Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"And ? Please elaborate. .'" I'm not sure why you ask, but the link I cited explains the developments fully and will be fascinating to those interested in the subject. I found especially interesting the continued extension of MLAT coverage. MLAT, or Multilateration, is a well tried and tested technology based on the fact that any aircraft will obviously be at different distances from any given ground stations that pick up the aircraft's transmission; those transmissions travel at a known speed; they are therefore received by any listening station at fractionally different times. From these individual time differences some advanced computer calculation allows an aircraft’s position to be precisely calculated. A more detailed explanation of how MLAT works here: www.multilateration.com/surveill ... ation.html It is also possible to join in and expand the coverage, by joining the Flightradar24 network, using no more than a Raspberry Pi with a suitable standard dongle, and an internet connection. I would myself but there's not much point for those of us who live in an area already thick with stations.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"And ? Please elaborate. .'" I'm not sure why you ask, but the link I cited explains the developments fully and will be fascinating to those interested in the subject. I found especially interesting the continued extension of MLAT coverage. MLAT, or Multilateration, is a well tried and tested technology based on the fact that any aircraft will obviously be at different distances from any given ground stations that pick up the aircraft's transmission; those transmissions travel at a known speed; they are therefore received by any listening station at fractionally different times. From these individual time differences some advanced computer calculation allows an aircraft’s position to be precisely calculated. A more detailed explanation of how MLAT works here: www.multilateration.com/surveill ... ation.html It is also possible to join in and expand the coverage, by joining the Flightradar24 network, using no more than a Raspberry Pi with a suitable standard dongle, and an internet connection. I would myself but there's not much point for those of us who live in an area already thick with stations.

[iA serious Question to the OP.
Now i've pre-booked a non stop flight from[/i [url=http://www.skyscanner.net/transport/flights/lond/wars/160119/160120/airfares-from-london-to-warsaw-in-january-2016.html?adults=1&children=0&infants=0&cabinclass=economy&rtn=1&preferdirects=false&outboundaltsenabled=false&inboundaltsenabled=false#resultsSKYSANNER[/url
=#BF0040London - Warsaw. Flight time 3 hours 50 minutes. ( Travelling East with the Easterly Wind )
=#BF0000Warsaw - London, Flight time 4 hours 20 minutes ( Travelling Westward Against the Easterly Wind ) Hence a 30 minute difference.
[iSo if we live on a spinning Ball travelling Eastward at 1000 mph how are these flight times with the exception of wind speed possible they're the same flight time with the exception of the tailing wind. Surely with the Earth's supposed spin these times should differ.?. I'm well aware of the Relativity Theory but it doesn't add up. If the Earth is spinning Eastward at 1000 mph and the plane is moving 500 mph in the same direction what is going on here thanks.
[/i

Wind.

As an example, consider two hypothetical flights at 30,000 feet with the winds shown below:


With these winds a flight from A to B (East-to-West) will be fighting headwinds the whole way. flight planning programs tell you that at 500 knots (airspeed) you'd be in the air for about 5 hours 30 minutes.

Traveling in the opposite direction from B to A you'd have a tailwind, and with the same 500 knot airspeed you would make the trip in roughly 4 hours.

The winds aloft vary seasonally, which can affect flight times for summer versus winter trips. According to pilots who are regularly up at those altitudes even the daily variations can be noticeable, and may make the difference between being able to make a nonstop trip or having to stop for fuel on the way.

Pilots and flight dispatchers will often review the wind data prior to flight and try to select an altitude that affords a "good ride" (free of turbulence) and favorable winds (either a tailwind or the lowest headwind they can find).

Flat earthers always forget that the atmosphere and everything in it also rotates with the earth, so they are always coming up with these nonsensical questions about flight times. What's important is the plane’s speed relative to the Earth’s atmosphere – the air around it because that’s what's giving it its lift up into the air and that's what is providing the the friction which is meaning it's having to thrust to keep going forward. The Earth’s atmosphere is rotating with the surface of the Earth below it. The reason is, because it’s got friction with the land masses beneath it and that means the air is always being pulled to rotate with the Earth. So in fact, because the air above us is rotating at the same speed as the land below, and what matters is your air speed – your speed versus the air – it doesn’t matter whether you're going with or against the rotation of the Earth.

Simple. Although I'm sure you will either deny it, ignore it, or ask a different nonsensical question. I'd be interested to hear your answer to your own question though...

=#FF0040TheButcher

I asked the OP not you.

Nonsensical. Seems a logical question to me, Is the plane travelling eastward at 500mph or is it travelling an extra 1000mph with the earths rotation giving it a total 1500mph? Simple question.

=#BF0000TheButcher [ihates being challenged he avoided my Moonlanding questions like the plague[/i.

1. The wind speed and direction is extremely variable, but in general, as any image from space will tell you (or any weather map) air currents are in broad terms curved, or circular (picture a huge hurricane system).

