^ better if they come to you!
Edit: I would imagine.
Last edited by Mendip; 03-05-2022 at 08:20 PM.
Anyway you didnt respond to this
When you travel from east to west, you travel to earlier time zones. Each time zone is 1 hour. Because the Concorde travels faster than the rotating earth, 1300 mph vs 900 mph, which spins from west to east, it gains on the sun, so to speak. So it can land in New York with the sun in an earlier phase in the sky there, than the sun was in the London sky when it took off in London.
Flying Westwards at Mach 2, for example LHR-JFK, it departs from LHR at 10:30 am, getting to JFK at 09:20 am.
you do gain 1 hr 10 mins.
Your explanation of what happens when you get on a plane and the time zone changes?
wtf where you expecting?
"Oh wow, I've been living in a different time zone from the place I was born since 1985 and I ... I never realised that's how it works"?
Yes, you gain time.
Kind of.
You do not achieve 'literal time travel', you ridiculous plank.
'That's the nature of progress, isn' t it. It always goes on longer than it's needed'. - JCC
You like jet lag that much eh. I flew business class a couple times and realized no matter how comfy you make it, flying is still cumbersome in a noisy aluminum tube and the sooner it's over the better. All you have to do is look at the ppl who come off a long flight and you know that its a bitch.
There was probably still some holdouts that still liked taking a ship across the ocean instead of a jet liner too. At least that's what they convinced themselves for awhile
Well, that's not exactly time travel is it? You need to brush up on your theory of relativity skiddy.
However, in simple terms.
As an observer in New York, or an observer in London, time was identical as your time during the trip on Concorde. Each second passed by equally and in the forward direction. Time did not decelerate as you travelled West and it did not accelerate as you travelled East.
I vaguely recall that when I was your age, about 12 or 13, Einstein's theory of relativity was all the rage. Light clocks, external observers, and the appearance of light clocks slowing down. I'm sure it's all on the web somewhere.
I used to work for a company where we travelled quite often to different parts of the world. The general rule was that if you went Business then you went in to work on arrival. However, if you travelled economy then you didn't have to go to work until the following day. Most preferred to travel economy, but there were exceptions when arrival meant a very short work day. I always preferred 747 to any other aircraft for long distance.
Actually, one would attain time-travel due to time-dilation via the altitude and greater distance from the Earth's mass. It's basic physics 101.
But not 1 hour plus, unless the flight is, ohh, around 10,000 years long.
It's actually quite easy to calculate using the equation t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
Which, btw, looks like:
but I doubt you TD simple-dimples would manage it without removing yer socks.
Last edited by Edmond; 04-05-2022 at 07:33 AM.
^ how long did it take Edwina to explain that to you Lulu and are you sure its right.
I only flew it once from London to New York. Not especially comfortable, but it was a similar journey time to Athens.
i don't remember too much except excellent free booze in the Concorde Room and the full caviar treatment in board. The main difference was take off angle - like being on a rocket and the drop in acceleraton when the afterburners were turned off.
Although it was a single class "R", there was a definite cachet in being in the forward cabin. I heard that BA tended to put the discounted ticket travellers in the rear cabin.
Despite the caviar and excellent booze their main market seemed to be dull as ditchwater banker types who drank nothing more than Diet Coke whilst poring over their Exel spreadsheets.
^ true, and a shame, i lovd both 747 and 380. Used to watch thd 380 from the office window in farnborough on the airshow and its a hell of a sight watching at bank at such slow speebs so low.
Ironically Airbus wanted to kill the Concorde program to focus on the A380. They made a bet that the hub and spoke model of flying would win out. Meaning big jets would service main airports then small jets would take everyone to other destinations. The other model is point to point flying with medium sized aircraft doing direct flights. Concorde was a point to point aircraft.
It turns out that the point to point model won out. And for that reason , the A380 was just as much of a commercial failure as the Concorde was. And since point to point won out , it makes a new Concorde a viable business proposition. Which is why a new one is being built.
The 747 is being phased out for the same reason. It's too big for point to point.
Airbus A380: Success Despite Business Failure? - One Mile at a Time
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)