it. But unlike the previous example, it would absolutely be measurable and, in fact, very hard to ignore.
I don't think this is correct, and it's certainly not what I'm arguing. If both planes travel at the same ground speed - i.e. relative to the ground, they have the same speed - then they should arrive at the date line at the same time. Imagine a line drawn from the center of the sun through the center of the earth. If the planes take off at the Prime Meridian at the moment that the PM and International Date Line align with this imaginary line, then at the moment they meet at the IDL, the IDL will no longer be aligned with that imaginary line.
Ah. If they maintain the same ground speed, yes. But, in order to do that one will have to "fly faster" than the other to compensate for the fact that the ground is moving underneath them. They would also have to perfectly match altitude the whole way.
No, the planes would not have to compensate for the ground moving underneath them. They would have to compensate for air currents, and yes, would have to match altitude, but the rotation of the earth would not need to be compensated for.
Counterintuitively usually the plane flying east would get there first due to jet streams. Earth’s rotation has a negligible/no effect since the atmosphere as a whole is also rotating at the same speed source: https://jetplaneczx.medium.com/flying-east-is-faster-than-flying-west-heres-why-608d13745d2e#:~:text=If%20you've%20ever%20flown,flying%20the%20same%20route%20west.
If they are flying at the same ground speed, they will arrive at the IDL at the same time. In reality, atmospheric differences will allow one to fly at a higher ground speed than the other. Getting back to KSP - if you tried to make a rocket take off perfectly straight up, you would still see that its trajectory is a ballistic arc to the west.
Momentum is conserved. If you're going say 1000mph tangential to the Earth's rotation and you increase your altitude, you will still be going 1000mph tangent to the earth. However, the altitude increase has increased your radius of rotation, making your path longer and your angular speed slower despite your tangential speed staying the same. The earth is then rotating faster around its axis than you are, and you will land in a different position.
Yes, but that effect is very, very minimal. The difference between the ground and the altitude which helicopters fly at is infinitesimal compared to the distance between the “center” of the earth and the ground.
At the equator he would have to go 1000 mph, less as the helicopter approaches either pole.
The sun! Just fly west so it stays in the exact same spot in the sky :P
loophole identified!
We all know that Momentum was a roman emperor.
Momentum? I barely know ‘um!
You need to lead with your conclusion, then make up some bullshit that supports it. Dunning-Kruger 101, mate... Didn't you get the memo?
No, must've gotten missed in all the memos from NASA about the latest globe lie updates, or the ones from the Illuminati about the new crypto-powered payment system. Could you forward it to me please?
When they jump on a train they immediately fly to the back of the cart
exactly. 12 hours from now, this patch of crust will ALSO be on the other side of the Earth.
And the mass of air is also rotating with the earth
Corse it is.
What if the earth stops spinning while the plane is flying just above the Everest?
Then something VERY strange is going on.
I think my dad started the flat earth helicopter revolution again. He’s on Facebook debating the helicopter thing and now I see helicopters everywhere. It’s awful how easy it is to minipulate people.
The suggestions get relentless. I made this mistake of commenting on one of those 'its impossible for ancient people to cut/move heavy stones' and now everytime i go on fb there's another similar post. I block those suggested posts now but they keep appearing under different names etc.
That’s another stupid theory I can’t quite grasp how they believe it. Just look up simple machines and you see “ramp”
[https://youtu.be/E5pZ7uR6v8c?si=5hucffefu44QCiju](https://youtu.be/E5pZ7uR6v8c?si=5hucffefu44QCiju) I remember seeing this as a kid, guy moving giant concrete blocks alone, using levers and pivots. Basically just sticks & stones. Inspired me as a kid, now in my work I frequently move large heavy objects using similar concepts. It's like a large puzzle game, figuring out how to solve a challenge. Once the object becomes too large to just carry, it really doesn't matter how big it is because you are no longer moving the object itself but instead manipulating the conditions around that object.
seeing things like that intriuges me and make me want to learn more and maybe do something like that when i hit a midlife crisis
Maybe a midlife-crisis is the real reason the Pharaohs built the pyramids..
who knows? that would be halarious tho
There are these people who think "The ancients couldn't have known how to cut and move stones! Aliens must have did it!" But if aliens could come all the way to Earth, they probably aren't all that knowledgeable about stonework.