2. Wind speeds aren't (hurricanes and cyclones apart) that great but as planes fly in air, their airspeed always differs from their groundspeed, as the air is never stationary.

3. The atmosphere is part of the globe, it isn't separate or detached. If, for example, you watch a speeded up video of a hurricane system you will see that it will track along a curve towards a general direction, and this motion will continue, irrespective of the spinning of the globe. The principal effect of the spinning of the globe is, of course, the well-known Coriolis effect. (The anticlockwise rotation of the Earth deflects winds to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere. If the globe did not spin, this would not happen).

But the hurricane as you watch it will go round and round with the globe, as well as its motion relative to the Earth's surface. You can witness the same thing on other planets, e.g. Jupiter's famous red spot. Although Jupiter is a gas giant, so the comparison isn't exact, but still you can see that the weather systems spin around Jupiter, irrespective of their local currents and movements, as the planet as a whole rotates.

4. So, the atmosphere as a whole goes round and round just like the ground beneath it does. And indeed as the liquid oceans do, though they too generate worldwide currents.

5. A plane taking off in any direction is already "travelling" at the same speed and in the same direction as the piece of ground on which it is situated. Apart from the local wind conditions, which at ground level may be anything from a few mph to 20 mph on most days, the plane leaving the ground only needs to reach it's take-off airspeed, relative to that wind. (So if it is taking off into a headwind of 30 mph, and if it become airborne at 100mph, this will occur at a ground speed of 70 mph in this situation, as 70mph plus 30 mph gives the air a speed of 100 mph over the wing surfaces and lifts the plane off the ground.

6. Once in the air the plane can fly in any direction it wants, and its air speed will depend on how much power the engines are set to generate. Its ground speed will be the product of its airspeed plus or minus the net wind speed at any given time in the direction of travel. In (for example) a favourable and strong Jet Stream, the plane can get from A to b significantly faster, using significantly less fuel. Into a headwind, the plane will conversely need to apply extra power to increase airspeed, if it wants to maintain the desired groundspeed and land at the desired time.

7. The Earth's spin is not really anything to do with it, because as I have explained, the atmosphere overall (local currents notwithstanding) as a whole, spins at the same rate as the Earth spins. If you want to look at it another way, if a plane is on a runway which is "spinning eastward at 1000 mph" and wants to fly east, it will need to achieve its takeoff speed in an easterly direction. If that is 150 mph then as the plane leaves the runway, you could say it is travelling eastwards at 1,150 mph, if you take into account the Earth's spin, but of course you don't, any more than it would be useful to claim the plane was travelling eastward at 1000 mph as it stood on the tarmac. It isn't. Relative to the globe, and therefore relative to our arbitrary compass points, the stationary plane isn't travelling in any direction, for the purposes of us humans on the surface of the planet, or indeed its passengers. They can sit on the stationary plane for 24 hours, and will by then have "travelled" one spin of the globe, at 1000 mph or whatever, if you want to measure their journey through space in that vector, but unfortunately for them, that will position them in precisely the same spot as they started off from, because the ground they are on has done precisely the same journey.

From the plane's perspective, it hasn't moved at all. At least, not relative to the planet it sits on. If however the pilot wanted to know how far his plane had moved through space, then that would be quite a different matter. For just one example, we're in the Milky Way galaxy and that galaxy is moving at 1.3 million mph (2.1 million kmh), in the direction of the constellations Leo and Virgo. And so therefore, give or take the necessary local adjustments for local factors such as our speed of rotation around the Sun, and the speed of rotation of the solar system around the Milky Way, am I, and so are you.

1.3 million mph is quite a rate of progress in one sense, but not much compared to the speed of light, which is in round figures 670 million mph.

It's doing both. The 1500 mph is its speed through local space. To get this, just remember that as it sits stationary on the ground, the plane is also travelling (in your example) at 1000mph with the Earth's rotation. But for people sitting on the plane waiting to take off, that in their frame of reference equals a speed of zero. Because the plane is moving at the same speed as the ground.

=#FF0000Eyeroll
Again you fail to answer a direct question and bring up nonsensical plagiarized gibberish. Hurricanes, space and windcharts have got nothing to with this easy question .

What speed is this eastward bound plane travelling if the 1000 mph ball is spinning eastward. 500 or 1500. ? Its not a hard question.

I think he's putting alternate scenarios into the equation in an attempt to throw you off Stanley. 500mph if its here 1500mph if its their. He simply doesn't know himself. Ha.

It was a detailed if summarized explanation, in good faith, in answer to what I thought was a straight question. I afforded you the courtesy of a full answer to your question. I note your aggressive "nonsensical plagiarized gibberish" barb with regret though sadly not surprise, but my response was none of those things. If there's anything you can't understand then read it more carefully.

The answer you want is very well explained in my answer. For the purposes of the passengers and their desire to reach a specific destination, the plane is going at 500 mph.

If you want for some reason to take into account the rotation speed of the Earth, then from that frame of reference the plane is also going at 1500 mph. But in that frame of reference was travelling at 1000mph whilst stationary on the runway. It isn't therefore a useful frame of reference.

