If you had a rational argument to make, you wouldn't do it here. You would publish in the same journals used by the stupid people that you are projecting, using a language they can understand.
As far as quotes go, stick with just this - "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman.
You haven't read many publications if this is the kind of thing you rely upon.
Dare I even ask how many actual experiments you have performed in pursuit of this superior knowledge?
*1.* No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever.
*A)* There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :
>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.<<<
IMPORTANT CORRECTION : Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!
*B)* The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpgg = 32ft/s^2
TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s
LAMBDA = latitude
Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees
d = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)
This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).
If the speed is taken into account:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdfOne of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
-------
Not only that.
Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (black bird) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).
Why?
Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).
JackBlack (heliocentrist) could say : "So what?"
Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?
Although our moving object is in motion within local FOR, this very motion - in counter direction of earth's rotation - is the very reason (which makes all the difference) why such discharged ball won't have any impetus in this case (shooting the ball upwards), while shooting the ball from the cannon which is attached to the non-moving (local FOR) frame to which is attached our stationary cannon (sitated at 52 degrees N) assumes 1000 km/h initial inertia (impetus) of our APPARENTLY stationary cannon, hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.
How HC believers are going to explain that? All that they can call upon is "air drag", however, Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that last remaining bit of HC hopes since we now know that higher layers of atmpshere can't keep the pace with the rigid earth.
JackBlack's objection :
>>>Not by the amounts you are claiming, and it has nothing to do with cancelling out inertia.
The reason is purely due to removing the Coriolis effect from the situation.
However you then have the competing effect of wind resistance and I don't think a cannonball moving at 1000 km/hr through the air (relative to the air) would still have a negligible effect. I think the wind is more likely to contribute and push it over.<<<
CIKLJAMAS (ODIUPICKU) RESPONDED LIKE THIS :
Now, we have to apply the same method as we did in the case of our decisive thought experiment in which we ensured 4 times greater speed of our runner (inside the 1000 m long train) with respect to the speed of the train.
We have to avoid such enormous speeds (so that nobody can complain about supposed air drag), even very low speeds will suffice, let's say 50 km/h. So, if we shot the bullet in the air from the back side of the train which moves WESTWARD (in counter direction of the alleged spin of the earth), and if HC theory were true we should have canceled out to a certain extent initial inertia (impetus) of our gun, and the ball should fall closer to the gun in accordance to such diminished degree of (non-existent) initial inertia.
Does this happen in reality???
*C)*
How high does a bullet go?
You know I like the MythBusters, right? Well, I have been meaning to look at the shooting bullets in the air myth for quite some time. Now is that time. If you didn't catch that particular episode, the MythBusters wanted to see how dangerous it was to shoot a bullet straight up in the air.
I am not going to shoot any guns, or even drop bullets - that is for the MythBusters. What I will do instead is make a numerical calculation of the motion of a bullet shot into the air. Here is what Adam said about the bullets:
A .30-06 cartridge will go 10,000 feet (3 000 m) high and take 58 seconds to come back down
A 9 mm will go 4000 feet and take 37 seconds to come back down.
READ MORE :
https://www.wired.com/2009/09/how-high-does-a-bullet-go/Let's consider 58 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :
Using our formula above :
1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.
DOES THIS HAPPEN IN REALITY???
*2.* In my own words :
*3.* AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :
http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_5969.pdfhttp://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Albert-Einstein-The-Earth-Mover.pdf*1.* Since Einstein chose as his foundation that the Earth was translating around the sun at 30 kms and thus postulated the ether did not exist, the results of MMX were considered “null” and all subsequent theorizing, including Special and General Relativity, was built on the assumption that the Earth was moving. Thus, Einstein could safely develop his Special Relativity theory with the accepted premise that space was a vacuum that did not possess any ponderable substance (i.e., ether). That Relativity theory was the direct result of MMX was admitted by Einstein in a speech honoring Michelson:
“I have come among men who for many years have been true comrades with me in my labors. You,
my honored Dr. Michelson, began with this work when I was only a little youngster, hardly three feet high. It was you who led the physicists into new paths, and through your marvelous experimental work paved the way for the development of the Theory of Relativity. You uncovered an insidious defect in the ether theory of light, as it then existed, and stimulated the ideas of H. A. Lorentz and Fitzgerald, out of which the Special Theory of Relativity developed. Without your work this theory would today be scarcely more than an interesting speculation; it was your verifications which first set the theory on a real basis.” The realities of the scientific results, however, are quite different than what was assumed by Einstein and his colleagues. The fact is, the MMX did measure an ether drift. It just didn’t measure a drift that would be expected if the Earth were moving around the sun at 30kms; rather, it measured a drift that was less than one-twentieth of 30kms.