LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

You really believe that Michael Powell‘s jump would be zero cm long if he jumps inside a train running 36 km/h against the direction of travel?

I can tell you, that little children jump farther in a train that runs 200 km/h. No matter in which direction they jump.

What do you think how people must walk in the train, if the train floor constantly moves towards or away from them? Then you could not walk upright, you must either lean backwards or forward, respectively. You could not lift one foot without holding onto something. And that already for small speeds.

I traveled many times within a TGV. At over 300 km/h. And I could walk easily in either direction, without taking hold onto a handrail or something similar. Children could jump easily, without being splashed to goo on the wall. The world speed record for this type of train is about 575 km/h.

How do you explain this with your assumption?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 05:52:23 AM

You claim that Michael Powell would achieve the same result in a moving train, as well.
Now, let's imagine Michael Powell as running in a moving train in counter direction of it's motion.
He has gained the full speed and he takes off, he is going to spend in the air exactly one second.
During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag? No
B) Conserved momentum? Yes
C) Something else? No

So you chose
B) Conserved momentum
Now, you have to explain how the momentum of the runner can be conserved since the speed of his motion (in counter direction of train's motion) overpowers trains speed 10-12 times??? Even when you run at the same speed (in counter direction of train's motion) you are already canceled out train's momentum 100 %, isn't that so? 

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: wpeszko on May 08, 2018, 06:54:02 AM

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

Since his velocity relative to the train's floor is in the opposite direction as the train's floor is to the ground, then they have opposite signs. The sum of numbers with opposite signs is their difference. wpeszko is correct.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 05:52:23 AM

However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same (in both scenarios) even with such (undeserved) concession towards you (see above what i've written in the sentence which starts with the word Firstly), because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight. 

Your assertion in the first sentence is wrong.

Your notion is completely wrong and you can easily see this for yourself.

Hand waving is your last resort (beside blatantly lying)!
How come you haven't referred to the second part of my sentence (words in red)

Is this thread serious?

You’re talking about throwing out the most basic laws of motion.

One thing is a law of motion which is in accordance with reality in other words : the TRUE law of motion.
Another thing is some galielean/einsteinian artificial (fraudulent) law of motion which doesn't correspond to the reality.
If you are an engineer it doesn't mean that you have ever been original, independent (from official scientific fraudulent paradigms), free thinker. Now, you have an opportunity to take an active part in restoring TRUE laws of motion. Enjoy the opportunity, don't be a coward, that is to say : don't take one's side just because it is easier to be a part of a stronger (in numbers) group, be brave and support those who speak the truth. In order to do that you have to be :
A) honest person
B) brave person
C) free thinker (committed, devoted, dedicated thinker - which is much harder than drinking in the sun)

One thing is a law of motion which is in accordance with reality in other words : the TRUE law of motion.

What does the TRUE law of motion say? Does it say, that if I am e.g. inside a train with constant speed, then a force keeps me upright and pushes every part of my body in the same direction as the train is going, and when I jump, that force is suddenly switched off?

That TRUE law of motion sucks. It is not in accordance with reality, as you say.

Is this thread serious?

You’re talking about throwing out the most basic laws of motion.

Look at the URL for this forum. Throwing out the basics is what they do here.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to question everything. At some point while doing this, however, there needs to be some actual support for whatever conclusion that's arrived at. "Thought experiments" aren't sufficient, because you can "think up" a result that has no basis in reality.

It would be easy enough for cikljamas to demonstrate for himself that he's wrong, but he won't do it. He'd rather imagine what impractical or impossible experiments would "prove" if they were conducted, than actually doing one that would be simpler and more conclusive. It's probably because he knows what it would show, and he doesn't want to give up on his notion, so he keeps trying to explain reality away by means of his imagined results of imaginary experiments.

This is so absolutely fundamental to how stuff works that if we had it wrong, there would be practically no technology at all. 

Honestly, as an engineer, I find it incredible that people are prepared to use the tools that hundreds of years of scientific and technological development has provided to try to undermine it all on the internet.  It all gets orders of magnitude more complicated than this.

I don’t mean to get on my high horse, but it really is a bit insulting.

Just read the ideas presented, find any apparent flaws and contradictions (it's usually pretty easy to find very obvious ones), and discuss those dispassionately (or try to). Try not to get angry when you're subjected to insults, evasions, and obfuscation instead of coherent replies (that's sometimes not so easy), just ignore the insults, try to steer the conversation back to the topic under discussion, and cut through the baloney.

Sometimes you will learn things about what you thought you already understood in the process.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 05, 2018, 09:05:58 AM

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

You really believe that Michael Powell‘s jump would be zero cm long if he jumps inside a train running 36 km/h against the direction of travel?

He is correct, but only if you are basing the distance traveled relative to the ground and not the floor of the train.  This is the issue with his premise.  Distance traveled is relative to a defined point.  He is using the ground to define the long jump distance, instead of the surface (train) the long jump is being performed on.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 11:25:37 AM

One thing is a law of motion which is in accordance with reality in other words : the TRUE law of motion.