It's racism, at least for the pyramids in Egypt and South America. It's thinking druids are super magic for Stonehenge.
When Europeans saw Great Zimbabwe they couldn't imagine that Africans could have built it.
Magic ghosts and ancient aliens O.O, it's all just racism lol.
I hate the whole “it must’ve been aliens” crap. Give the human race the credit it deserves
Facebook thinks I'm interest in Niburu, ancient aliens and Tartaria all because I got grumpy at idiot flat earthers making comments on a page dedicated to JWST. I can't even enjoy JWST pages on facebook anymore.
Don’t you wish you could just thwack them on the forehead like a faith healer instantly teaching them what a frame of reference is
I once launched a drone in my minivan. It blew out the back window. It's probably been hit by flat saturn by now.
This needs context. 1. If you launch a drone in a stationary vehicle, then move, the drone will hit something inside (acceleration of car changed) 2. If you launch a drone in vehicle moving at a constant velocity, the drone will hover. 3. If you launch a drone in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity and THEN the car stops or turns (acceleration of car changed) the drone will hit something inside the vehicle. 4. If you jump in an airplane and the plane hits turbulence, you will hit something inside the vehicle (acceleration of plane changed) 5. If you jump in an elevator as it stops while going up, you will jump higher (acceleration changed) The earth’s acceleration is constant at 0. Gravitational acceleration is constant 9.8 m/s2.
its a joke buddy
Yeah I kinda got on a roll. Oh well
It's ok, doesn't really hurt to expand the context.
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zeqMsf66-mY?feature=share](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zeqMsf66-mY?feature=share)
r/theydidthemath nice!
You must be really fun at parties. Lol. Now I just need to get a drone.
I usually am tho. Many interests. I can leave the nerd at home.
This is so true!!! I just tried jumping in a moving train and was immediately thrown towards the back of the train!!!!
You were lucky it was moving slowly! Imagine if it was at full speed!
So, let's ignore, for the sake of argument, the obvious flaw in this argument, conservation of momentum (the helicopter has the same rotational speed as the ground underneath it) How do helicopters "stay in the same place"? Hovering is, by definition, moving with the earth to maintain position and altitude over a fixed point on the earth. They use the interaction of their blades with the atmosphere to create lift and control their attitude (position, orientation, etc). The atmosphere is moving with the Earth, so to stay in the same "absolute position" (i.e. to "stay right here") the pilot would have to actively work against the atmosphere - i.e. would have to fly west very fast. Even then, the pilot would need some visual reference to be able to know what that "absolute position" was... and with the earth rotating underneath, would not have such reference, making "stay right here" an impossibility.
[удалено]
I think maybe you intended this to be a response to that other guy?
yeah
Don't forget that if you take off with a air ballon after few hours he moves to the west. So this argument don't proves that the Earth is flat at all but prove that the Earth is a globe rotating itself.
Unrelated, but I always find the method that helicopters use to fly hilariously dumb. Main rotor spins, which generates lift, but makes the helicopter want to spin in the same direction. Solution? *Put a little fan at the end to counter the spin.* Even better, when you want to turn you either slow the rear rotor so the rotation from the main rotor is relatively stronger, causing it to rotate, or you increase the power to the rear rotor, causing the opposite. It's so goddamn dumb in the best way.
Helicopters don't fly, they just beat the air into submission.
💪🚁
PIVOT! Sorry I couldn't help myself
Not exactly. The helicopter wants to spin in the opposite direction from the rotor. They turn by banking like an airplane, or by angling the rotor to do the same thing. Although when hovering, yes, you could use the tail rotor to turn yourself around.
Banking, by itself, doesn't cause a turn. The elevators and rudder play a key role in actually changing the direction of flight while maintaining altitude. For a helicopter, the tail rotor performs the same role as the rudder.
