The wind speed would NOT have to equal the earths rotation speed plus wind speed.
Project NBR: Does the Red Bull Stratosphere Jump prove ... something?
Posted by: tashi
The wind speed would NOT have to equal the earths rotation speed plus wind speed.
You say wind speed but the link says earth's rotation.
Two different things.
Read the info in the link then.
After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.
Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.
A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.
Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.
It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.
Any-who, back to lurk mode.
Last edited by: jbazett on July 30, 2019, 11:56 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: switch
He landed a bit east of his launch location because he ascended in a helium balloon and was pushed in that direction by prevailing winds. The jet stream was likely further north; if it was over his location he could have been pushed much further east and north/ south.
You realize the head wind would have to equal earths claimed rotational speed and exceed it for him to land east? Or something to the extent.
I dont buy the "helluva head wind" reason.
A regularly scheduled return flight from LA to Dallas has almost the exact same duration in both directions. Explain how that is possible if the atmosphere doesn't move with the rotation of the earth...
Wrong thread bro. You also didnt object to any phrasing in the first post let alone ask what the "something" might be in the subject.
First you say "discuss", then you get all pissy because you don't like the explanation of how things work...
That was hardly being pissy about it let alone an adequate explanation.
When you make statements like the one below, it's going top be impossible for anyone to provide you with an adequate explanation.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
You realize the head wind would have to equal earths claimed rotational speed and exceed it for him to land east? Or something to the extent.
Posted by: jbazett
After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.
Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. .
Any-who, back to lurk mode.
Newton what now?
Posted by: switch
When you make statements like the one below, it's going top be impossible for anyone to provide you with an adequate explanation.Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
You realize the head wind would have to equal earths claimed rotational speed and exceed it for him to land east? Or something to the extent.
Considering I have to deal with a certain amount of unneccessary abuse from your old expert ass, why wouldnt I see what people have to say.
So everyone's answer is just the wind over the two hour ascent blew him east.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.
Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.
A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.
Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.
It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.
Any-who, back to lurk mode.
Newton what now?
Yep, Newton, who died in 1727, was wrong about Universal Gravitation.
1) Newton couldn't observe gravity around a super massive black hole in 1727.
2) The laws of Motion are unrelated to whether gravity is universal or not.
3) Gravity not being universal, doesn't mean there is no gravity.
4) Someone being wrong or right about one thing has no bearing on whether they are wrong or right about another.
The fact that you failed to acknowledge the bulk of my post, including the verifiable, repeatable experiments that prove the earth is spinning, speaks volumes as to whether you are actually interested in having your question answered or are just shit posting.
I mean, did you just Google 'Newton wrong' and link the first article you came across without actually reading it or having the basic physics repertoire to understand what they're talking about?
Last edited by: jbazett on July 30, 2019, 2:29 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.
Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.
A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.
Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.
It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.
Any-who, back to lurk mode.
Newton what now?
Yep, Newton, who died in 1727, was wrong about Universal Gravitation.
1) Newton couldn't observe gravity around a super massive black hole in 1727.
2) The laws of Motion are unrelated to whether gravity is universal or not.
3) Gravity not being universal, doesn't mean there is no gravity.
4) Someone being wrong or right about one thing has no bearing on whether they are wrong or right about another.
The fact that you failed to acknowledge the bulk of my post, including the verifiable, repeatable experiments that prove the earth is spinning, speaks volumes as to whether you are actually interested in having your question answered or are just shit posting.
I mean, did you just Google 'Newton wrong' and link the first article you came across without actually reading it or having the basic physics repertoire to understand what they're talking about?
That was a short lived lurk mode ;)
As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.
Last edited by: aShogunNamedMarcus on July 30, 2019, 2:38 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.
Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.
A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.
Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.
It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.
Any-who, back to lurk mode.
Newton what now?
Yep, Newton, who died in 1727, was wrong about Universal Gravitation.
1) Newton couldn't observe gravity around a super massive black hole in 1727.
2) The laws of Motion are unrelated to whether gravity is universal or not.
3) Gravity not being universal, doesn't mean there is no gravity.