What does the TRUE law of motion say? Does it say, that if I am e.g. inside a train with constant speed, then a force keeps me upright and pushes every part of my body in the same direction as the train is going, and when I jump, that force is suddenly switched off?

That TRUE law of motion sucks. It is not in accordance with reality, as you say.

PTOLOMY - AGAINST THE MOTION OF THE EARTH : http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/seri/SidM./0009//0000294.000.html
Ptolomy lived in 2nd century A.D., so let's refine his thoughts on this subject by designing the following thought experiment :

Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's put it this way :


STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look it from this perspective :

An airplane flies in counter direction of earth's rotation. An airplane's speed is equal to the rotational speed of the earth. So, by flying (in counter direction) at the speed which is equal to the rotational speed of the earth, our airplane has canceled out INITIAL INERTIA which he had (before he took off) due to the alleged rotation of the earth. Now, let's assume that our plane turns to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), and now his direction of flight is perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation.

What is going to happen?

If the air behaved like a water (as it was described in my last "invisible" post), which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of already completely lost INITIAL INERTIA, then we would have to feel an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry our plane in a direction of earth's rotation.

If the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA), then we would have to be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below us from our left side to the right side of our plane (if we turned to the right), or from the right to the left (if we turned to the left)...

So, what we can conclude from all this is this :

If the air behaved like water any flight towards west (in counter direction of earth's supposed spin) would encounter big difficulties atmosphere would act like running water which tends to carry the plane in counter direction of it's heading way, and any flight towards east would be peace of cake because atmosphere stream would carry the plane by it's own power (we would hardly need to rely upon any significant force exerted by plane's engines). So, "inertia" would be nullified while flying towards west and we would need double force of plane's engines to overcome strength of atmospheric forces which act in counter direction of the direction of our flight, however if we were to flying towards east we would fly with double speed by using the same amount of fuel.

On the other hand if an airplane behaved like a gas (an air is a gas) then we would very quickly lose any initial inertia when flying towards west, and the final result would be flying towards west with double speed (speed of an airplane + speed of earth's spin), however, flying towards east would be mission impossible because an airplane would soon lose all of it's initial inertia (no matter in which direction we fly - due to the property of air), again, and the final result would be an incapability of any commercial plane to keep up with the rotational speed of the rigid earth which would be significantly greater than average speed of any commercial aircraft (especially at the equator)...
-----------------------
-----------------------
Concorde had a take-off speed of 220 knots (250 mph) or 400 km/h...Now, imagine concorde is rolling in a counter direction of earth's spin somewhere along the Arctic circle (at 400 km/h) where the alleged speed of earth's rotation is about 700 km/h.

So, if the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA) we should expected such outcome : Even before leaving the ground concorde would cancel out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able (while concorde is restoring it's initial angular momentum (which he had before taking off)) to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left).


If the air behaved like a water, which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of partially lost INITIAL INERTIA of concorde, passengers would be subdued (in the very moment the pilot of concorde abruptly turns an airplane to the right or to the left) to an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry concorde in a direction of earth's rotation.

Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!

He is correct, but only if you are basing the distance traveled relative to the ground and not the floor of the train.  This is the issue with his premise.  Distance traveled is relative to a defined point.  He is using the ground to define the long jump distance, instead of the surface (train) the long jump is being performed on.

To be correct, he must calculate correct. The following statements show, he is wrong:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: wpeszko on May 08, 2018, 06:54:02 AM

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

Since his velocity relative to the train's floor is in the opposite direction as the train's floor is to the ground, then they have opposite signs. The sum of numbers with opposite signs is their difference. wpeszko is correct.

What are you talking about?

I assume, the first "(relative to the train's floor)" in "Firstly:" should be "(relative to the ground's floor)". Then it would make sense. The expression:

... his speed (relative to the trainground's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

would then be correct, if signs were considered, as wpeszko and Alpha2Omega pointed out.

If Michael Powell and the train go in the same direction, then the both speeds are positive and are added. If Michael Powell and the train go in different directions, then either one speed must be negative and they are added or they are substracted. Which speed should be negative or which speed sould be substracted from which depends on in which direction are the speeds positive and in which negative.

To be sure, better use vectors.

So Michael Powells speed would be (relative to the ground): 8.95 m/s - 0.83 m/s = 8.12 m/s. He would spend 1 s in the air, so the jump would be 8.12 m (relative to the ground).

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on May 08, 2018, 11:58:02 AM

He is correct, but only if you are basing the distance traveled relative to the ground and not the floor of the train.  This is the issue with his premise.  Distance traveled is relative to a defined point.  He is using the ground to define the long jump distance, instead of the surface (train) the long jump is being performed on.

To be correct, he must calculate correct. The following statements show, he is wrong:

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 11:25:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: wpeszko on May 08, 2018, 06:54:02 AM

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

Since his velocity relative to the train's floor is in the opposite direction as the train's floor is to the ground, then they have opposite signs. The sum of numbers with opposite signs is their difference. wpeszko is correct.

What are you talking about?

I assume, the first "(relative to the train's floor)" in "Firstly:" should be "(relative to the ground's floor)". Then it would make sense. The expression:

Quote

... his speed (relative to the trainground's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

would then be correct, if signs were considered, as wpeszko and Alpha2Omega pointed out.

