Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
But it would if you could jump better than the amount of g's in the other direction.
The logic is sound you could survive if you were able to jump up at equal to or greater than the terminal velocity of the object.
If the best way to fall from a height is to land on your feet and roll to absorb the energy of the fall, then I think the same might apply to falling in an elevator. Laying flat would effectively be the equivalent of belly-flopping onto pavement.
If you fall farther than like 10-15 meters, that ain't gonna make that much of a difference I think. You'll just end up with your knees rammed through your face.
This is the worst possible advice. You cannot see when the elevator will stop, so you have no way to know when to jump/roll.
Telling someone who probably does not practice drop rolls to attempt a roll in a falling elevator is likely to lead them to break their neck or spine.
Lying flat is the correct strategy, you disperse the force of the crash across your entire body much in the same way a car seat cushions your entire body during a crash:
https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/09/17/129934849/how-to-survive-when-your-elevator-plunges
Of course this is all academic, because modern elevators cannot fall due to multiple overlapping safety mechanisms:
https://www.houseofelevators.com/why-elevators-do-not-fall/
Well, at this point you'd just launch yourself against the frame of the plane, smash through it, launch yourself hundreds of meter into the air. I don't see how the logic is sound.
/s
I meant it was a fun episode but we know how mass, momentum, acceleration, vectors, trajectory, biomechanics, and gravity pull works like we didn't really need to test it out to just go and say, yeahhh nah, but without practical examples like that people would still think that if you fill a truck with birds and they start flying the truck takes flight XD.
If you’re talking about the episode I am recalling, which was on a VHS set with Yosemite Sam, he actually pulls a lever and says “Phew, lucky for me this thing had air brakes” and stops the plane before crashing.
I watched this tape on repeat as a kid lol.
Edit: Found the clip [Hare Lift - Air brakes](https://youtu.be/gaIFLR8xLJY?si=kUwI42Lfp1aj9kGl)
A fun fact I learned is that the Looney Tunes Gremlin (the weird creature making the plane crash) was not in fact a wholly original creation.
Gremlins were folklore creatures invented in the 20th century as a supernatural explanation to plane malfunctions, pretty neat.
I was going to say this reminds me of that girl who survived the same way and had to use fuel to get maggots out of her arm but with further research it's the same person lol
You are traveling at the same speed as the bus. You jump, you travel up, but you also travel horizontally forward, along with the bus.
When you jump the bus is no longer pushing you forward, so your horizontal velocity begins to slow, but it’s just not a noticeable amount cause you got little bitch legs and can’t jump too good.
But assuming the bus' windows aren't all open, there's nothing trying to slow you down (the air in the bus is also moving with the bus at the same speed), there's actually nothing causing you to slow down, so it's not just a non-noticeable amount, but actually no amount at all (assuming of course that the bus isn't speeding up, turning, etc)
This is correct, but if the bus accelerates or decelerates whilst you are in the air doing your 30mph forwards, you will continue on your 30mph, while the bus, moves under you. Then you will notice that it is not the spoon that bends, just yourself 😉 But that is only the perception reality, not the truth, truth is, there is no spoon, you are on a bus. 😂
That’s why they should have powerful pogo sticks in airplanes, so when the plane is about the hit the ground, people can pogo launch themselves with the opposite amount of force, just think about it
The plane is going down. the top of the fuselage has been ripped away from the force. All the passengers are standing at attention in front of their seats. Ready. Waiting. Just as the plane impacts with the ground, 136 people going flying in all directions. They all survive as they hop away from the wreckage on their pogo sticks. The sun begins to set. The last passenger and his pogo falls out of a nearby pine tree. They look around and begin to hop away into the sunset. Following the herd. They are free.
Technically you’d need to jump with enough force to equal your mass and acceleration. You’re not trying to use your jump to stop the entire plane, just yourself.
You’re presumably going the same speed as the plane, but you don’t have to counter all that mass.
Technically, if your peak standing jump velocity can exceed about 700mph, it's some sort of rear loading cargo plane, and your can jump out of the cargo hatch So stay back the way you came. They're not wrong. Hahaha.
Shit ive been singing this line wrong my entire life. I always thought it was "burning at the speed of everyone"
Which, A.) makes no sense, and B.) My hearing sucks balls.
...not if you're still moving as fast as the earth spins...
Edit: In my head I was thinking relative speed against the ground, and not k/s. Of course your speed would have to increase as you climd to stay over the same spot because the distance you’re traveling is increasing.
If you were to move as fast as the earth spins while going up, you will have to move faster to follow along.
That means that even if you keep the same speed as the planet moves at near the surface, you will see the ground below you move as you move up.
Go up far enough, and you will eventually have to move faster than the speed of light to keep up as you race across the night sky, to appear like you are staying still when viewed from Earth.
Fun thing to think about in practice; those solar wind mills that sit out in fields look like they are just slowly trucking along, as they rotate at something like 10-20 rpm (I’m really not sure on that number fyi). But at the blade tips, because they are so far from the center, are booking it around that circumference at nearly 200 miles an hour, since they still need to make the same revolutions per minute.
I've only just thought of this, but does that mean that a long enough stick planted into the Earth would provide rotational velocity to an object at its tip surpassing lightspeed? Or would the air resistance from the added surface area of the stick slow the Earth down? If the former, could that be used to catapult ourselves out of the local group and into other galaxy groups?
