Scientific Curiosity

[toat in a burtle]

One of my friends in lower sixth form said that the rotation of the Earth should be affecting our travel times. I was really confused, but now I'm actually curious. Does its rotation affect how long it takes us to get to or from somewhere, depending which way we're going?

[El poco nuez del muerte]

Agni の投稿を引用：

... he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.

And why is that?

[76561198117027862]

El poco nuez del muerte の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

Even if the helicopter was inside a moving dome filled with air on the sea the same thing applies. Just because the air is moving doesn't mean it will pull the helicopter along unless it is that dense. And yes, density plays a part in your theory.

I must have missed that, just saw it.

It is not about "the air pulling the helicopter along". The helicopter already has the same speed as the carrier it takes off from. And if the area is completely enclosed, the surrounding atmosphere does so too.

Yes, we are talking about a scenario where the helicopter is not taking off from the carrier, but just hovering above to begin with. So, no transfer of momentum has taken place. The atmosphere doesn't have the same velocity since the particles of air need not move in the same direction. If we are increasing the scale, air currents for example.

El poco nuez del muerte の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

... he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.

And why is that?

doesn't mean that simply due to him being enclosed inside, he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.

[El poco nuez del muerte]

Agni の投稿を引用：

Yes, we are talking about a scenario where the helicopter is not taking off from the carrier, but just hovering above to begin with. So, no transfer of momentum has taken place. The atmosphere doesn't have the same velocity since the particles of air need not move in the same direction. If we are increasing the scale, air currents for example.

Then the example is useless. Did you or did you not argue that a bird will have to actively fly forward in an aircraft at constant velocity to avoid moving backwards? A transfer of momentum has of course taken place in the example with the bird.

The aircraft is enclosed, it's atmosphere is enclosed. The only air currents you will have in there are due to ventialition.

Agni の投稿を引用：

doesn't mean that simply due to him being enclosed inside, he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.

Congratulation, he is part of the inertial system. That is what people mean by "reference frame".

Agni の投稿を引用：

And they still have to do it by their own power unless something pushes/pulls them along. If you intend to argue that, you will have to prove your claim rather than just make it.

Agni の投稿を引用：

You are over simplifying things and not taking into account all the variables. Just because an astronaut onboard ISS doesn't have to flap his arms a billion times a second to keep from beeing smashed to a pulp at the rear bulkhead, doesn't mean that simply due to him being enclosed inside, he doesn't need to do any work at all to maintain velocity and spatial relativity in relation to the station.

Ok, so essentially your argument boils down to this:

If we have a moving sphere, constant velocity. And then we kind of magically materialize an object in that sphere, an object that does not have the same velocity and might be stationary in relation to a third point, this object will not travel with the same velocity and vector as the sphere.

Yes, of course. But that is just moving the goal post. We were talking about a real bird in a real airplane that took off with the bird on board. And your argument is that the bird has to actively fly.

So all this super hypothetical "and they still have to do it by their own power unless something pushes/pulls them along" is completely unrelated to the discussion that set all of this off. Of course there is a relation there.

[shoopy]

You have to match the velocity of a space station to even get to the space station in the first place so it goes without saying that the astronaut and the station has the same velocity. Otherwise they could not be in the same place at the same time. Because there is no drag or other force to stop the astronaut, it takes no effort to keep up with the station due to Newton's 1st law of motion.

[76561198117027862]

El poco nuez del muerte の投稿を引用：

Then the example is useless. Did you or did you not argue that a bird will have to actively fly forward in an aircraft at constant velocity to avoid moving backwards? A transfer of momentum has of course taken place in the example with the bird.

The aircraft is enclosed, it's atmosphere is enclosed. The only air currents you will have in there are due to ventialition.

If the bird took off from the plane and there was no friction or gravity or any force acting upon it, then it wouldn't have to fly forward. Otherwise it would have to.

Congratulation, he is part of the inertial system. That is what people mean by "reference frame".

I don't think you understand what you quoted. I am saying that he will have to do work to keep up.

Ok, so essentially your argument boils down to this:

If we have a moving sphere, constant velocity. And then we kind of magically materialize an object in that sphere, an object that does not have the same velocity and might be stationary in relation to a third point, this object will not travel with the same velocity and vector as the sphere.

Yes, of course. But that is just moving the goal post. We were talking about a real bird in a real airplane that took off with the bird on board. And your argument is that the bird has to actively fly.

So all this super hypothetical "and they still have to do it by their own power unless something pushes/pulls them along" is completely unrelated to the discussion that set all of this off. Of course there is a relation there.

My argument has always been the same. You are tying two similar but different points into one. But, the bird will still have to fly as in reality you can't maintain a constant velocity without constant supply of energy.

[76561198117027862]

ardiel の投稿を引用：

You have to match the velocity of a space station to even get to the space station in the first place so it goes without saying that the astronaut and the station has the same velocity. Otherwise they could not be in the same place at the same time. Because there is no drag or other force to stop the astronaut, it takes no effort to keep up with the station due to Newton's 1st law of motion.

There are always forces acting upon everything, no matter where it is. And no, the astronaut doesn't need to have the same velocity. And none of this goes against the laws of motion.

[shoopy]

Agni の投稿を引用：

ardiel の投稿を引用：

You have to match the velocity of a space station to even get to the space station in the first place so it goes without saying that the astronaut and the station has the same velocity. Otherwise they could not be in the same place at the same time. Because there is no drag or other force to stop the astronaut, it takes no effort to keep up with the station due to Newton's 1st law of motion.

There are always forces acting upon everything, no matter where it is. And no, the astronaut doesn't need to have the same velocity. And none of this goes against the laws of motion.

The astronaut does need to have the same velocity otherwise he will eventually be outside the station and moving away from it. It can change slightly i.e. moving around inside the station but it will be quickly matched again.

Also forces act on everything but only unbalanced forces stop or slow an object in motion.

[El poco nuez del muerte]

Agni の投稿を引用：

I don't think you understand what you quoted. I am saying that he will have to do work to keep up.

Ok the, let's recapitulate, astronaut onboard ISS has to actively work, swim forward so to say, in order to not end up in the rear.

I'm geting off this crazy train right here.

[76561198117027862]

ardiel の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

There are always forces acting upon everything, no matter where it is. And no, the astronaut doesn't need to have the same velocity. And none of this goes against the laws of motion.

The astronaut does need to have the same velocity otherwise he will eventually be outside the station and moving away from it. It can change slightly i.e. moving around inside the station but it will be quickly matched again.

Also forces act on everything but only unbalanced forces stop or slow an object in motion.

Correct. But the astronaut does not need to have the same velocity to exist inside, only to keep on existing inside.

El poco nuez del muerte の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

I don't think you understand what you quoted. I am saying that he will have to do work to keep up.

Ok the, let's recapitulate, astronaut onboard ISS has to actively work, swim forward so to say, in order to not end up in the rear.

I'm geting off this crazy train right here.

No, the astronaut has to expend energy or do work inorder to maintain velocity. There are no perpetual motion machines afterall.

[shoopy]

Agni の投稿を引用：

ardiel の投稿を引用：

The astronaut does need to have the same velocity otherwise he will eventually be outside the station and moving away from it. It can change slightly i.e. moving around inside the station but it will be quickly matched again.

Also forces act on everything but only unbalanced forces stop or slow an object in motion.

Correct. But the astronaut does not need to have the same velocity to exist inside, only to keep on existing inside.

El poco nuez del muerte の投稿を引用：

Ok the, let's recapitulate, astronaut onboard ISS has to actively work, swim forward so to say, in order to not end up in the rear.

I'm geting off this crazy train right here.

No, the astronaut has to expend energy or do work inorder to maintain velocity. There are no perpetual motion machines afterall.

You are wrong and need to take a physics class.

[76561198117027862]

ardiel の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

Correct. But the astronaut does not need to have the same velocity to exist inside, only to keep on existing inside.





No, the astronaut has to expend energy or do work inorder to maintain velocity. There are no perpetual motion machines afterall.

You are wrong and need to take a physics class.

Perhaps you need to pay attention rather than simply attending a physics class.

It is easy to say someone is wrong. But I have yet to see anyone actually proving me wrong. Nothing I have said contradicts the laws of physics. Infact they are supported by said laws.

[shoopy]

Agni の投稿を引用：

ardiel の投稿を引用：

You are wrong and need to take a physics class.

Perhaps you need to pay attention rather than simply attending a physics class.

It is easy to say someone is wrong. But I have yet to see anyone actually proving me wrong. Nothing I have said contradicts the laws of physics. Infact they are supported by said laws.

There is no way you would ever listen so there is no point in trying.

[76561198117027862]

ardiel の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

Perhaps you need to pay attention rather than simply attending a physics class.

It is easy to say someone is wrong. But I have yet to see anyone actually proving me wrong. Nothing I have said contradicts the laws of physics. Infact they are supported by said laws.

There is no way you would ever listen so there is no point in trying.

No, you simply do not understand what you are trying to discuss and are unable to comprehend what I have said.

[shoopy]

Agni の投稿を引用：

ardiel の投稿を引用：

There is no way you would ever listen so there is no point in trying.

No, you simply do not understand what you are trying to discuss and are unable to comprehend what I have said.

Take it up with NASA. The fact that you are wrong is not my problem.

[76561198117027862]

ardiel の投稿を引用：

Agni の投稿を引用：

No, you simply do not understand what you are trying to discuss and are unable to comprehend what I have said.

Take it up with NASA. The fact that you are wrong is not my problem.

NASA is not disagreeing with me, you are.

You are the one who believes that 2 objects need to have the same velocity for one to enter another.

If 2 objects were travelling with the same velocity, they will never intersect. That is basic logic, which you failed at and you think I am the one in wrong here.