If Michael Powell and the train go in the same direction, then the both speeds are positive and are added. If Michael Powell and the train go in different directions, then either one speed must be negative and they are added or they are substracted. Which speed should be negative or which speed sould be substracted from which depends on in which direction are the speeds positive and in which negative.

To be sure, better use vectors.

So Michael Powells speed would be (relative to the ground): 8.95 m/s - 0.83 m/s = 8.12 m/s. He would spend 1 s in the air, so the jump would be 8.12 m (relative to the ground).

He was correct that Mike Powell's net speed would be 0 if both him and the train were moving at the same speed in opposite directions, but only in relation to the ground.  That is what I meant.

What you said is absolutely spot on.

He was correct that Mike Powell's net speed would be 0 if both him and the train were moving at the same speed in opposite directions, but only in relation to the ground.  That is what I meant.

What you said is absolutely spot on.

Yes, that is true. If Michael Powell jumps with 8.95 m/s in 1 s 8.95 m on the ground, he would then jump with the same 8.95 m/s in the train relative to the train floor in 1s 8.95 m, which is 0 m/s relative to the ground and in 1s 0m on the ground, if the train travels at 32.22 km/h (=8.95 m/s).

So the statement, that there is a difference between jumping on the ground and jumping inside the train, because Michael Powell is 50% (in fact more) in the air, is not true.

Let's put it this way :


STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
(...)
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

Right, but there will be "need" to conserve inertia.

The consequence / the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

A gradual change of speed from 30 knot to 0 to friction and the boat will eventually rest.

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

Cancels initial inertia in "absolute" frame of reference

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.
The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

Not "almost instantly" but a gradual change of speed from -30 knots to 0 relative to water in the canal.

Let's look it from this perspective :

An airplane flies in counter direction of earth's rotation. An airplane's speed is equal to the rotational speed of the earth. So, by flying (in counter direction) at the speed which is equal to the rotational speed of the earth, our airplane has canceled out INITIAL INERTIA which he had (before he took off) due to the alleged rotation of the earth. Now, let's assume that our plane turns to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), and now his direction of flight is perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation.

What is going to happen?

If the air behaved like a water (as it was described in my last "invisible" post), which presumes INSTANT RESTITUTION/REGAINING of already completely lost INITIAL INERTIA

The common man idea of "turning" is that the plane uses engines, airfoils to regain that inertia (in absolute FoR) gradually, at the same time gaining inertia in the perpendicular direction.

, then we would have to feel an effect of enormously strong abrupt instant sideways blow which would tend to carry our plane in a direction of earth's rotation.

No sideways blow, just a half a minute of decceleration.

If the air behaved like a gas, not like a water (which presumes gradual restoration of lost INITIAL INERTIA), then we would have to be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below us from our left side to the right side of our plane (if we turned to the right), or from the right to the left (if we turned to the left)...

This describes no a turn but the plan gaining somehow speed in the perpendicular direction without losing speed counter to Earth's rotation. I don't call this turning.

It seems that some people on this forum are blind (or maybe just plain stupid)? So i am going to make it easier for them (just in the case that they have some problems with their eyes (not with their brains) :

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.
Secondly, nobody cares what is his speed relative to the ground.
Thirdly, you claim that he would run at the same speed relative to the train's floor comparing his speed (when running on the ground) relative to the ground. Let's say that you are right (although you are not) it would mean that all the way up to the moment of taking off everything would be the same in both scenarios (on the ground vs in the moving train).
However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same (in both scenarios) even with such (undeserved) concession towards you (see above what i've written in the sentence which starts with the word Firstly), because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight. 

Dirk means jerk (off) in croatian.

What would say judge Judy to all this? I am sure she would say something like this :

That you are an idiot or something along those lines. She would tell you to shut up and get out of her courtroom for bringing in such crap.

What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?

Because he was running at that speed relative to the train.
As such, relative to an outside frame, he was moving more slowly.

Again, if this was going to be the case, if you dropped a ball or a phone or something in a moving train or car or plane, it would fly to the back of it, just as you would if you jumped.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

No. His speed relative to the train floor would be the same as his speed relative to the ground when he is running on the ground.
What you are asserting here is your baseless claim you are yet to prove and which all experiments show to be wrong.

However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same

No, they would still be the same. You ignoring how relativity works doesn't magically make it wrong.

because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight.

Why would he magically gain speed like that?

So you chose
B) Conserved momentum

No he didn't.
Try and focus on what he actually said.

Now, you have to explain

No. You have to explain how they magically run faster in the train.

Even when you run at the same speed (in counter direction of train's motion) you are already canceled out train's momentum 100 %, isn't that so?

And this can make it easy to see.
Let's say the train moves forward at 1 m/s and you move backwards in the train at 1 m/s.
That means to an outside observer you are basically just standing still. It is like being on a treadmill.
Now if you jump (or throw something up), is it going to magically fly backwards? No. To the outside observer it will just go up and down.