4) Someone being wrong or right about one thing has no bearing on whether they are wrong or right about another.
The fact that you failed to acknowledge the bulk of my post, including the verifiable, repeatable experiments that prove the earth is spinning, speaks volumes as to whether you are actually interested in having your question answered or are just shit posting.
I mean, did you just Google 'Newton wrong' and link the first article you came across without actually reading it or having the basic physics repertoire to understand what they're talking about?
That was a short lived lurk mode ;)
As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.
You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?
He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to). I mean, reaching Mach one 38 seconds after he jumped is a pretty fast rate of acceleration for someone near the 'limits of not being able to fall back down'.
Seriously man, crack a book.
Last edited by: jbazett on July 30, 2019, 3 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
That was a short lived lurk mode ;)
As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.
You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?
He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to).
Seriously man, crack a book.
Did I mention flat earth or geo centrism? As for the edge, thats how it was billed and described. And how is the limits of our atmospheric induced gravity not a thing? There's gravity in space now? You might've gotten over zealous coming out of retirement.
But, you want to know whats cool about flat earth? It doesnt fucking matter. If we woke up tomorrow and for whatever in the fuck reason it's now just accepted and known its flat, do pilots have to recertify? Curved line and straight line basic stuff. Would we still get ripped off on airline gas prices though?
Crack a book? End up like you and Switch? No thanks, I'm just fine in left field here.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
That was a short lived lurk mode ;)
As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.
You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?
He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to).
Seriously man, crack a book.
Did I mention flat earth or geo centrism? As for the edge, thats how it was billed and described. And how is the limits of our atmospheric induced gravity not a thing? There's gravity in space now? You might've gotten over zealous coming out of retirement.
But, you want to know whats cool about flat earth? It doesnt fucking matter. If we woke up tomorrow and for whatever in the fuck reason it's now just accepted and known its flat, do pilots have to recertify? Curved line and straight line basic stuff. Would we still get ripped off on airline gas prices though?
Crack a book? End up like you and Switch? No thanks, I'm just fine in left field here.
Wait? You think the atmosphere induces gravity and that gravity ends in space? Bahahahahahahaha
My work here is done folks.
Last edited by: jbazett on July 30, 2019, 3:11 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: jbazett
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
That was a short lived lurk mode ;)
As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.
You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?
He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to).
Seriously man, crack a book.
Did I mention flat earth or geo centrism? As for the edge, thats how it was billed and described. And how is the limits of our atmospheric induced gravity not a thing? There's gravity in space now? You might've gotten over zealous coming out of retirement.
But, you want to know whats cool about flat earth? It doesnt fucking matter. If we woke up tomorrow and for whatever in the fuck reason it's now just accepted and known its flat, do pilots have to recertify? Curved line and straight line basic stuff. Would we still get ripped off on airline gas prices though?
Crack a book? End up like you and Switch? No thanks, I'm just fine in left field here.
Wait? You think the atmosphere induces gravity and that gravity ends in space? Bahahahahahahaha
My work here is done folks.
No its not.
What level of our atmosphere does our Newtonian level of gravity stop? Magento, Tropo, Iono?
I had an incorrect assumption of basic and literal time over distance. You can try to troll this away from the basic numbers but so far, no ones provided anything other "the wind did it" and a whole bunch of BS.
You know we dont have a rep system anymore right?
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
So everyone's answer is just the wind over the two hour ascent blew him east.
He descended the last 1,500m by parachute, which took 5 minutes. I don't know anything about skydiving, but I think it is possible to "fly" a parachute a pretty good horizontal distance. There is GPS data for the jump, but I can't find any good visualizations of it anywhere.
But yeah, prevailing wind probably had the biggest influence.
Beyond a doubt, the whole thing proved that Baumgartner has massive cojones.
Last edited by: PaulB on July 30, 2019, 4:08 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
“I’m just fine in left field here” = “I’m happy to remain ignorant.”
Time to stop feeding the troll folks. He’s not interested in understanding, just arguing.
Forum jump:
