The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Rig Navigator on September 12, 2008, 07:06:23 AM
-
I was reading through Earth is Not a Globe and decided to conduct one of the experiments as suggested by this site and the author.
While reading through Section 2 of the version that I found on Google (http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Earth+Not+a+Globe (http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Earth+Not+a+Globe)
I saw the experiment about dropping objects off of the mast and decided that it would be a perfect first experiment.
(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5350/balldroppg7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
The derrick on the rig is 50 meters from the top to the rig floor.
(http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9958/derrickfrontum8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
While underway avoiding Gustav was the perfect time to conduct the experiment. So I made sure that there was no one on the rig floor, and then tossed a shackle straight into the air.
(http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/3462/viewfromthetoppk4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
It rose and then fell straight down to the rig floor. I repeated the experiment with a wrench. Still a straight drop.
Well, maybe 4 knots wasn't fast enough. I tried the experiment again while on the crewboat to the beach. This time I was tossing peanuts up about 10 feet and then watching to see where they fell. I tossed the peanut up and it landed at my feet.
Well, maybe 20 knots wasn't fast enough. Not having a train handy...
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5923/trainexperimentoi4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight. This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead. The peanut still came straight down into my lap.
Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present. So Rowbotham's conclusion...
(http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5687/experimentresults1rd4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
is flawed.
-
Nice one.
I applaud your efforts.
You should know that we all know Rowbotham is full of crap. (I'm sure you do already)
Prepare yourself for fancy new physics. This ought to be interesting.
Perhaps some weakly thought out rebuttal from Tombot as well
Luv ya work Rig
-
No need to bother doing experiments to show that this conclusion is crap, Rowbotham lacks basic scientific knowledge, his explanation is full of errors. He incorrectly labels momentum as a force, he assumes the object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of its path, he doesn't know objects fall in parabolic paths and generally has no knowledge of physics.
All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.
NB: He refers to gravity as a force. Engy loves it when people do that.
-
NB: He refers to gravity as a force. Engy loves it when people do that.
Considering the theory espousing gravitation hadn't been invented yet, I'll excuse his ignorance of it.
-
Very nice experiment(s). The fact that Rowbotham has no knowledge of elementary physics should be pretty obvious though. His motives were religious zealotry, not scientific curiosity. Rowbotham wasn't a scientist trying to prove a theory, he was trying to discredit science as a whole because it didn't fit into his christian beliefs.
Either that or he just wanted to have a good laugh while people actually took up his bull as the truth. Samuel Birley was probably the father of Something Awful. Or 4chan, or whoever is running this place.
-
All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.
Well, if it didn't keep being brought up as "proof" I would agree, but the experiments contained in that book are still brought up on a regular basis.
-
All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.
Well, if it didn't keep being brought up as "proof" I would agree, but the experiments contained in that book are still brought up on a regular basis.
That is the standard method to making an argument out of nothing: Rowbotham pops up when you need "proof" and you are introduced to Zetetic science when you say the argument is not scientific, but disappears when someone challenges his results, or, even worse, repeats them with newer, better methods and equipment.
You can find (if you have a really boring day) where Narcberry and others declare all the real FE'rs have done all the experiments in that book. At least, I remember it was Narcberry, I may be wrong. No Flat Earther corrected him then.
How many of them have shown their faces in this thread?
-
Hey, I was planning on doing the first experiment soon. Only without doing anything. ...You'll see later on.
-
Hey, I was planning on doing the first experiment soon. Only without doing anything. ...You'll see later on.
I am looking forward to seeing your pictures.
-
I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight. This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead. The peanut still came straight down into my lap.
Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present. So Rowbotham's conclusion...
Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
-
Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?
Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.
This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment,
"Exaggerated" is not the right word. "Completely incorrect" might be the phrase you're looking for, see my previous posts.
if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration.
Centripetal acceleration is entirely provided by gravity and acts perpendicular to the Earth's surface (in RET). This means it will not change where the ball will land.
If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
Like I said, centripetal acceleration couldn't be detected by this experiment, even in RET. Rowbotham himself makes no mention of centripetal acceleration.