One thing is a law of motion which is in accordance with reality in other words : the TRUE law of motion.

Which are not the laws you are pretending are real.

PTOLOMY - AGAINST THE MOTION OF THE EARTH

And here you go running off on a tangent.
Bringing in an ancient person and completely ignoring all progress since then.

But not only that, you completely ignore what he says at the end, where the rotation of Earth won't magically make everything fly backwards.
Again, you can do the same in a train or car or plane.
Throw a ball up. Does it fly to the back? NO!

What you are claiming is pure garbage.

the following thought experiment :

Any thought experiment based upon bullshit will remain bullshit.

OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA

You mean momentum.
It still has its mass and thus its inertia.

2nd solution is theoretically possible, but no one has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.

Because the wind never magically stops instantly.

So who would have thought, your hypothetical, never before seen phenomenon results in another hypothetical. never before seen phenomenon.

You have already said all this crap and had it all refuted.
STOP BRINGING UP THE SAME REFUTED CRAP!
It shows you have no integrity at all.

So lets skip all that already refuted, copy-pasted bullshit.

Oh, there goes your entire post...

And here is the link to the more in depth refutation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg1941753#msg1941753

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 05:52:23 AM

You claim that Michael Powell would achieve the same result in a moving train, as well.
Now, let's imagine Michael Powell as running in a moving train in counter direction of it's motion.
He has gained the full speed and he takes off, he is going to spend in the air exactly one second.
During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag? No
B) Conserved momentum? Yes
C) Something else? No

So you chose
B) Conserved momentum
Now, you have to explain how the momentum of the runner can be conserved since the speed of his motion (in counter direction of train's motion) overpowers trains speed 10-12 times??? Even when you run at the same speed (in counter direction of train's motion) you are already canceled out train's momentum 100 %, isn't that so? 

Actually, no, I don't have to. I will, because I'm a nice, patient, and generous guy, but I don't have to.

First of all, you don't "cancel the train's momentum", you change your own momentum by transferring some to the train. I've been letting this mistake slide for a few posts in an effort to avoid adding to your befuddlement, but I guess it's time to point it out since you seem to be thoroughly tangled up in it.

When a train, with you standing still in it, is stopped, you have zero momentum with respect to ("wrt") the ground. So does the train. As the train starts moving, with you standing still inside it, you are gaining momentum wrt the ground but not wrt the train. The train is also gaining momentum wrt the ground. If the train with you standing still within it cruises at a steady speed in a straight line (that is, it has a constant velocity), you have a constant momentum wrt the ground equal to your mass times your velocity (which is the same as the train's velocity) wrt the ground . Ok... now you've got this constant momentum in the direction of the train that was imparted to you by the train. If you jump straight up, that momentum doesn't change; you still keep it, and as long as the train's velocity doesn't change while you're in the air, you'll land at the same point on the floor that you jumped from.

Still with me? If you doubt this, and think you'd go flying toward the rear of the train as soon as your feet lost contact with the floor, please stop reading at the end of this paragraph, get on a train and try it. You'll see you were mistaken. I'll wait.

Back already? Good! See... I was right, wasn't I? I'm glad that's settled.

So, anyway, now you have momentum imparted to you as the train accelerated to its now-constant velocity. Start running toward the back of the train until your speed toward the back matches the train's speed the opposite direction. Your momentum (wrt the ground), has dropped to zero because your velocity wrt the train, -v, added to the train's velocity, v, wrt the ground adds to zero (wrt the ground), so you aren't moving wrt the ground and, thus, have no momentum (but now you do have momentum wrt the train).

Wait(!), you may say... How can this be? Isn't momentum supposed to be conserved? Yes it is, and it was here. By pushing against the floor and accelerating toward the rear of the train, you were causing the train to accelerate ever so slightly in the opposite direction, increasing its momentum wrt ground as much as yours is decreasing wrt the ground. The thing is, because the train is many thousands of times more massive than you are (at least I hope so; if not, you might want to check into a weight-loss program), and it's speed changed only by the inverse of that proportion, this is going to be too small to measure. It's there, but so tiny that no one is going to notice it in the noise.

Your velocity within the train has countered the train's velocity (but not its momentum... you added to that) in the opposite direction.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 09:32:30 AM

Quote from: wpeszko on May 08, 2018, 06:54:02 AM

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

Since his velocity relative to the train's floor is in the opposite direction as the train's floor is to the ground, then they have opposite signs. The sum of numbers with opposite signs is their difference. wpeszko is correct.

What are you talking about?

See above.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 05:52:23 AM

However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same (in both scenarios) even with such (undeserved) concession towards you (see above what i've written in the sentence which starts with the word Firstly), because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight. 

Your assertion in the first sentence is wrong.

Your notion is completely wrong and you can easily see this for yourself.

Hand waving is your last resort (beside blatantly lying)!
How come you haven't referred to the second part of my sentence (words in red)

I did. You just quoted it.

"Your assertion in the first sentence is wrong."

The 'speeds' don't add. In this case they subtract (because they're in opposite directions), but that only applies to give net speed wrt the ground. Whether you're flying or not, within the train, the train's constant speed doesn't matter, only your speed relative to the train. You. Are. Just. WRONG!