And if you want to take into account the speed of the Earth, as a part of the galaxy, through space, the plane is also travelling at approx. 1.3 million mph. But that is also a pretty irrelevant frame of reference.

It's not a hard answer. It's very simple. Different speeds. All true, from the respective frames of reference.

I'll get answered with a barrage of cranial jabs followed by a copy and pasted testimony which isn't his own thoughts.

You appear to struggle with simple concepts. Let me help.

You and your toy plane are sitting at the edge of a roundabout which is rotating (measured at the outside) at 2 mph. Is your toy plane moving on the roundabout? No. It is stationary on the roundabout. Its speed relative to your seat on the roundabout is nil. The roundabout can rotate a hundred times, your plane will throughout remain in the same spot on the roundabout. As will you. It will go nowhere.

Is the plane also moving in circles at 2 mph? Of course it is. An observer standing by the roundabout can see you and your plane, going round and round, at 2mph.

See? Both speeds are true. Now, that wasn't difficult, was it?

Oops, wrong again. Still, you should be used to that

Okay, here goes. I'm finally going to come out of the conspiracy closet...

The plane takes off, depending on the wing pixies and if the pilot is a Freemason, but only gets to 500mph before it turns into a hologram. This hologram is then uploaded to a giant Satanic computer that displays the sky to trick us into thinking that everything is spheroid. The pretend aircraft is then scanned and uploaded to a Nasa controlled green-screen CGI workshop where Stanley Kubrick (Who's death was faked) presides like a dictator over all special effects. The pretend image then disappears because it's near the fake south pole, which isn't like the actual wall of ice held together by giants and angels. Meanwhile, the world's scientists collude and devise plans to make God seem even less real than Santa Claus, which is causing concern. Eventually the aircraft appears again, but is busy spraying Chemtrails full of mind controlling magic dust. But it isn't happy dust. It's controlling our minds, but not going a great job of it because I'm typing this. Once the aircraft hits 160000mph it turns back into a real plane to land. I say real plane, but it's just a model created by Jewish Nazi rocket experts who fill our TV sets with symbols and conditioning to tell us that the world is older than 6000 years, which is laughable as we all know that an invisible man behind the hologram of the sky got bored after billions of years and created us.

Boom.

[iOkay so by your logic, a stationary grounded plane is travelling at 1000 mph, the plane travelling eastward is speeding at 1500 mph obviously, so a westward travelling plane must be travelling against the earths spin at -500 mph. And both planes travel time is exactly identical with the exception of jet stream. This proves the earth does not spin.

Also if the stationary grounded plane is travelling at 1000 mph and a car drives past going eastward that car is travelling at 1030 mph whilst the other car travelling westward is travelling -970 mph. Absolute drivel, The western travelling plane / car should reach their destinations quicker through the earths spin. Thats why you put variables within your answer, 500 mph here 1500 mph there. Gotcha[/i...

How mature of you.Thats Atheism for you. !!!

How dare you question what I believe.

If you think I'm wrong prove it. Is it because it sounds silly to you? So you question my truth with a personal attack? How do you know I'm an atheist? I just said above that the creator sits behind the sky hologram obviously unable to influence anything even though he created everything. Doesn't mean he's not there. I also think he has a Zebra's head, because why not?

Come on second account of Stan, prove me wrong.

You can't. Go away.

HaHaHaHa Tosspot.

Is that all you got?

Personal attacks on my beliefs?

I expected more from you Stan. You finally made me come out and say what I believe yet you provide no evidence to show that it isn't true, strengthening my view.

Pathetic. Anyone reading these posts can see that your alternate worldview is simply not alternate enough. I mean, wing pixies on planes are common knowledge among pilots who have to feed them exclusively on pork chops. Who do you think switches on the chemtrails?

Blinded by the conspiracy theorists rational worldview.

The last paragraph. The Atheism rambles. Im Me by the way. Stan is Stan.

Just because your losing, you revert to immature gibberish. I don't need two accounts to to make you look a fool matey

That was me lying.

Before You/Stan made me come out of the conspiracy closet.

So rather than prove why my views are wrong, you resort to another personal attack. My view is right. Wing pixies, holograms, zebra-headed God, chemtrails, fake sky. It's all real and you're proving it to me with each personal attack and not providing any evidence to the contrary.

Must try harder.

Another personal attack. Who would have thought eh?

So my deeply held belief is 'immature gibberish'? Yet all you do is parade around and claim victory regardless of subject, without even showing any evidence as to why you consider my view to be wrong. You didn't have a problem derailing, and writing reams of poorly written and researched 'evidence' when Ferocious Aardvark puts forward a view. So your lack of trying to provide evidence against my view and personal attacks shows your mentality. If it is so easy to disprove and make me look foolish, prove to me that there are no Wing pixies on planes.

I'm very patient.

Taking God's name in vain, you'll be sorry one day. Seriously.