-
I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight. This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead. The peanut still came straight down into my lap.
Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present. So Rowbotham's conclusion...
Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
Tom,
The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible. For example, at the equator:
a = ω2r
ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
r = 6,378,000m
a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s2
Please do more research before you make such claims.
-
Tom Bishop makes yet more ridiculous claims. ::)
-
I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight. This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead. The peanut still came straight down into my lap.
Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present. So Rowbotham's conclusion...
Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?
Tom, have you actually read the text of Rowbotham's experiment?
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 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.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig47.jpg)
Tom, how exactly does the ball "expend" its forward motion as it hits the apex of its trajectory? This is a fundamental error that renders the entire experiment invalid.
-
Here is an error in his reasoning even a layperson (with no knowledge of maths or physics) could understand:
He distinguishes between an object being thrown upwards and an object being dropped. He says the former will fall diagonally (although it would actually fall in a parabolic arc). He says the latter will reach the top of its motion and then fall straight down.
But now consider throwing it with less and less speed, so that the upward leg gets smaller and smaller, the object will now travel a short distance and then fall straight down. Now imagine letting this speed go to zero -- by this reasoning the object will simply fall straight down. But, this is exactly the same as dropping it, and he said earlier that it will fall diagonally when dropped!
As you can see, magical Rowbothian physics leads to contradictions and cannot be true.
TB: Can you please never bring up Rowbotham's reasoning again? Not one of his arguments has ever stood up to even brief scrutiny.
-
Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.
This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.
Was the plane accelerating or moving at a set velocity? It certainly would happen on a plane if it were accelerating.
Centripetal acceleration is entirely provided by gravity and acts perpendicular to the Earth's surface (in RET). This means it will not change where the ball will land.
Centripetal acceleration is not provided by gravity. ::)
If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.
Go back to school.
-
Tom,
The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible. For example, at the equator:
a = ω2r
ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
r = 6,378,000m
a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s2
Please do more research before you make such claims.
The effect from centripetal acceleration may be negligible, but it's still there on a spinning globe. The fact that the OP could not detect any difference in the landing position of bodies acts only as additional evidence that the earth is still.
-
Tom,
The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible. For example, at the equator:
a = ω2r
ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
r = 6,378,000m
a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s2
Please do more research before you make such claims.
The effect from centripetal acceleration may be negligible, but it's still there on a spinning globe. The fact that the OP could not detect any difference in its landing position acts only as additional evidence that the earth is still.
Not even close. See: phsyics.
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
The last time I checked Centripetal Acceleration existed in Physics.
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
What exactly is "phsyics"?
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
What exactly is "phsyics"?
Unit 1 in Foundations of Fail 103.
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
What exactly is "phsyics"?
No-one likes a grammar nazi Robosteve.
Well, maybe E.Jack, but thats about it.
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
What exactly is "phsyics"?
No-one likes a grammar nazi Robosteve.
Noone likes Sokarul, either.
-
Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.
-
Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.
Anyone who likes Sokarul doesn't deserve to count as a "someone", therefore noone likes Sokarul.
-
Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.
This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.
Was the plane accelerating or moving at a set velocity? It certainly would happen on a plane if it were accelerating.
It would only happen if the plane were not following an inertial path. The Earth is following an inertial path around the sun, so it wouldn't happen.
Centripetal acceleration is entirely provided by gravity and acts perpendicular to the Earth's surface (in RET). This means it will not change where the ball will land.
Centripetal acceleration is not provided by gravity. ::)
Physics fail.
What is the acceleration provided by? An object in circular motion is constantly accelerating. Objects don't just accelerate on their own, something must be causing it.
This might help. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion)
If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.
Go back to school.
I suggest you do that.
-
Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.
Anyone who likes Sokarul doesn't deserve to count as a "someone", therefore noone likes Sokarul.
Anyone who models themselves after a terrorist doesn't deserve recognition for anything they say EVER, and I like Sokarul, so everyone who's spoken up in this thread who matters likes Sokarul. I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.
-
I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.
Such a statement means you advocate his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements found on this board. If so, your objectivity can definitely be questioned.