Quote from: Unconvinced on May 08, 2018, 10:55:05 AM

Is this thread serious?

You’re talking about throwing out the most basic laws of motion.

One thing is a law of motion which is in accordance with reality in other words : the TRUE law of motion.
Another thing is some galielean/einsteinian artificial (fraudulent) law of motion which doesn't correspond to the reality.

I'm sure Mr. Newton would have been disappointed to be left off that list. 

If you are an engineer it doesn't mean that you have ever been original, independent (from official scientific fraudulent paradigms), free thinker. Now, you have an opportunity to take an active part in restoring TRUE laws of motion. Enjoy the opportunity, don't be a coward, that is to say : don't take one's side just because it is easier to be a part of a stronger (in numbers) group, be brave and support those who speak the truth. In order to do that you have to be :
A) honest person
B) brave person
C) free thinker (committed, devoted, dedicated thinker - which is much harder than drinking in the sun)

It sounds like he's chosen the correct side to me. Just because someone is a free thinker doesn't mean he can't accept ideas simply because they're widely accepted because they've been shown time and again to be correct. In fact, refusing to accept them for that reason alone is the exact opposite of free thinking.

Just because someone believes he's a "free thinker" doesn't mean he is:
A) really a free thinker, or,
B) correct

The laws of motion, as accepted by the scientific and engineering community, because of the simple and unassailable fact that they work in the real world, are excellent descriptions of reality. Your calling them fraudulent means nothing at all unless you can convincingly demonstrate - not just speculate about - a different set of laws that work better. So far, all you have done is the latter (speculate) and none of the former (demonstrate). Why? Is because you know that an actual, realistic, experiment will clearly show even you that you're wrong? Who's the one being dishonest here?

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

So, if the train run at 100 km/h, a man is walking in the train at 5km/h, then cikljamas calculates man's speed relative to train floor to be 105 km/h. He'd smash the trains wall pretty quickly.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 02:32:58 PM

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

So, if the train run at 100 km/h, a man is walking in the train at 5km/h, then cikljamas calculates man's speed relative to train floor to be 105 km/h. He'd smash the trains wall pretty quickly.

He will ignore it. I already wrote about children jumping up in trains traveling at 300 km/h or planes at 900 km/h.

And coffee being poured without missing the cup.

Cik, I have juggled on a train.  Balls have to go pretty much straight up and down.  It is no different then doing so on the ground.
If your views were correct that would be impossible.

Regarding the video "LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED".  I watched the entire video including the parts at the end that are not related to the experiment.  I'll just comment on the experiment.

If linear inertia does not exist what would we expect when the trolley is stationary?
We expect the golf ball to travel up and down in a straight line.  There are a few imperfections that could cause the ball to come down slightly off vertical, like the alignment of the tube being slightly off or air movement due to HVAC system.  These would have a minimal impact on the ball, so the ball should still return close to the starting point

If linear inertia does exist what would we expect when the trolley is stationary?
Since the trolley is stationary we expect the ball to behave the same as if linear inertia does not exist.


If linear inertia does not exist what would we expect when the trolley is moving?
We expect the golf ball to travel up and down in a straight line.   As soon as the ball is disconnected from the trolley we expect it's lateral movement to immediately stop.  The ball will hit the top of the table directly below where it disconnected from the trolley.  Also allowing for the same imperfections as stated above.


If linear inertia does exist what would we expect when the trolley is moving?
We expect the ball to continue the same speed and direction as the trolley. Landing on top of the tube in the same place as the ball was when it was disconnected from the tube.  Also allowing for the same imperfections as stated above.  Additionally we expect the ball and trolley to experience wind resistance and, in the case of the trolley, friction against the rails, bearings, etc.  If they have the same resistance the landing will be almost perfect.  If one has greater resistance than the other the paths will diverge depending on the difference in resistance.

Quote from: wpeszko on May 09, 2018, 12:05:18 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 02:32:58 PM

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

So, if the train run at 100 km/h, a man is walking in the train at 5km/h, then cikljamas calculates man's speed relative to train floor to be 105 km/h. He'd smash the trains wall pretty quickly.

He will ignore it. I already wrote about children jumping up in trains traveling at 300 km/h or planes at 900 km/h.

And coffee being poured without missing the cup.

Not quite the same thing but try pouring your coffee while flying your plane in a barrel roll?Inertia, conservation of momentum or what, it works!

While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

3 km/h = 83 cm/s ... 36/3 = 12 ... 83cm/12 = 6,91... 83-6,91 = 76 cm
So, if the train were moving 3 km/h Michael Powell would gain additional 76 cm while performing his long jump inside moving train (running in counter direction of it's motion)

If our train would move :
6 km/h = 1,6 m/s ... 36/6 = 6 ... 160 cm/6 = 26,6 cm ...160-26,6 = 133,4 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 133,4 cm longer

If our train moved :
9 km/h = 2,5 m/s ... 36/9 = 4 ... 250 cm/4 = 62,5 cm ... 250-62,5 = 187,5 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 187,5 cm longer

If our train was moving at :
18 km/h = 5m/s ... 36/18 = 2 ... 5m/2 = 2,5 m ... 5m-2,5m = 2,5 m
Michael Powell long jump would be 2,5m longer

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

OK, so to make it easier for other people to understand cik, I'm rewriting the equation in terms of variable names (instead of numbers).



d_record is the original distance of Michael's record jump. v_record is 36 km/s, his record jump speed. v_train is the speed of the train (in the opposite direction). And t is just 1 second.