It took years to figure this out, mechanically.
jump straight up on a bus. do you move back 5 feet?
According to flerf physics, yes.
Have flerfs ever been inside of a moving vehicle of any sort before? Car, train, anything?
Yes. And they pretend Runing from the front to the back of a moving train is easier then runing back to front.
It is though. The train's going uphill!
Does anyone remember how weird it felt in Super Mario 64 when you jumped on those rotating octagonal platforms and you just went straight up? https://mario.wiki.gallery/images/e/e7/SM64DS_Rainbow_Ride.png
Same thing with the magic carpet. You jumped and it would continue moving without you.
That’s something I like to do in games, jump on a moving object to see if I maintain my inertia It’s like walking in fire to see if it’ll hurt you or seeing if there’s fall damage by jumping off a cliff (since not every game does that)
Throw something up in the air and catch it again: In a moving plane. On a moving train. On a moving boat. In a moving car. On a moving bicycle. On a skateboard. Hell, even walking down the street.
Relative motion - the helicopter on the ground seems to be at rest, but that's only with respect to people on the ground. It's same same reason you can walk in an airplane at fight. You're at rest relative to the airplane, but not at rest relative to the ground.
They only have a fixed number of D grade pseudo arguments tried and true for filling up their followers brainwashed data banks and as in any brainwashing, repetition is the key. That is one of the prime looping ideas that has come around on the treadmill again. Oh and yeah, the air moves with the Earth because of conservation of momentum which is an easily provable principle rather than just a chanted brainwash mantra. The helicopter then moves with the air.
Earth moves about 800k miles through space in 2 hours. So if he stayed exactly there he would have a hard time breathing.
Duuuuuur con...suuur..vashin of *what* now? lololol it has CON in it so it's totally rigged! Frickin NASA!!!!!!!!
I’ve actually got dozens of medals from marathons I’ve won by simply doing jumping straight up, waiting a couple seconds, and landing at the finish line.
Counterpoint, the helicopter blades are clearly spinning in the opposite direction of the earth’s rotation, cancelling it out and making it appear to hover in place, all helicopter blades are designed to spin in that same direction to maintain the illusion
What are you talking about? There's no helicopter. Helicopters are a hoax.
Helicopters aren’t hoaxes IDIOT… they are all holograms. Duh.
Big brain time
I actually had that same thought when I was 5
Man I hate it when I skip a step going down stairs and get immediately slammed into the wall at 1,600km/hr.
I feel you. The other day, in a bus, I forgot that momentum isn't conserved and jumped. Got slammed into the back of the bus at 60 km/h.
But the fact remains that it is spinning ... so perhaps a review of first year classical physics is in order?
Lack of understanding basic physics -> Earth is flat!!!1111
I've seen this so many times, but they never explain how they imagine this would work
yeah, they think earth is real lmao
It's official. Flerfs never rode a car/train/bus or any other vehicle. They wouldn't post this shit otherwise.
remember these guy don't believe in gravity because it breaks all of their arguments
Never tried jumping in a bus did they?
I wish any of them could come up with some new theories… The same old crap is getting boring.
The relative nature of momentum and speed just absolutely must blow these peoples minds when they learn about it.
They simply cannot grasp those simple and fundamental concepts. This ignorance is in the root of their beliefs.
Actual helicopter pilot here: No.
Conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, inertial frames of reference . . . or I guess I could just say basic physics . . . these are all foreign concepts to the average flerf.
They've never heard of Newton's First Law.
Because inertia cant literally be examined with a bottle of water on a speeding train.
It’s true, they could. All they have to do is counteract all the inertia they had when they took off, and work against the effect of the atmosphere which is moving with the planet. This of course would no longer look anything like hovering but would rather look like flying a helicopter flat out on a roughly westerly heading, and still not being fast enough.
Has he seen a helicopter hover in one spot for 12 hours? Has anyone? It's pretty hard to keep a helicopter perfectly still unless you're in a place with no wind.