-
I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.
Such a statement means you advocate his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements found on this board. If so, your objectivity can definitely be questioned.
I like him even more now. None of you cited examples of why I should hate him... I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick. Can any long term RE'ers cite reference that I should dislike Sokarul?
I was mostly trying to point out that I dislike being moderated by a bin Laden, but I'm going to see where this goes... could be interesting.
Can any FE'ers point me to his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements?
-
None of you cited examples of why I should hate him...
He's not worth the search effort to compile evidence that we've seen countless times.
I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick.
Like I said, ignorant, pompous and incorrect. You can add dick to that too if you'd like.
Can any FE'ers point me to his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements?
I'm sure if you're here long enough, some will materialize right before you.
-
None of you cited examples of why I should hate him...
He's not worth the search effort to compile evidence that we've seen countless times.
I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick.
Like I said, ignorant, pompous and incorrect. You can add dick to that too if you'd like.
Can any FE'ers point me to his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements?
I'm sure if you're here long enough, some will materialize right before you.
You should be aware by now I'm not going to take your word for anything in particular... You're good for Pseudo-intellectual soundbites, but you're likely 90 degrees removed from my own frame of reference.
Well, let me try this to be sure... Is he incorrect in the way Narcberry is incorrect? Is he pompous the way RoboSteve is pompous? Is he ignorant the way Tom is ignorant?
I'm still just betting he's a dick... If you even given your mod status don't want to cite reference, then just step back. Someone will soon enough, or like you said, soon enough some will materialize right before me.
-
Well, let me try this to be sure... Is he incorrect in the way Narcberry is incorrect?
No, narc trolls and makes his posts on purpose.
Is he pompous the way RoboSteve is pompous?
Worse.
Is he ignorant the way Tom is ignorant?
If I related it to dogmatism, then perhaps.
-
Damn, man, you're keeping me up now, I gotta know... Paraphrase the worst thing he's ever said in your recollection.
-
None of you of you cited examples of why I should hate him... I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick.
Click on "Members" and search for "Sokarul". Go to his history and look at his posts.
-
I'm drunk and tired... I'll dig in tomorrow. You couldn't cite one instance of him pissing you off though?
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19985.msg383149#msg383149
-
Not even close. See: phsyics.
What exactly is "phsyics"?
Funny thing is I could see you posting that even if physics was spelled correctly.
The last time I checked Centripetal Acceleration existed in Physics.
That wasn't the part I had a problem with.
-
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
Conservation of momentum and inertia.
Do the experiment in a car. Travel in a straight, forward direction without turning, and toss an object up in the open space of the car and you will experience conservation of momentum and inertia. Now, while still traveling in the car, turn. As you turn, toss the object up in the space again. What happens? Now the ball moves opposite the direction of which you are turning.
The earth is spinning on an axis, and the same rules apply. The object does not change location due to conservation of momentum and inertia. If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, we'd all be in for a world of hurt.
-
Uh, first of all you're an idiot.
Wow, that is twice you have called me that.
Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?
Which part matched his results? In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...
(http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3596/sailboatmastdroprf2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
And then there was the "experiment" from the train that he described...
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3626/trainballdroppage1fq8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9136/trainballdroppage2wg9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
He explain that the same results should be observed. I increased the speed of the platform by a factor of 10, but still no deviation in the path.
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.
I just posted all of the text, can you point out the math that discusses the centripetal force please?
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
Or that his original explanations were completely flawed.
-
Anyone who likes Sokarul doesn't deserve to count as a "someone", therefore noone likes Sokarul.
Wow, called an idiot and noone in a single thread. This is getting better.
-
Physics fail.
What is the acceleration provided by? An object in circular motion is constantly accelerating. Objects don't just accelerate on their own, something must be causing it.
This might help. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion)
In any sort of circular motion centripetal acceleration exists. A ball dropped from a high enough altitude would arrive at a slightly different horizontal spot. It's just like if a child threw up a peanut while spinning around on a merry-go-round. The child will have moved away by the time the peanut hits the floor of the merry-go-round.
