General Question Does Earth spin & Orbiter simulate atmospheric flight?

[C3PO]

I really should look into making a Electrolytes® addon. :hmm:

 

[Mojave]

Hey! Just where the hell is my .8 MPH, huh!? Man, what the heck is this . I claim hax on the universe. Martin, what the hell? Where's my spinny speed? Don't you know anything about coding physics and spinny speed? Don't make me call Coriolis. At least he knew how to model them Newtonian butterflies and hurricane winds...

I'll submit an official bug report, guys. Someone needs to get on top of this, so we can get our spinny speed back. Damn programmers propagating their physics lies because it's too hard to measure spinny speed with their fancy maths.

#FlatEarth2017 #TheTruth #GroovedConspiracy



:dry:

 

[C3PO]

It's the butterfly effect, i.e. your mathematical model is too crappy to replicate reality.

 

[martins]

They do claim to be good with physics..I just want to know if they have modeled all the physics required to do that.. er.. if they have not.. i don't see how it can be realistic for space flight either considering your at the mercy of Earth's gravitational pull, atmospheric pressure, speeds of rotation leaving earth going 1000 mph and so on. I want to know how much of real physics can Orbiter simulate correctly?

Well, they are a physicist, so yea, but really none of the physics involved here requires specialist knowledge beyond highschool level. If you have doubts that Orbiter implements those basic components, don't rely on it and derive the model for yourself with pen and paper.

I don't really get the question with landing on a N-S runway. Yes, the runway is moving relative to the planetocentric frame, but so is the aircraft, so you just subtract the two and are left with the relative speed between them. Obviously you can reference a velocity to any frame you like, but what's the significance of the planetocentric frame here? Can you elaborate a bit more?

 

[Face]

He wanted to use Orbiter as simulation of his experiment. Often enough, you design experiments to verify or falsify a hypothesis you have about how the world works.

If you can't use real life - for whatever reason there might be - you can use a simulation, but then you have to convince yourself that the simulation is right. In this regards, OP is using the right approach.

However, the outcome of the experiment is already known in the real world: yes, it is possible to land an aircraft in a north-south direction on a substantial latitude. I personally have done so with a glider on a latitude of approx. N48°, which would yield a spin speed of around 650mph. Normally I land that glider at about 70km/h approach, going down to around 50km/h at touch-down, which is far below the spin speed.
And yes, Orbiter simulates that just fine, too.

I think that the OP either has an agenda (flat-earther?) he wants to follow, or he wants to argue with some folks who have one. If the former, discussion is moot, anyway. If the later, no argument will convince those folks, so even if you deliver the best possible explanation why Orbiter is perfectly shaped to give answers to such experiments, they will always deny it, because it won't fit their world-view.

 

[4throck]

We need this world map in Orbiter:

I can even create a dish like mesh to replace Earth's sphere! :hmm:

What should we put on the underside?

 

[Loru]

What should we put on the underside?

4 elephants on the turtle of course!

 

[jedidia]

I would leave the OP to test out physics for themself.

I doubt he'll make it... reentry from a polar orbit to hit a certain point on the surface is frickin' hard.

 

[llarian]

Got to simulate compound eyes somehow

Didn't somebody try to do the Lexx a few years back? Geodesic domes with solid orbs at the vertexes ought to do it.

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

What should we put on the underside?

An image of Alfred E. Newman.

 

[Linguofreak]

Only if you apply a very special meaning to 'flat' - curvature is an intrinsic property of manifolds that has consequences regardless of the choice of coordinates. That's sort of the point of General Relativity...

Well, but you can always say that the coordinates represent actual physical space and that your various force laws are just really, really convoluted. It's not necessarily going to be good for ones sanity to actually try to formulate the laws of physics in such a framework, but you can.

 

[Donamy]

Does this mean That NASA, is using Orbiter to fake the moon landing and the ISS ? :hmm:

 

[Andy44]

I'm having some trouble believing that there are people who actually believe the Earth is flat. I thought that was like a big internet joke or something. You mean these people are for real?! I mean, there are always a handful of crackpots who believe any given nonsense, but this flat earth thing is bigger than that?

 

[Face]

I'm having some trouble believing that there are people who actually believe the Earth is flat. I thought that was like a big internet joke or something. You mean these people are for real?! I mean, there are always a handful of crackpots who believe any given nonsense, but this flat earth thing is bigger than that?

Why not? There are so many biblical creationists too, after all. The borderline between internet joke and religious following is ultra-thin these days, as it seems.

 

[boogabooga]

I'm having some trouble believing that there are people who actually believe the Earth is flat. I thought that was like a big internet joke or something. You mean these people are for real?! I mean, there are always a handful of crackpots who believe any given nonsense, but this flat earth thing is bigger than that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

 

[T1234]

Looking at society now it seems that a large number of people are very suggestable and will buy into almost anything and have little concept of reality,also the bible dous not state that the earth is a flat plane.

 

[Face]

also the bible dous not state that the earth is a flat plane.

My statement was just to underline that flat-earthers behave like religious people. Don't get me wrong: I don't mind religious people, I just stopped arguing with them about their believes (it would also be basement material ).
Therefore it is no surprise to me that there are many of them, and also that what first looks like an internet joke is actually serious business for them.

 

[4throck]

I find it a worse problem when people say they believe in Science!
So gravity works because they believe in Newton ?
Now maths are a matter of faith ? Cool!

Really a confusion of concepts that's more and more common.

Returning to the North-South runways, would that affect Aircraft Carriers?
On that case have a moving runway, so I guess they would be more "affected".

 

[Notebook]

Many years ago I got a PPL(H) , and terrorised the South coast of UK from Goodwood Airfield.
Must have approached and landed N/S many a time. Didn't notice any difference from other directions. Except for the wind of course...

Edit: found the one I spent most of my training in, still a smart looking machine:
https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1372311/

N.

 

[martins]

My interpretation of the OP (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that he doesn't doubt that you can land on a N-S runway, but that physics can't explain how this is possible on the surface of a spinning planet.

Since orbiter claims to be physically accurate and allows you to land on a N-S runway, this would falsify his premise. So now he is trying to find out where I cheated. Good luck :thumbup:.

 

[Face]

My interpretation of the OP (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that he doesn't doubt that you can land on a N-S runway, but that physics can't explain how this is possible on the surface of a spinning planet.

Since orbiter claims to be physically accurate and allows you to land on a N-S runway, this would falsify his premise. So now he is trying to find out where I cheated. Good luck :thumbup:.

:hmm: I think we all jumped on him being a flat-earther a bit too soon. The agenda is there, yes, but it is perhaps a bit unfair to flat out assume that he is one (no pun intended). It could well be that he wants to convince others that their theory is false with the help of Orbiter.

Unfortunately, that would be naive, too. How does that old saying go? "Never argue with stupid people. They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."