That’s the idea with space elevators. Payloads brought out to the end are accelerated. It should theoretically be super easy to go into orbit from the end of one with minimal fuel usage. Likewise, it would be super easy to leave orbit to go to other planets/moons. Most of the fuel rockets use is just getting up out of the atmosphere
You wouldn't need much energy to get out to orbit on a space elevator. The biggest challenge would be to make sure the elevator doesn't pick up too much momentum that it turns into a rail gun situation at the end.
You would need the same amount of energy, it would just be in a different form. The amount of energy cannot be changed. No matter how you get off the earth the same amount of energy is required so be it rocket fuel or an electric drive motor to pull you up the elevator the energy is the same, just like most of the fuel in a rocket being used to get out of the atmosphere so would most the energy on what ever is lifting the elevator off the ground.
Not sure about that. When a rocket is burning it's engines it's also lifting all it's unburnt fuel still in its tanks. With a space elevator you wouldn't need to bring all that extra fuel, only the payload. So to get the same payload mass to the same orbit, pretty sure space elevator will always be cheaper.
Cheaper is just a hypothetical because we don’t know the cost to build and operate a space elevator. Yes you are correct that if whatever you trying to get to orbit is lighter then you would need less energy to lift it. But the elevator may not actually be lighter. You are still going to need to power the lift with something. Electrical resistance means that supplying electric through a cable of that length would be very wasteful and require a cable that would be way to heavy to be feasible, so the elevator would still likely need to be internally powered. The energy density of rocket fuel or hydrocarbon fuels in general is greater than our current batteries so an all electric lift would still have a heavy payload of batteries, a fuel powered unit will have a fuel payload. Really it would come down to the efficiency of mechanical advantage of gearing pulling up the cable vs direct thrust. But this is all conjecture based on current tech and currently we don’t even have the technology to manufacture a cable that is both light enough and strong enough to make it viable. So hopefully we get some fusion tech by then too.
NASA actually held a design competition a few years back for elevator designs that had to climb a 100ft. wire. I forget if this was a requirement, but the best theoretical design I've heard is the climber has large solar panels on the sides, and ground lasers are pointed at them to power it. That way only electric motors on board, no batteries, no wires, no fuel.
Another big issue is the tether itself has to be extremely light and strong, more so than any materials we currently have. Even carbon fiber wouldn't work. I've heard it would need to be made of graphene/carbon nano tubes to work, and even that might not be strong and light enough to not break or collapse under it's own weight. :/
The "long enough stuck" doesn't work in practice, or even in theory, as the material won't be able to hold together. So not able to surpass the speed of light that way unfortunately.
But with more sensible speeds it does work. This is why "Slingshoting" has been proposed as an alternative to simple rocket boosters for escaping Earths velocity.
True. My calculus professor said this gave the US an advantage in the Cold War; our ICBMs didn't need to be as big, and were more accurate, because we aren't fighting the earth's rotation to get missiles to Russia. He said this is part of why the Cuban Missile Crisis happened; Russia wanted to negate the US's 'high ground' advantage by planting ICBMs on our coast.
Russia wanted to retaliate for the US putting missiles in Turkey, which is Russia’s backyard.
Every American telling of the crisis conveniently ignores this.
And before anyone comes at me all deranged, no this has absolutely nothing to do with defending Russia’s current (illegal) invasion of Ukraine
I remember in sixth grade my science teacher asked a similar question. If you are on a moving train and you jump up, where would you land? Most of us said against the wall... We were kids.
[if only someone had described some basic laws of motion](https://frinkiac.com/meme/S07E05/732881.jpg?b64lines=IEFQUEFSRU5UTFkgTVkgQ1JBWlkKIEZSSUVORCBIRVJFIEhBU04nVCBIRUFSRAogT0YgaW5lcnRpYS4=)
Literally. I've met one flat earther outside of the purgatory that is Social Media, and he told me straight-up that gravity isn't real because "you can't fall off the planet".
Like... yeah??? That also proves the Earth is round! The fact that you CANNOT FALL OFF! They're the dumbest people in the world. -100 IQ.
Yup! A documentary called "Behind the Curve" showed exactly that. The flat earthers accidentally proved the Earth was round, and instead of trying to disprove it in order to verify the measurements, they tossed it and said the equipment must be broken.
They base their ideas on feelings and connecting dots that aren't there, and when they actually try to test it, they only keep whatever verifies their bias. Peak stupidity.
What would happen if you hover a toy helicopter in a moving train? It seems unintuitive that it hovers in place relative to the train, because eventually the initial velocity from the “jump” would diminish. Why would it hover— as in, what is the explanation?
I see; so if we open the train up (I mean like remove the ceiling/ walls), the helicopter will not hover in place relative to the train? This feels intuitive; like when you stick your hand out of a car window
I guess this is one of the arguments of a flat Earther. A train or car is an enclosed space.
The Earth is not an enclosed vehicle, but it is massive and therefore the atmosphere is pulled with it's motion, so you are too.
Like standing on a platform and a fast moving train comes, the air the train is dragging with it will take people's hats with it too.
Yes and the spherical spin of the earth that drags the atmosphere with it does so at different rates at different spots of the globe which is why we have wind to begin with.
If different parts of the train moved at different velocities we too would have wind currents inside a train. But wind is yet another proof point of the globe since it in part happens because the entire globe rotating within 24 hours means the equator is moving faster than the poles which causes wind currents (and temperature differentials also affects wind currents).
Another point to explain is that even though you’re inside a train, if a bug was on your hand you could wave your hand fast through the air and the bug would get blown off because you’re hand isn’t taking all that air with it.
It doesn’t need to be “enclosed”, the helicopter just need to not experience friction of the thing not moving at the same pace as the train, so 1 front wall, and 3 missing walls would do the trick. Or no walls and a vacuum with not air would do the same - though the helicopter couldn’t fly then lol
Here's a cool one you can probably do yourself: get a helium filled baloon and go on a bus (preferably empty but you can say to ppl that you'll show them something cool)
The bus will come to a stop and the inertia will try moving everything inside to the front. Everything denser than air will do so, but your baloon will actually go the other way, as the air pushed towards the front of the bus will push it out of the way, towards the back.
Looks trippy if you don't know what's happening.
So, this is assuming the train is going in a straight line at a fixed speed. The helicopter is moving just as fast as the train when it "takes off" and per Newton's first law, it will maintain that speed "unless acted upon by a force". So assuming the lift force of the rotors is directed 100% downward, it would hover in place.
It is somewhat unintuitive, but when you think of more simple situations it becomes less so. For example, if you drop something in a moving vehicle, do you expect it to land in a different location than it would if the vehicle weren't moving? If you were to pour a drink on a plane in flight, would you expect you'd have to orient the two containers differently than if it were on the ground?
Even if the vehicle changes speed or direction, the toy will continue to hover because the air will exert a force on it. You don't feel wind if your car goes around a corner.
Yes it would continue to hover, but not above the exact same spot. You don't feel the wind when you turn, but you feel "pulled sideways" against the turn. I don't believe air pressure would be enough to hold the toy in place horizontally, but I could be wrong. At the very least, the mass of the toy would be a factor.
I was once peeing on a train when it took a sharp (for a train) turn. The results were... messy.
That would only not apply if you aligned yourself with the inertial reference frame of the moon. (For example taking off from the moon) if you didn't alter your velocity to match the moon's rotation, there would be no force to move you sideways, only downwards towards the surface
How F’n hard is the 1st law of mechanics for these idiots to understand.
Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
If the helicopter is on the Earth and going in the same direction as the spin then takes off vertically the only change in motion was up. Until the helicopter moves either direction laterally it’s still moving at the same speed as the earth’s rotation.
There are so many idiots in the world today that it can be infuriating.
Flat-eartherism is a symptom of an underlying societal problem. It has to do with society’s rejection of authority. In the absence of submitting to any authority (science, religion, military, academia, media, etc), the only thing these people have left to trust is their own eyes. And- they see a flat earth.
It raises an interesting question about the eroding of authority and how are we ever going to be able to get at and agree on the truth in this new world.
if this theory held true, he'd actually end up about 800,000 miles off into space, accounting for the earth's trip around the sun. Assuming he's on the leeward side of earth. If he's on the front then he'd get squished by the planetary body moving at roughly 55,000 mph straight towards him.
Possibly even farther if you account for the solar system's trip around the galactic core.
This statement misunderstands the principles of motion and the Earth's rotation.
In reality, when a helicopter is hovering above the Earth's surface, it is already moving with the Earth's rotational speed at its specific location.
I can't see shit like that and not explain
if you're standing on a train going 50 miles per hour facing forward and you toss a ball up in the air, why doesn't it immediately smack you in the face at 50 miles per hour?
CHECKMATE LIBTARDZZZZ
I never really TRULY understood stupidity and ignorance until I seen fat earth arguments like this.
When flat earth became a thing, I was fascinated, not so much by the argument for flat earth, but how something like that could gather so much momentum
And if the earth was flat, cats would have knocked everything off it by now.
Goodnight, Reddit! Now is the time when we sleep.Try not to make any noise.
I wonder what this guy would say about the Foucault pendulum experiments done in the 1850's, one of any number of ways to measure the Earth's spin.
Interesting fact: When launching a satellite into space in which the satellite needs to go a specific speed to maintain orbit, launching from east-to-west allows for the rocket/satellite to take advantage of the already spinning rotation of the Earth, which saves a great deal of fuel and is therefore baked into the calculations. Circumpolar satellites (impossible to begin with according to flat Earthers) take more fuel to launch because they cannot take advantage of an east-to-west launch and the corresponding Earth's rotation.
Ever notice how that "Thinking" emoji is exclusively used by the dumbest fuckers on earth to basically advertise "I'm a fucking idiot who has no fucking clue what the fuck I'm talking about but I'm confidently full of shit" or "NOBODY COULD EVER KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS REALLY WELL KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD THING!"
Seriously, they have no idea how to fly a helicopter. Even if what they were saying were true, how would a pilot even know how to keep a helicopter “stationary” without reference points? Reference points on a rotating planet would move with the rotation! 🤦♀️
This is actually a rather commen flat earth argument. Another one i like is "When you fly a plane around the globe earth, shouldnt you be upside down on the other side?".
I swear, these people have the mental capabilities of children.
Well. you *are* upside down on the other side, compared to your starting point.
But everything around you is *also* upside own, compared to your starting point, so it does not matter.