Where is your evidence that centripital acceleration does not exist?
-
Which part matched his results? In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...
Yep. If the boat is accelerating the ball would fall behind the boat.
-
Which part matched his results? In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...
Yep. If the boat is accelerating the ball would fall behind the boat.
Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?
-
Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?
It clearly says that the boat was put in motion. Any body which is put in motion must accelerate.
-
Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?
It clearly says that the boat was put in motion. Any body which is put in motion must accelerate.
Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating. He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.
-
Centripetal acceleration is entirely provided by gravity and acts perpendicular to the Earth's surface (in RET). This means it will not change where the ball will land.
Centripetal acceleration is not provided by gravity. ::)
Incorrect.
-
Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating. He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.
-
Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating. He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.
OK, what Victorian term or phrase did Rowbotham use to indicate that the boat was not at a uniform speed? Also, if the boat was not at a uniform speed, then what possible use could that experiment have served?
-
Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating. He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.
So, since when can a sailing ship accelerate enough for a ball thrown upward to land behind it? That's ludicrous. It's clear he means the ship is traveling at near constant velocity.
-
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
-
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?
-
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?
If you have biceps the size of Florida, sure.
-
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?
Let's assume it's thrown at less than escape velocity. In fact, let's assume it's thrown at a relatively low speed.
-
Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?
Not even his rifle shooting upward experiment has that sort of acceleration.
-
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
But Rowbotham says that he read Newton, and the term is very common there. It is probably safe to say that he was familiar with the concept regardless of the "popularity" of the word in Victorian language.
-
Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.
The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
No reply, TB?
-
No reply, TB?
I knew it was too much to expect one.
-
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
If the earth were a spinning globe the ball would not land exactly where it was dropped due to centripetal acceleration from the earth's rotation. It would take careful measurement to observe the difference, but the ball will be in another location from where it was dropped nonetheless.
The effect of centripetal acceleration also occurs when a child tosses a peanut straight up into the air while spinning around on a merry-go-round.
-
As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:
Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.
If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.
If the earth were a spinning globe the ball would not land exactly where it was dropped due to centripetal acceleration from the earth's rotation. It would take careful measurement to observe the difference, but the ball will be in another location from where it was dropped nonetheless.
The effect of centripetal acceleration also occurs when a child tosses a peanut straight up into the air while spinning around on a merry-go-round.
This isn't exactly the rigorous physical explanation I was looking for, but OK.
Centripetal acceleration acts (by definition) exactly inwards. This means that it would affect the time it takes the ball to return to Earth, but not where it falls. I'll repeat: centripetal acceleration does not act horizontally.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_acceleration#Tangential_and_centripetal_acceleration). Note that because the Earth turns at a constant rate, tangential aceleration is zero. (Coriolis effect is negligeable compared to experimental uncertainties.)
Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.
-
Centripetal acceleration acts (by definition) exactly inwards. This means that it would affect the time it takes the ball to return to Earth, but not where it falls. I'll repeat: centripetal acceleration does not act horizontally.
Sure it does.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_acceleration#Tangential_and_centripetal_acceleration). Note that because the Earth turns at a constant rate, tangential aceleration is zero. (Coriolis effect is negligeable compared to experimental uncertainties.)
Um. A rotating earth wouldn't be turning at a constant rate. It would be expressing centripital acceleration as the bodies on the surface change direction. Any rotating body is expressing centripetal acceleration. Any change in speed or direction is an acceleration.
Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.
Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?
A: No. The child has spun away by the time the peanut falls down - he has changed direction and thus accelerated away from the peanut. The peanut hits the surface of the merry-go-round with a clank.
-
peanuts do not land with a clank.
Tom Bishop proves he is mentally retarded once again.
-
Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.
Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?
A: No. The child has spun away by the time the peanut falls down - he has changed direction and thus accelerated away from the peanut. The peanut hits the surface of the merry-go-round with a clank.
Well actually the peanut continues to move to the direction where the child was travelling when he threw the peanut.
So the peanut would probably land somewhere outside of the merry-go round.
-
You're either not reading or not understanding.
Um. A rotating earth wouldn't be turning at a constant rate. It would be expressing centripital acceleration as the bodies on the surface change direction. Any rotating body is expressing centripetal acceleration. Any change in speed or direction is an acceleration.
For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?
Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.
Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?
A: No. The child has spun away by the time the peanut falls down - he has changed direction and thus accelerated away from the peanut. The peanut hits the surface of the merry-go-round with a clank.
I didn't say it would land in his lap. It would land further out from the centre, right?
Are you saying the ball will and somewhere up in the air?
-
You're either not reading or not understanding.
For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.
You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.
-
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.
-
You're either not reading or not understanding.
For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.
You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.
I'm taking a University course in maths and physics. Does that count?
Let me run my argument by you again: Earth's angular velocity is constant. This means acceleration is entirely downwards (i.e. towards the centre of the Earth). Because the acceleration is entirely downwards, it does not affect where the ball will land.
Comprende?
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.
No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.
-
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.
No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.
I thought he was only referring to the surface of a spherical body.
-
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.
No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.
I thought he was only referring to the surface of a spherical body.
Whatever, it's not like it's particularly important.
-
You're either not reading or not understanding.
For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.
You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.
Tom, I'm seriously offering to pay your school tuition fees. PM me with the details and we can sort this out once and for all.
Leave the guy alone. He's only 19.
-
In any sort of circular motion centripetal acceleration exists. A ball dropped from a high enough altitude would arrive at a slightly different horizontal spot. It's just like if a child threw up a peanut while spinning around on a merry-go-round. The child will have moved away by the time the peanut hits the floor of the merry-go-round.
Where is your evidence that centripital acceleration does not exist?
[/quote]
This would be true if the earth was spinning in a disk, since the earth doesn't spin in FET, this doesn't happen.
-
Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?
A: Yes. It depends on the size of our merry-go-round. If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.
-
A: Yes. It depends on the size of our merry-go-round. If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.
I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.
But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.
-
A: Yes. It depends on the size of our merry-go-round. If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.
I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.
But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.
Just out of curiosity, what does a spinning merry-go-round (a flat disc) have to do with the a spinning spherical earth? The forces involved are at different angles to the axis of rotation, therefore not comparable.
-
A: Yes. It depends on the size of our merry-go-round. If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.
I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.
It is a thought experiment. You mentioned centrifugal force on a small merry-go-round, and I upscaled it since we are talking about motion on a planetary scale.
But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.
But it wouldn't have enough deflection to have the results that Rowbotham has saying that we should observe. If we aren't going to be able to observe the deflection without careful measurements, which his experiment does not call for or even have, then it is invalid as evidence for or against RE and FE.
-
He distinguishes between an object being thrown upwards and an object being dropped. He says the former will fall diagonally (although it would actually fall in a parabolic arc).
I read this thread and this is the first time I have heard this. Are you saying that if I drop something from a height it should actually curve rather than fall straight? Or are you referring to the way water forms an arc when it is propelled parallel to the surface of the earth? I hope this is what you are referring to. If not... could you please post reference to something which explains its. I only ask for the sake of learning.
-
But it wouldn't have enough deflection to have the results that Rowbotham has saying that we should observe. If we aren't going to be able to observe the deflection without careful measurements, which his experiment does not call for or even have, then it is invalid as evidence for or against RE and FE.
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.
Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.
-
...so how do you 'exaggerate' math without it being wrong? ;)
-
...so how do you 'exaggerate' math without it being wrong? ;)
Uhhhh....
Example:
Exaggeration of math = using 10x instead of just x?
I think?
-
Centripetal Acceleration is always along the line of radius from the centre of rotation.
On a Flat Disk, like a merry-go-round, this will be toward the edge of the disk. On a rotating sphere, this will always be vertical to the surface of the Sphere.
So on a Rotating Round Earth, this centripetal acceleration would act to change the vertical vector of the thrown object. On a Flat Disk (like a merry-go-round), this will be towards the centre of the disk.
Thus, if an object is thrown on a disk, it is no longer attached to the rotation, and so is no longer being accelerated. The result is that it will move at a tangent from the point it was released.
So, Tom, you are wrong.