With v_record = 36 and t = 1, here is a graph of cikljamas' equation:



So when the train isn't moving, the jump distance correctly reduces to the original. As the train starts to move, the distance gets a boost, like cikl says. At around 18 km/h a peak jump distance is reached, and the jump distance starts to decrease with increasing train speed. At 36 km/s (when Michael is not moving at all relative to the Earth during the jump), like cilk says, the jump distance is again the same as the original. As the train speed increases further, the jump distance gets smaller, until at about 58 km/h, where Michael cannot move any distance at all in the train. Past this point, if Michael tries to jump in the train opposite its motion, he flies backwards in the direction of the trains motion instead (not sure if cikl meant for his results to hold at those speeds).

cikl, does that seem right? Is that what you meant to predict? And how general are these results; do they apply to everything, like Newton's laws are supposed to?

Quote from: Dirk on May 09, 2018, 09:39:28 AM

Quote from: wpeszko on May 09, 2018, 12:05:18 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2018, 02:32:58 PM

Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

So, if the train run at 100 km/h, a man is walking in the train at 5km/h, then cikljamas calculates man's speed relative to train floor to be 105 km/h. He'd smash the trains wall pretty quickly.

He will ignore it. I already wrote about children jumping up in trains traveling at 300 km/h or planes at 900 km/h.

And coffee being poured without missing the cup.

Not quite the same thing but try pouring your coffee while flying your plane in a barrel roll?

Bob Hoover Barrel Roll

Inertia, conservation of momentum or what, it works!

That's pretty cool

That's pretty because you are his alt. 

That's pretty because you are his alt. 

That's incorrect because are knowingly trying to deceiver us Mr Brotherhood of the Deceivers and you are proving how accurate that name is with every post!

1. It seems that i have to concede regarding the claim that there would be the difference in length of Michael Powell long jumps (on a moving train vs on the ground) assuming that in both scenarios he would run with the same relative speed.

2. However, i am not so sure that Michael Powell (who became (for us who participate in this thread) a synonym for any fast runner/jumper) wouldn't be able to use motion of a slowly moving train (when running in counter direction of train's motion) so that his relative speed on a moving train becomes greater than the relative speed on the ground (when he is running at his maximum speed in both scenarios).

This is a short excerpt from one very recent (although expressly deleted) discussion between few physic nerds and me on one physic's forum :

FranzDiCoccio says :
    I think that your initial hypothesis that running is different from walking does not make sense.
    What would happen if you jumped up and down on the train? You would loose contact with the train floor roughly for the same amount of time as when you take a "running step". Would that change your velocity relative to the train (which is zero)? The answer is no.
    Why would it change if it's not zero, then?
I did not check your maths, but its correctness has nothing to do with the cause of motion. The velocity of the guy composes according to Galilean relativity whether he's running, walking, crawling or moonwalking. The only thing that matters is the velocity of the guy relative to the train, and the velocity of the train itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cikljamas replied :
"The only thing that matters is the velocity of the guy relative to the train, and the velocity of the train itself."

Maybe we should reformulate my question :
If our runner flies 30 km/h above the moving train which travels 3 km/h what would happen (how much time would it take for him to fly across 100 m length of a moving train) :
A) After flying in counter direction of train's motion 30 km/h
B) After flying in the same direction of train's motion 30 km/h
-------- --------- -------
"The mode of motion of the guy (flying, crawling or walking) would not matter. The only thing that matters is the frame of reference. If his velocity is measured in the train frame of reference
A) he moves at 33 km/h towards the back of the train
B) he moves at 27 km/h towards the head of the train"

We are not interested about someone who is standing on the platform.
Yes, if his velocity is measured in the train frame of reference
A) he moves at 33 km/h towards the back of the train
B) he moves at 27 km/h towards the head of the train

I agree with you!
Does Galileo agree with two of us?
-----------------
--------------
------------
You see my point : if our runner could achieve similar (wrt flying) motion (which property of running should provide for our experiment) then we should expect harnessing train's motion (in counter direction) in such a way that the relative velocity of our runner would become the sum of train's motion and his own motion (in counter direction of train's motion) and vice versa (when he is running in the same direction of train's motion).

3. I've just uploaded one illustrative (for the issue with which we are dealing here) video, feel free to watch it :

RUNNING ON A MOVING TRAIN XXX :

Few excerpts taken out from the video :

According to Newton's 1st law of motion this jump would be the same
(regarding the jump-length) no matter if the earth is in motion or not,
regardless of the direction of biker's motion (west, east, north, south).
I could agree that there would be no difference regarding the lenght of the
jump (regardless of the frame of reference), but would everything else
be the same (on a spinning earth) no matter in which direction our biker goes?

odiupicku
3 months ago
Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion? Thanks in advance!?
-----------------
Urban explorer
3 months ago
Yes I did notice this! it also took far more energy/effort to go against the train, Also a lot harder to try not fall going against it. No problem, Thanks for stopping by my channel!?
--------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't we expect the same kind of problems
if we lived on the spinning earth???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How even far more energy it would take him if he
tried to go perpendicularly to train's motion???