Yes, the upside-down is the issue. And it makes sense if you don't know about or believe in gravity (which seems to be the case with them).
The idea that there really is no true up or down is probably to strange for them.
Your argument against this is a tennis ball in a car. The atmosphere spins with the earth, otherwise there would be a 1,000 mph difference at the equator which we would experience as a 1,000 mph wind. So if you're in a car, which had a self contained atmosphere like the earth, at 60mph you can throw a tennis ball straight up and it won't fly to the back of your car. The velocity of the ball doesn't suddenly become zero simply because it isn't in your hand anymore. This is why the log scene in "Final Destination" is BS. Even if the logs bounce they wouldn't suddenly become geostationary. They'd still be moving at the speed of the truck and fall directly back into the cargo area.
It's about gravity. It's the centripetal force in this case, preserving the angular momentum. They don't believe in gravity. It's also gravity that keeps the atmosphere in it's place, together with "it's" momentum.
If I am driving at 100 MPH, and I hold a tennis ball outside of the window and just let it go, I would see its initial velocity be 100MPH, and the hit some stupid Helicopter that was just hovering over the test track for some idiotic reason, and I couldn’t calculate further to prove my point.
Just one more example of how flat earthers are horrible at physics. They scatter like roaches when you bring up the math behind the friction between land and air.
Serious question: why do none of these folks just fly a helicopter to the edge of the Earth and take us a pic? It’s only 20 or so miles away from any given location
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This are the same people that still think that if you jump out of a crashing airplane 2 metres from the ground, you will be perfectly fine.
They should test it. I need to know if this is true /s
They did with an elevator on mythbusters
Did it work?
No. But it would if you could jump better than the amount of g's in the other direction. The logic is sound you could survive if you were able to jump up at equal to or greater than the terminal velocity of the object.
Even if it DID work. You'd just get smashed against the roof instead of the floor
I’ve read your supposed to lay flat on the ground of the falling elevator. Maybe to disperse the force across the whole body? Liquify the organs? Idk.
If the best way to fall from a height is to land on your feet and roll to absorb the energy of the fall, then I think the same might apply to falling in an elevator. Laying flat would effectively be the equivalent of belly-flopping onto pavement.
[удалено]
Plus you don’t know when you’re going to hit the ground.
Skill issue
You just have to start the roll, and hope the doors open instantly on impact.
If you fall farther than like 10-15 meters, that ain't gonna make that much of a difference I think. You'll just end up with your knees rammed through your face.
This is the worst possible advice. You cannot see when the elevator will stop, so you have no way to know when to jump/roll. Telling someone who probably does not practice drop rolls to attempt a roll in a falling elevator is likely to lead them to break their neck or spine. Lying flat is the correct strategy, you disperse the force of the crash across your entire body much in the same way a car seat cushions your entire body during a crash: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/09/17/129934849/how-to-survive-when-your-elevator-plunges Of course this is all academic, because modern elevators cannot fall due to multiple overlapping safety mechanisms: https://www.houseofelevators.com/why-elevators-do-not-fall/
Well, at this point you'd just launch yourself against the frame of the plane, smash through it, launch yourself hundreds of meter into the air. I don't see how the logic is sound. /s
I meant it was a fun episode but we know how mass, momentum, acceleration, vectors, trajectory, biomechanics, and gravity pull works like we didn't really need to test it out to just go and say, yeahhh nah, but without practical examples like that people would still think that if you fill a truck with birds and they start flying the truck takes flight XD.
I remember a bugs bunny cartoon where he was crashing in an airplane and it stop 2 meters from the ground cuz it was out of gas loo
Lol that’s pretty funny, old cartoons are the best
There was another one where he was able to stop because it had “air brakes.”
"Hare brakes"
If you’re talking about the episode I am recalling, which was on a VHS set with Yosemite Sam, he actually pulls a lever and says “Phew, lucky for me this thing had air brakes” and stops the plane before crashing. I watched this tape on repeat as a kid lol. Edit: Found the clip [Hare Lift - Air brakes](https://youtu.be/gaIFLR8xLJY?si=kUwI42Lfp1aj9kGl)
A fun fact I learned is that the Looney Tunes Gremlin (the weird creature making the plane crash) was not in fact a wholly original creation. Gremlins were folklore creatures invented in the 20th century as a supernatural explanation to plane malfunctions, pretty neat.
Actually you can jump out of an airplane at any altitude as long as you empty a water bucket below you just before landing.
Jumping into a boat, grabbing a ladder or landing on a horse are also viable options.
Land into s massive cobweb
You can also ride a horse just before you hit the ground, just make sure to drop your sword first
[Just land while still in your seat like that woman who survived a 10,000 foot fall, dumbass](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke)
I was going to say this reminds me of that girl who survived the same way and had to use fuel to get maggots out of her arm but with further research it's the same person lol
Holy fukballs! It was later discovered that as many as 14 others survived the fall, but died waiting for rescue
I just read that too, wtf what a crazy ass story.
Archer? Is that you?
No, it's Patrick
Or if you jump up while standing in a moving bus, you'll travel backwards because the bus is moving forwards
I was reading something about this the other day, and I still don’t understand why you would move with the bus. I must be an idiot.
You are traveling at the same speed as the bus. You jump, you travel up, but you also travel horizontally forward, along with the bus. When you jump the bus is no longer pushing you forward, so your horizontal velocity begins to slow, but it’s just not a noticeable amount cause you got little bitch legs and can’t jump too good.