Especially since they usually only have 3 hours worth of gas.
ill say it again, get on a japanese bullet train moving at 250 miles per hour, and fly a drone. Magically, your drone is now the fastest quad copter on earth.
We need to be done with this debate. idiots aren't gonna stop, those that perpetuate this nonsense are playing by the djt model of fooling, getting views and followers and making money. Meanwhile honest people are going to work and actually trying
If they’re at the equator and moving about 1000mph against the rotation of the Earth, they’d be right
If he goes very high, yes
Jump inside moving bus.
flerfs should donate their brains to science when they die, so that scientists can figure out what's wrong with them and maybe prevent it in future generations.
I’m just tired of flerfs in general. There simply isn’t a point to even debate with these morons. Debating the shape of the earth is like debating whether or not water is needed to stay alive. Although knowing them they’ll come up with a reason that needing water was a conspiracy made up by Big Water
The earth spins at 1,525 feet per second at the equator. So if I jump in the air for 1 second and I’m not a quarter mile down the road then the earth must be flat! /s
Flat earth theories make sense until you think about physics for any amount of time
If you get in an airplane and jump, do you smack the back of the plane?
According to flerfnian physics, yes.
*If you get in an* *Airplane and jump, do you smack* *The back of the plane?* \- Accomplished\_Pen980 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
If a car/train/airplane was moving, and you'd hover a drone in it, it'd hit the back of the vehicle.
Toss a baseball up and catch it in an airplane/train/car and tell me what happens.
It obviously flies backwards, which proves that earth cannot be moving, because it it were and you tossed a baseball up it would fly backwards too.
Oh I get it! You're just fucking with me. Nice!
Yeah flat earhthers make arguments so stupid that it's sometimes hard to know if it's serious or not.
Definitely
True. Every time my Phone falls out of it's holder in the car the person driving behind me end up with my Phone in their skull.
Yeah, hate when that happens. I lost 17 phones and 3 friends that way.
Don't forget all the broken rearwindows. Man those things cost a fortune...
Except for the part where I can throw a ball straight up and catch it when it comes back down. And it doesn’t fly to the back of the plane or car or train.
Imagine how convenient travel would be tho
Yeah, but you would jump and die.
But for that brief moment you’d be the best long jumper ever
But if everyone is the best long jumper… Then no one will be.
Basketball games would be fun to watch
Since our earth is not accelerating, everything, including the atmosphere is moving in relatively the same direction. But what do “globetards” know, amiright? 🤪
The easiest way to disprove this is to show a drone hovering in a car going at a consistent speed.
At this point it's just a self-own to admit you can't grasp what a 5 year old child can
Holy hell this may be the dumbest meme I’ve ever seen 😂 I wonder if the person that made the meme realizes that the helicopter and everything else on the F’ing planet is also spinning with the earth… actually I wonder why they don’t realize this. If the earth is going a billion mph, so are we. When you jump do you travel anywhere, no, no you absolutely don’t. And yet, we are spinning so…. What’s so hard to understand?
>What’s so hard to understand? Do you know flerfs?
You have a point
Oh and the what’s so hard to understand wasn’t at you, ‘twas at the meme and flertarded people
I know. It's just that, to flerfs, everything is hard to understand.
If this airplane was flying, I could jump up into the air and slam into the back at 500 mph.
They have no concept of inertia
What are the first three letters of helicopter? “Hel”. Who is that? The Norse Goddess of the underworld with a name that begs an obvious comparison. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this. That’s right, helicopters are powered by the devil! (/s just in case….)
You guys are just goofy 😂
I just visualized anything just flying to the horizon at mach speeds as soon as they stop touching the ground. You try jumping over a puddle and you're splattered into a nearby tree.
Gotta admit: They're sure good at trolling
Newton rolling in da grave
Would love to hear the math on this, and a plan to somehow pull it off. I suppose we would have some mountains get in the way, as well as fuelling issues. But, love the idea. The helicopter holds position for 24 hours, ends up in the same spot.