How even lot harder would it be to try not fall going perpendicularly to train's motion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 On a spinning earth if he took off vertically (like an airplane
when making loop maneuver, for example) few hundred meters
high, our biker would be able to notice how the earth slips
below him (while he is restoring his "initial momentum")....

THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.



The ball passing from A to C, by the force of gravity, and having, at the moment of its liberation, received a momentum . from the moving ship in the direction A, B, will, by the conjoint action of the two forces A, B, and A, C, take the direction A, D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C, had the vessel remained at rest.

It is argued by those who hold that the earth is a revolving globe, that if a ball is dropped from the mouth of a deep mine, it reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical direction, the same as it would if the earth were motionless. In the same way, and from the same cause, it is said that a ball allowed to drop from the top of a tower, will fall at the base. Admitting the fact that a ball dropped down a mine, or let fall from a high tower, reaches the bottom in a direction parallel to the side of either, it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result. It is certain that such a result would occur on a stationary earth; and it is mathematically demonstrable that it would also occur on a revolving earth; but the question of motion or non-motion--of which is the fact it does not decide. It gives no proof that the ball falls in a vertical or in a diagonal direction. Hence, it is logically valueless. We must begin the enquiry with an experiment which does not involve a supposition or an ambiguity, but which will decide whether motion does actually or actually does not exist. It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical. It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high

tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal; so also upon a moving earth it would be diagonal. And as a matter of necessity, that which follows in one case would follow in every other case, if, in each, the conditions were the same. Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but



because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at

[paragraph continues] D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes



from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; but during the time of its fall from D to B, the carriage will have advanced to S, leaving the ball behind at B, as in the case of the ship in the last experiment.

The same phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell

back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.

Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.

1. It seems that i have to concede regarding the claim that there would be the difference in length of Michael Powell long jumps (on a moving train vs on the ground) assuming that in both scenarios he would run with the same relative speed.

2. However, i am not so sure that Michael Powell (who became (for us who participate in this thread) a synonym for any fast runner/jumper) wouldn't be able to use motion of a slowly moving train (when running in counter direction of train's motion) so that his relative speed on a moving train becomes greater than the relative speed on the ground (when he is running at his maximum speed in both scenarios).

This is a short excerpt from one very recent (although expressly deleted) discussion between few physic nerds and me on one physic's forum :

FranzDiCoccio says :
    I think that your initial hypothesis that running is different from walking does not make sense.
    What would happen if you jumped up and down on the train? You would loose contact with the train floor roughly for the same amount of time as when you take a "running step". Would that change your velocity relative to the train (which is zero)? The answer is no.
    Why would it change if it's not zero, then?
I did not check your maths, but its correctness has nothing to do with the cause of motion. The velocity of the guy composes according to Galilean relativity whether he's running, walking, crawling or moonwalking. The only thing that matters is the velocity of the guy relative to the train, and the velocity of the train itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cikljamas replied :
"The only thing that matters is the velocity of the guy relative to the train, and the velocity of the train itself."

Maybe we should reformulate my question :
If our runner flies 30 km/h above the moving train which travels 3 km/h what would happen (how much time would it take for him to fly across 100 m length of a moving train) :
A) After flying in counter direction of train's motion 30 km/h
B) After flying in the same direction of train's motion 30 km/h
-------- --------- -------
"The mode of motion of the guy (flying, crawling or walking) would not matter. The only thing that matters is the frame of reference. If his velocity is measured in the train frame of reference
A) he moves at 33 km/h towards the back of the train
B) he moves at 27 km/h towards the head of the train"

We are not interested about someone who is standing on the platform.
Yes, if his velocity is measured in the train frame of reference
A) he moves at 33 km/h towards the back of the train
B) he moves at 27 km/h towards the head of the train

I agree with you!
Does Galileo agree with two of us?
-----------------
--------------
------------
You see my point : if our runner could achieve similar (wrt flying) motion (which property of running should provide for our experiment) then we should expect harnessing train's motion (in counter direction) in such a way that the relative velocity of our runner would become the sum of train's motion and his own motion (in counter direction of train's motion) and vice versa (when he is running in the same direction of train's motion).

3. I've just uploaded one illustrative (for the issue with which we are dealing here) video, feel free to watch it :

RUNNING ON A MOVING TRAIN XXX :

Few excerpts taken out from the video :

According to Newton's 1st law of motion this jump would be the same
(regarding the jump-length) no matter if the earth is in motion or not,
regardless of the direction of biker's motion (west, east, north, south).
I could agree that there would be no difference regarding the lenght of the
jump (regardless of the frame of reference), but would everything else
be the same (on a spinning earth) no matter in which direction our biker goes?

odiupicku
3 months ago
Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion? Thanks in advance!?
-----------------
Urban explorer
3 months ago
Yes I did notice this! it also took far more energy/effort to go against the train, Also a lot harder to try not fall going against it. No problem, Thanks for stopping by my channel!?
--------------------------------------------------

Shouldn't we expect the same kind of problems
if we lived on the spinning earth???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How even far more energy it would take him if he
tried to go perpendicularly to train's motion???