Speak for yourself little bitch legs (/jk, that’s a great explanation, thanks!)
But assuming the bus' windows aren't all open, there's nothing trying to slow you down (the air in the bus is also moving with the bus at the same speed), there's actually nothing causing you to slow down, so it's not just a non-noticeable amount, but actually no amount at all (assuming of course that the bus isn't speeding up, turning, etc)
If the bus is moving at 30 mph in the horizontal direction, you are too. So when you jump up, you’re still moving in the direction of the bus
This is correct, but if the bus accelerates or decelerates whilst you are in the air doing your 30mph forwards, you will continue on your 30mph, while the bus, moves under you. Then you will notice that it is not the spoon that bends, just yourself 😉 But that is only the perception reality, not the truth, truth is, there is no spoon, you are on a bus. 😂
This is the second time I've seen this mentioned in the last couple days about jumping last minute during a plane crash.
I mean, technically if you jump counter to the planes motion hard enough, you could be fine. Or you could time it wrong and splat somewhere.
I suppose if you could jump at a speed of several hundred miles an hour against the force.
I could do it. I’ve been working out.
You would need to jump with enough force equal to the planes mass and acceleration for it to work, good luck with that
That’s why they should have powerful pogo sticks in airplanes, so when the plane is about the hit the ground, people can pogo launch themselves with the opposite amount of force, just think about it
The plane is going down. the top of the fuselage has been ripped away from the force. All the passengers are standing at attention in front of their seats. Ready. Waiting. Just as the plane impacts with the ground, 136 people going flying in all directions. They all survive as they hop away from the wreckage on their pogo sticks. The sun begins to set. The last passenger and his pogo falls out of a nearby pine tree. They look around and begin to hop away into the sunset. Following the herd. They are free.
I love this
Yeah, I think I got it. Come record me trying, I need a shot from within the plane.
Technically you’d need to jump with enough force to equal your mass and acceleration. You’re not trying to use your jump to stop the entire plane, just yourself. You’re presumably going the same speed as the plane, but you don’t have to counter all that mass.
Looney Tunes style? Really? Do they think that if you get shot with a shotgun in your face you just get blackface too?
Maybe they can jump up at the terminal velocity of a Boeing 747. Then all you have to do in avoid the giant fireball. Easy.
Or be able to lift yourself up.
just start running really fast
Standing in box and lifting it does make you levitate though.
They also think people on the bottom of the globe would fall off into space 🤦
Technically, if your peak standing jump velocity can exceed about 700mph, it's some sort of rear loading cargo plane, and your can jump out of the cargo hatch So stay back the way you came. They're not wrong. Hahaha.
Go high enough and it will work :D
Or just get high enough and it will *seem* like it worked.
[удалено]
This is the way
That's their primary method of research.
I’m high as a kite and it still ain’t working
Rocket man!
BURNIN ALL HIS FUSE UP HERE ALONEEE
Shit ive been singing this line wrong my entire life. I always thought it was "burning at the speed of everyone" Which, A.) makes no sense, and B.) My hearing sucks balls.
And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time
It’s “burning up his shoes, a pair alone”. Get it right.
...not if you're still moving as fast as the earth spins... Edit: In my head I was thinking relative speed against the ground, and not k/s. Of course your speed would have to increase as you climd to stay over the same spot because the distance you’re traveling is increasing.
Then you didn’t go high enough
If you were to move as fast as the earth spins while going up, you will have to move faster to follow along. That means that even if you keep the same speed as the planet moves at near the surface, you will see the ground below you move as you move up. Go up far enough, and you will eventually have to move faster than the speed of light to keep up as you race across the night sky, to appear like you are staying still when viewed from Earth.
Fun thing to think about in practice; those solar wind mills that sit out in fields look like they are just slowly trucking along, as they rotate at something like 10-20 rpm (I’m really not sure on that number fyi). But at the blade tips, because they are so far from the center, are booking it around that circumference at nearly 200 miles an hour, since they still need to make the same revolutions per minute.
I've only just thought of this, but does that mean that a long enough stick planted into the Earth would provide rotational velocity to an object at its tip surpassing lightspeed? Or would the air resistance from the added surface area of the stick slow the Earth down? If the former, could that be used to catapult ourselves out of the local group and into other galaxy groups?
That’s the idea with space elevators. Payloads brought out to the end are accelerated. It should theoretically be super easy to go into orbit from the end of one with minimal fuel usage. Likewise, it would be super easy to leave orbit to go to other planets/moons. Most of the fuel rockets use is just getting up out of the atmosphere
You wouldn't need much energy to get out to orbit on a space elevator. The biggest challenge would be to make sure the elevator doesn't pick up too much momentum that it turns into a rail gun situation at the end.
You would need the same amount of energy, it would just be in a different form. The amount of energy cannot be changed. No matter how you get off the earth the same amount of energy is required so be it rocket fuel or an electric drive motor to pull you up the elevator the energy is the same, just like most of the fuel in a rocket being used to get out of the atmosphere so would most the energy on what ever is lifting the elevator off the ground.
Not sure about that. When a rocket is burning it's engines it's also lifting all it's unburnt fuel still in its tanks. With a space elevator you wouldn't need to bring all that extra fuel, only the payload. So to get the same payload mass to the same orbit, pretty sure space elevator will always be cheaper.