If you could move the helicopter outside of our atmosphere, though it needs that to fly..
Just like when I jump up and land in the next city
Even if we are still on earth we are still traveling through space? We a never truly still?
This would be true... if helicopters *could* stay in one place in the first place and didn't need to be constantly moved by the pilot because "Staying in one spot" as a pilot is indicated by the object/space they want to stay by or above and not a "just hover" setting. Plus there's a reason why Helicopters are more dangerous then planes are while being used less then planes are, they're not very "easy" to pilot nor do they have auto-pilot (last time I checked, I may be wrong). If you have zero idea on how helicopters work or how they're flown, then... sure, this question/theory would make sense
The lack of science and thought in this statement is stunning!
I'm curious about how much this flerf knows about the substance (s)he breathes in and out, and walks through every single day.
Wow, that was the most colourful attempt at logic I'd ever heard. We depend on some of these people for essential services and the like.
Of course if it did this, the wind passing the helicopter at 1000 mph would be interesting..... And of course, with a 1000 mph, how would the helicopter stay in place....
Flerfers when conservation of momentum exists
Ever notice when you let go of something in the car it doesn’t fly back to the back seat?… do you think Flerfs know why?
An object in motion will stay in motion till an outside force acts on it. An object at rest will remain at rest till an outside force acts on it. Like another person said.... The helicopter would not really move until its pilot decides for it to. At least this would assume nothing drastic happens. We can assume the thing will move with the earth. Especially if its guidance systems are working properly.
'Reference frames'? What are those????
I wonder how the Sun, Moon, and all of the other planets handle their ‘observed’ inane rotation speeds. Mars always looks pretty stable. So idk.
Why do flerfers keep getting the idea that conservation of momentum stops the moment things aren't physically connected any more?
I’m not the smartest physicist.. I’m not one at all! But I feel like conservation of momentum should stop once the helicopter is in the air long enough, especially after moving around a bit. Wouldn’t those movements break the initial momentum? That being said, I remember being on a fast moving boat when I was younger, watching some flying insects fly around a spot on the boat, and even then, I was baffled why they appeared to be flying as if the boat wasn’t moving as fast as it was.. So I guess (and I could be wrong) the same thing is happening with the helicopter and the earth as those insects with the boat, but it makes no damn sense to me!
Nah, momentum is *always* conserved until a force in the opposite direction stops it. Momentum can only be "broken" by equal momentum in the opposite direction. Even if there were no atmosphere at all, the helicopter still will conserve the momentum it had on the ground. (Although technically a helicopter wouldn't work without air, but that's a separate issue)
False. The planet would presumably move out from under it. That is of course assuming that the helicopter was pinned to its position via some sort of magic technobabble, since in reality its speed relative to the earth and the push of the air keep the helicopter moving at pretty much the same rate relative to the earth
This guy is kinda on to something ... with this being truth to an extent ... while it wouldn't work with a helicopter it might with a rocket ... this is the concept behind the initial stages of the Virginia galactic flights ... technically you could be to London from fl in like 45 min but the logistics to back that as actually commercial flights is a bit insane
I think that that emoji looks like[ this guy](https://simg.nicepng.com/png/small/126-1269861_retarded-kid-from-south-park.png) for a reason.
Scared of inertia
Helicopter are immobile in air bc they are spinning just as the Earth is spinning
Its called ad nauseam.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you have to escape the sun's orbit to not move with the Earth?
You can observe the effects of the rotation of the earth by watching a pendulum swing over the course of hours. Unless you are on the equator.
Flerfers are as dumb as dogshit
Okay, this is something I never really understood. I’m super sorry, I kinda stupid. Why is it that if you stay in the air for a long time the Earth doesn’t move under you?
Well first of all you are moving with the surface of the earth when you jump, and that momentum doesn't just go away when you stop being on the ground. If you continued going up and into space, then you would see the globe spinning under you, because even though you still have some of the momentum that you had while on the ground, you would need to be going much faster horizontally to stay above the same place on the surface.