How even lot harder would it be to try not fall going perpendicularly to train's motion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 On a spinning earth if he took off vertically (like an airplane
when making loop maneuver, for example) few hundred meters
high, our biker would be able to notice how the earth slips
below him (while he is restoring his "initial momentum")....

THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.



The ball passing from A to C, by the force of gravity, and having, at the moment of its liberation, received a momentum . from the moving ship in the direction A, B, will, by the conjoint action of the two forces A, B, and A, C, take the direction A, D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C, had the vessel remained at rest.

It is argued by those who hold that the earth is a revolving globe, that if a ball is dropped from the mouth of a deep mine, it reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical direction, the same as it would if the earth were motionless. In the same way, and from the same cause, it is said that a ball allowed to drop from the top of a tower, will fall at the base. Admitting the fact that a ball dropped down a mine, or let fall from a high tower, reaches the bottom in a direction parallel to the side of either, it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result. It is certain that such a result would occur on a stationary earth; and it is mathematically demonstrable that it would also occur on a revolving earth; but the question of motion or non-motion--of which is the fact it does not decide. It gives no proof that the ball falls in a vertical or in a diagonal direction. Hence, it is logically valueless. We must begin the enquiry with an experiment which does not involve a supposition or an ambiguity, but which will decide whether motion does actually or actually does not exist. It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical. It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high

tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal; so also upon a moving earth it would be diagonal. And as a matter of necessity, that which follows in one case would follow in every other case, if, in each, the conditions were the same. Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but



because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at

[paragraph continues] D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes



from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; but during the time of its fall from D to B, the carriage will have advanced to S, leaving the ball behind at B, as in the case of the ship in the last experiment.

The same phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell

back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.

Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.

I read a lot of the post. I don't know if you have time for this, but I want to understand your theory of force and how it is expended. Also of momentum, and how they both make objects move, and so I was wondering if you could explain it quickly. It'd be helpful and interesting.

Ok cik, I didn't want to copy the whole reply there so I am just going to ask you again.
I have juggled both in planes and trains.
There is no difference than when juggling on the ground. The balls do not have to be thrown forward at all.
How is this possible in your model?

Ok cik, I didn't want to copy the whole reply there so I am just going to ask you again.
I have juggled both in planes and trains.
There is no difference than when juggling on the ground. The balls do not have to be thrown forward at all.
How is this possible in your model?

Admitting the fact that a ball dropped down a mine, or let fall from a high tower, reaches the bottom in a direction parallel to the side of either, it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result. It is certain that such a result would occur on a stationary earth; and it is mathematically demonstrable that it would also occur on a revolving earth; but the question of motion or non-motion--of which is the fact it does not decide. It gives no proof that the ball falls in a vertical or in a diagonal direction. Hence, it is logically valueless. We must begin the enquiry with an experiment which does not involve a supposition or an ambiguity, but which will decide whether motion does actually or actually does not exist...

...Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.

The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:



g = 32ft/s^2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

LAMBDA = latitude

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???

Australia and New Zealand have the Southern Cross on their respective flags. Who is right?

Australia and New Zealand have the Southern Cross on their respective flags. Who is right?

Why does Lorentz contraction only act in the direction of motion?

... lengthy post removed

If you let go of a ball from a masthead on a moving ship with constant speed, it will not fall down diagonally. You will get the half of a parabola:

x(t) = v_shipt
y(t) = h_masthead - 0.5gt²

The two motions (horizontal motion because of momentum, vertical motion because of gravity) do not happen conjointly, they happen simultaneously. These two motions are the same with one ship at A and one ship at B (position B depends on masthead height above deck floor), both of them at rest, and you throw the ball in masthead of ship at position A horizontally with the speed of the ship in your example in direction of ship at position B. Hm, the masthead must be high above. Otherwise, both ships would overlap.

If you throw a ball upwards on a moving ship, it will not go first diagonal upwards and after that vertical downwards.

The trajectory is calculated based on four variables:
- the masthead height
- the vertical speed of your throw
- the constant speed of the ship
- the gravitational constant

x(t) = v_shipt
y(t) = h_masthead + v_throwt - 0.5gt²

Also the distance between A and B depends on these variables. It is surely not the same distance as before where you only let go of the ball. Set y=0, solve for t, use t in x.

You FEers never throw anything, do you? Or with closed eyes?

Otherwise, I could not explain how you came to such “observations”.

Quote from: sokarul on May 10, 2018, 10:11:08 AM

Australia and New Zealand have the Southern Cross on their respective flags. Who is right?

Why does Lorentz contraction only act in the direction of motion?

Oh, no. First we learn simple motions with constant speed, far below the speed of light.