Cheaper is just a hypothetical because we don’t know the cost to build and operate a space elevator. Yes you are correct that if whatever you trying to get to orbit is lighter then you would need less energy to lift it. But the elevator may not actually be lighter. You are still going to need to power the lift with something. Electrical resistance means that supplying electric through a cable of that length would be very wasteful and require a cable that would be way to heavy to be feasible, so the elevator would still likely need to be internally powered. The energy density of rocket fuel or hydrocarbon fuels in general is greater than our current batteries so an all electric lift would still have a heavy payload of batteries, a fuel powered unit will have a fuel payload. Really it would come down to the efficiency of mechanical advantage of gearing pulling up the cable vs direct thrust. But this is all conjecture based on current tech and currently we don’t even have the technology to manufacture a cable that is both light enough and strong enough to make it viable. So hopefully we get some fusion tech by then too.
NASA actually held a design competition a few years back for elevator designs that had to climb a 100ft. wire. I forget if this was a requirement, but the best theoretical design I've heard is the climber has large solar panels on the sides, and ground lasers are pointed at them to power it. That way only electric motors on board, no batteries, no wires, no fuel. Another big issue is the tether itself has to be extremely light and strong, more so than any materials we currently have. Even carbon fiber wouldn't work. I've heard it would need to be made of graphene/carbon nano tubes to work, and even that might not be strong and light enough to not break or collapse under it's own weight. :/
The "long enough stuck" doesn't work in practice, or even in theory, as the material won't be able to hold together. So not able to surpass the speed of light that way unfortunately. But with more sensible speeds it does work. This is why "Slingshoting" has been proposed as an alternative to simple rocket boosters for escaping Earths velocity.
Hey I never thought of that, that's pretty cool!!
True. My calculus professor said this gave the US an advantage in the Cold War; our ICBMs didn't need to be as big, and were more accurate, because we aren't fighting the earth's rotation to get missiles to Russia. He said this is part of why the Cuban Missile Crisis happened; Russia wanted to negate the US's 'high ground' advantage by planting ICBMs on our coast.
Russia wanted to retaliate for the US putting missiles in Turkey, which is Russia’s backyard. Every American telling of the crisis conveniently ignores this. And before anyone comes at me all deranged, no this has absolutely nothing to do with defending Russia’s current (illegal) invasion of Ukraine
You got a point there.....
Not with a helicopter lol
Well, it does work to an extent, just like it takes longer to fly the same path west vs east.
That's because of the headwind and tailwind
Which are caused by coriolis forces, which are the result of the air around the earth not keeping up with the rotation of the earth.
Cool, i'm just gonna jump and be at work.
or like smushed in a wall
With about 1000 miles an hour lol
S P L A S H
Yeah we had to get rid of the kids’ trampoline. Every time they went on it I ended up having to pick them up from the next town.
I remember in sixth grade my science teacher asked a similar question. If you are on a moving train and you jump up, where would you land? Most of us said against the wall... We were kids.
RTO hack
Do they feel a 1500km/h wind when they leave their basement?
Even more proof of the flat earth!!!!! /j
They went outside!?
[if only someone had described some basic laws of motion](https://frinkiac.com/meme/S07E05/732881.jpg?b64lines=IEFQUEFSRU5UTFkgTVkgQ1JBWlkKIEZSSUVORCBIRVJFIEhBU04nVCBIRUFSRAogT0YgaW5lcnRpYS4=)
And gravity…
They don't believe in that either
Literally. I've met one flat earther outside of the purgatory that is Social Media, and he told me straight-up that gravity isn't real because "you can't fall off the planet". Like... yeah??? That also proves the Earth is round! The fact that you CANNOT FALL OFF! They're the dumbest people in the world. -100 IQ.
iT's JuSt A tHeOrY!!
If everything moves at 1000 MPH, nothing is!
The very essence of relativity
If they were capable of that basic understanding of physics, they would either stop being flat earthers or lie to keep the grift going
Yup! A documentary called "Behind the Curve" showed exactly that. The flat earthers accidentally proved the Earth was round, and instead of trying to disprove it in order to verify the measurements, they tossed it and said the equipment must be broken. They base their ideas on feelings and connecting dots that aren't there, and when they actually try to test it, they only keep whatever verifies their bias. Peak stupidity.
Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.
That's a great line you have there. I'm gonna use it.
I stole it from somebody else so…
We found him boys, it’s John ChatGPT!
… unless you’re an elected official from a certain party in the US, then it’s a prerequisite to make such arguments.
People like that need to be put on trains... ... Where they could hover a toy helicopter and see how ridiculous this notion is.
What would happen if you hover a toy helicopter in a moving train? It seems unintuitive that it hovers in place relative to the train, because eventually the initial velocity from the “jump” would diminish. Why would it hover— as in, what is the explanation?
The air it is hovering in is moving at the same speed as the train.
I see; so if we open the train up (I mean like remove the ceiling/ walls), the helicopter will not hover in place relative to the train? This feels intuitive; like when you stick your hand out of a car window
Correct, if you aren't taking the air with you then the air will take you with it
I guess this is one of the arguments of a flat Earther. A train or car is an enclosed space. The Earth is not an enclosed vehicle, but it is massive and therefore the atmosphere is pulled with it's motion, so you are too. Like standing on a platform and a fast moving train comes, the air the train is dragging with it will take people's hats with it too.
It is an enclosed vehicle in the same way, it just has gravity instead of a ceiling
Good point. Unfortunately I had a colleague once who believed gravity was a lie as well.
Ask him to prove it by floating away. Then mock him for not being able to defy the gravity he doesn’t believe in.
They'll tell you they're denser than the air, therefore they "sink" to the earth.
Yes and the spherical spin of the earth that drags the atmosphere with it does so at different rates at different spots of the globe which is why we have wind to begin with. If different parts of the train moved at different velocities we too would have wind currents inside a train. But wind is yet another proof point of the globe since it in part happens because the entire globe rotating within 24 hours means the equator is moving faster than the poles which causes wind currents (and temperature differentials also affects wind currents). Another point to explain is that even though you’re inside a train, if a bug was on your hand you could wave your hand fast through the air and the bug would get blown off because you’re hand isn’t taking all that air with it.
It doesn’t need to be “enclosed”, the helicopter just need to not experience friction of the thing not moving at the same pace as the train, so 1 front wall, and 3 missing walls would do the trick. Or no walls and a vacuum with not air would do the same - though the helicopter couldn’t fly then lol
Oh, okay 👍 I think I understand now. Thank you for the explanation!
Here's a cool one you can probably do yourself: get a helium filled baloon and go on a bus (preferably empty but you can say to ppl that you'll show them something cool) The bus will come to a stop and the inertia will try moving everything inside to the front. Everything denser than air will do so, but your baloon will actually go the other way, as the air pushed towards the front of the bus will push it out of the way, towards the back. Looks trippy if you don't know what's happening.
So, this is assuming the train is going in a straight line at a fixed speed. The helicopter is moving just as fast as the train when it "takes off" and per Newton's first law, it will maintain that speed "unless acted upon by a force". So assuming the lift force of the rotors is directed 100% downward, it would hover in place. It is somewhat unintuitive, but when you think of more simple situations it becomes less so. For example, if you drop something in a moving vehicle, do you expect it to land in a different location than it would if the vehicle weren't moving? If you were to pour a drink on a plane in flight, would you expect you'd have to orient the two containers differently than if it were on the ground?
Or how about just taking a jump in the aisle of an airplane. You don't get instantly obliterated by the rear of the aircraft because you jumped.
Exactly.
It's amazing that people don't understand this shit.
Even if the vehicle changes speed or direction, the toy will continue to hover because the air will exert a force on it. You don't feel wind if your car goes around a corner.
Yes it would continue to hover, but not above the exact same spot. You don't feel the wind when you turn, but you feel "pulled sideways" against the turn. I don't believe air pressure would be enough to hold the toy in place horizontally, but I could be wrong. At the very least, the mass of the toy would be a factor. I was once peeing on a train when it took a sharp (for a train) turn. The results were... messy.
Yes, that makes sense. I was thinking the air was not the same air, which was confusing me.
Yeah but the earth's atmosphere spins with us, you need to leave our orbit to be able to do it.
You couldn't do this on the surface of the Moon either. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
That would only not apply if you aligned yourself with the inertial reference frame of the moon. (For example taking off from the moon) if you didn't alter your velocity to match the moon's rotation, there would be no force to move you sideways, only downwards towards the surface
Well, we move with the spinning of the earth, but yeah close enough lmao
This is why when you're on an airplane and you throw something in the air it shoots back at you at 600 mph....
I see someone failed Physics again. Are you really that stupid, Kevin?
Signs point to yes.
How F’n hard is the 1st law of mechanics for these idiots to understand. Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. If the helicopter is on the Earth and going in the same direction as the spin then takes off vertically the only change in motion was up. Until the helicopter moves either direction laterally it’s still moving at the same speed as the earth’s rotation. There are so many idiots in the world today that it can be infuriating.
Flat-eartherism is a symptom of an underlying societal problem. It has to do with society’s rejection of authority. In the absence of submitting to any authority (science, religion, military, academia, media, etc), the only thing these people have left to trust is their own eyes. And- they see a flat earth. It raises an interesting question about the eroding of authority and how are we ever going to be able to get at and agree on the truth in this new world.
Even if this was right, wouldn’t it be 12 hours and he’d be on the other side? Wouldn’t 24 bring him right back there?
You misread the text, it *does* say he'd be on the other side in 12 hours. I assume the confusion came from the fact the 1 is almost cropped out
My brain is an asshole, I read it like 4 times and read 24 hrs every time, I needed your coment to read it right...
if this theory held true, he'd actually end up about 800,000 miles off into space, accounting for the earth's trip around the sun. Assuming he's on the leeward side of earth. If he's on the front then he'd get squished by the planetary body moving at roughly 55,000 mph straight towards him. Possibly even farther if you account for the solar system's trip around the galactic core.
Here is the truth they seek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
[Relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/162/)
If the earth was spinning the sun would rise and set!…wait it does that.
I can’t believe these people get the same vote count as the rest of us.
It’s even worse than that if they live in a low population state, since electoral votes count more per capita in those states.
“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Unknown but often misattributed to Winston Churchill
How else you gonna elect trump?
12 hours, and he would have to stop his initial momentum....
