It's hard to combat all the science challenges, but let's take a look at what's wrong with Brian Mullin's physical discussion:1) The 1000mph spinning is really an unnecessary complication in the whole scenario, as both airports, and the plane, are all moving at the same speed at the start and the finish. We only need to analyze the relative changes in speed. The only minor effects from the earth spinning is 1) velocity changes due to conservation of angular momentum, as the plane ascends and descends, and 2) a slight loss of gravitational (or whatever -- doesn't matter) pull due to the opposite, upward acting centrifugal force. At an angular speed of 1 revolution per day, practically speaking both effects are negligible, and can be ignored. They are both easily modeled and can be included if you insist, but this adds no value and overly complicates the example.2) Any "spinning" velocity (differential or not) of atmosphere can also be ignored, as the plane has the active ability to overcome the wind, by throttling up, throttling down, turning left, or right, or climbing and descending. The plane is able to maintain a constant ground speed velocity and altitude regardless of the atmosphere and wind. This would only be relevant in a discussion of fuel economy.3) Without offering an explanation, he argues that the plane needs to slow down to execute a 90 deg. turn from an East to South direction. I guess any pilot can confirm, that the plane can turn from East to South while maintaining a constant 600mph speed. Or it can slow down -- it really doesn't change or add anything to the problem.4) He argues that his Vpe' while turning must remain at 1200mph, explaining it cannot slow down because of the rotation of the earth, in the east direction, and says this is crazy. He's half right. In his example, the velocity in the east direction will start at 1200mph (300+900) and when the turn is complete, the component in the East direction will be the 900mph (0+900), just as fast as the target airport is moving East, that he assumed due to the earth spinning, while the plane's own velocity will be completely in the south direction.5) He assumes that, left alone, the plane will continue to fly in a tangential direction if we leave the wings and the nose pointed in a straight position. We can see this doesn't hold, for example when the plane has no velocity. We quickly see the altitude does not depend on nose orientation. The altitude is determined by the balance, or imbalance of the downward forces, due to gravity (or due to electricity, or bouyancy -- doesn't matter), and the upward forces on the wings. Any increase in altitude will require actively increasing the upward force. Without changes in the upward force, the downward forces will continue to keep the plane at the same altitude, regardless of nose position.6) It's curious that continual nose-pointing downward seems to be an issue, but to solve the issue, we use a flat earth model that would require continual nose-pointing left, or right, to maintain the same latitude.7) When you consider the angle caused by 8" per mile, repointing the nose every mile is something so small, it will pass undetected by any human.
Legit question wrote:
For Real? wrote:I went to Kayak and entered information for a flight from NYC to London.
Here is the link:http://www.kayak.com/flights/JFK-LGW/2016-02-10/2016-03-09
NYC to London ->6.5 hours nonstop
London to NYC -> 8.5 hours nonstop
One of these things is not like the other. Your move buddy.
See Brian Mullin's "Balls Out out physics. Planes flying on a spinning ball"
Fast forward to 11 min mark and play until the end. The globe model falls apart. Then get back to me.
http://youtu.be/DGE2-USFbwo