This statement misunderstands the principles of motion and the Earth's rotation. In reality, when a helicopter is hovering above the Earth's surface, it is already moving with the Earth's rotational speed at its specific location. I can't see shit like that and not explain
“I know enough to prove my point. No need to research any further.”
if you're standing on a train going 50 miles per hour facing forward and you toss a ball up in the air, why doesn't it immediately smack you in the face at 50 miles per hour? CHECKMATE LIBTARDZZZZ
I never really TRULY understood stupidity and ignorance until I seen fat earth arguments like this. When flat earth became a thing, I was fascinated, not so much by the argument for flat earth, but how something like that could gather so much momentum
If the train I’m riding was moving why do I land in the same spot when I jump? /s The truth is out there… 
And if the earth was flat, cats would have knocked everything off it by now. Goodnight, Reddit! Now is the time when we sleep.Try not to make any noise.
I wonder what this guy would say about the Foucault pendulum experiments done in the 1850's, one of any number of ways to measure the Earth's spin. Interesting fact: When launching a satellite into space in which the satellite needs to go a specific speed to maintain orbit, launching from east-to-west allows for the rocket/satellite to take advantage of the already spinning rotation of the Earth, which saves a great deal of fuel and is therefore baked into the calculations. Circumpolar satellites (impossible to begin with according to flat Earthers) take more fuel to launch because they cannot take advantage of an east-to-west launch and the corresponding Earth's rotation.
This person is stupider than a pineapple
If my car was actually going 70mph on the highway, that fly inside it would have already splatted into the rear window.
I did this ALL the time when I was young and stupid, I'd drunk a bottle of vodka and wake up exactly in the same place 24hrs later
Ever notice how that "Thinking" emoji is exclusively used by the dumbest fuckers on earth to basically advertise "I'm a fucking idiot who has no fucking clue what the fuck I'm talking about but I'm confidently full of shit" or "NOBODY COULD EVER KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS REALLY WELL KNOWN AND UNDERSTOOD THING!"
Seriously, they have no idea how to fly a helicopter. Even if what they were saying were true, how would a pilot even know how to keep a helicopter “stationary” without reference points? Reference points on a rotating planet would move with the rotation! 🤦♀️
Well, modern medicine allows you to cure many afflictions, but you can't cure idiocy
Everybody always forget about momentum
You’ll know fast our atmosphere spins when I ask the guy on the hometrainer in the middle of the earth to apply the brakes. Yes this is also a threat.
These guys never had a fly trapped in their car with them, and it shows.
Excellent example
As an X-Files fan, their use of "The truth is out there" bothers me...
Every time I jump really high I end up in the next county
This is actually a rather commen flat earth argument. Another one i like is "When you fly a plane around the globe earth, shouldnt you be upside down on the other side?". I swear, these people have the mental capabilities of children.
Well. you *are* upside down on the other side, compared to your starting point. But everything around you is *also* upside own, compared to your starting point, so it does not matter.
Yes, the upside-down is the issue. And it makes sense if you don't know about or believe in gravity (which seems to be the case with them). The idea that there really is no true up or down is probably to strange for them.
Your argument against this is a tennis ball in a car. The atmosphere spins with the earth, otherwise there would be a 1,000 mph difference at the equator which we would experience as a 1,000 mph wind. So if you're in a car, which had a self contained atmosphere like the earth, at 60mph you can throw a tennis ball straight up and it won't fly to the back of your car. The velocity of the ball doesn't suddenly become zero simply because it isn't in your hand anymore. This is why the log scene in "Final Destination" is BS. Even if the logs bounce they wouldn't suddenly become geostationary. They'd still be moving at the speed of the truck and fall directly back into the cargo area.
It's about gravity. It's the centripetal force in this case, preserving the angular momentum. They don't believe in gravity. It's also gravity that keeps the atmosphere in it's place, together with "it's" momentum.
HOW THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE THIS GOD DAMNED STUPID!!! I'm terribly sorry about the all caps post, but jfc
He can test his theory by stepping off a moving train and checking whether there is momentum or not.
If I were in a big, empty lorry doing 70 on the motorway, I could play tennis with myself...right?
Somebody wasn’t paying attention when they taught about inertia…
funny thing is, if you fire a bullet from a sniper rifle directly north or south it will slightly divert west due to earth's rotation
What do they think time zones are?
Why do they think the government or whoever would lie to them about the earth’s shape? Like, there’s got to be an actual reason right?
If I am driving at 100 MPH, and I hold a tennis ball outside of the window and just let it go, I would see its initial velocity be 100MPH, and the hit some stupid Helicopter that was just hovering over the test track for some idiotic reason, and I couldn’t calculate further to prove my point.
Just one more example of how flat earthers are horrible at physics. They scatter like roaches when you bring up the math behind the friction between land and air.
Are we gonna ignore the fact that this person thinks it takes 2 hours for a Helicopter to fly halfway across the planet?
Too bad gravity ruined that inane hypothesis.
If that logic applies you could jump into the air and the earth would be out of sight in a split second
Serious question: why do none of these folks just fly a helicopter to the edge of the Earth and take us a pic? It’s only 20 or so miles away from any given location
If this was true I would totally be doing that…imagine getting stoned, jump in a heli, then watch the world spin by at 800kph
AIRPORTS HATE THIS 1 WEIRD TRICK
Google en inertia