The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cikljamas on August 13, 2017, 04:29:22 AM

Title: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 13, 2017, 04:29:22 AM
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)...

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: petej0 on August 13, 2017, 06:14:51 AM
...Wall of text...

Sigh....Instead of some hypothetical thesis based on faulty knowledge and logic.

Go find a rifle range and fire a rifle east and then fire that same rifle west at targets a mile away and you will find you will hit one target consistently but miss the other consistently.  Why?  Because of the earths rotation. 

Once you do that.  Fire North vs South and you will notice you will miss left when you fire north and miss right when you fire south.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Sentinel on August 13, 2017, 06:20:59 AM
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an utter ridiculous assumption in the first place that a wind with 300km/h velocity would stop all of a sudden. Do you even know what causes something what we call wind?

And just for the record: I stopped reading your pathetic bullshit right after that paragraph, it's just not worth the time obviously.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 13, 2017, 07:36:44 AM
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!


(http://i.imgur.com/M9dC3os.jpg)
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on August 13, 2017, 07:44:47 AM
You're confusing yourself again by jumping between various frames of reference.

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.

An object doesn't "lose inertia". Its momentum will change if a force is applied on it. Inertia is constant if mass is constant.

In this scenario, the 300 km/hr east wind [winds are described by the direction they come from] applies a force proportional to the difference in velocity; it's greatest as soon as the balloon is launched, and declines as the balloon's speed decreases wrt the east wind. This causes the balloon to accelerate to the west; it will stop accelerating when it stops moving wrt the air mass it's in.

Quote
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.

1. is incorrect. It never "lost" its inertia. Its momentum would change due to the force the stationary air mass applies against the initial westward velocity through it. A balloon, with its large surface area (which means large drag [force], when moving in air) but low mass (low inertia, so little force is needed to effect a given change in velocity) would change velocity pretty quick, but not instantly.

You're double-dipping with number 2. If it was moving west at 300 km/hr (wrt the ground) and suddenly entered a different air mass that's not moving (wrt the ground) the force of drag will again change its momentum so that it stops moving wrt to the new air mass. It doesn't start moving eastward (wrt the ground).

The result will be that the balloon quickly (and, no doubt, violently, but not not "instantly") comes to a stop when viewed from the ground.

Pick a frame of reference (FOR) and stay in it. You're confusing yourself.

From the FOR of the earth:

Balloon launched vertically into 300 km/hr east wind.
Balloon quickly accelerates westward to 300 km/hr.
While traveling west at 300 km/hr, balloon enters body of still air.
Balloon quickly stops.

From the FOR of inertial space:

Balloon is launched from ground that is rotating eastward at 300 km/hr into air that's stationary.
Balloon quickly accelerates (decelerates from this FOR, but deceleration is still an acceleration) to match non-moving air.
Body of air moving eastward at 300 km/hr intercepts balloon.
Balloon accelerates to move eastward until it matches the speed of the new air mass.

From the FOR of the balloon:

Balloon is launched from ground into the teeth of a hurricane-force, 300 km/hr, east wind.
Balloon quickly accelerates westward to match the speed of the air it's in.
Balloon, while being blown westward at 300 km/hr relative to the ground, the surrounding air is still, since it's moving with the air.
Air abruptly starts moving 300 km/hr relative to us.
Balloon accelerates until it matches the speed of the new air mass.
Since the balloon is again moving with the air it's in, the surrounding air is still.

Does this help you untangle all your confusion that followed?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Sentinel on August 13, 2017, 07:58:11 AM
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!

Nahh, I'm just here for yet another bitchslapping and the lulz the moment any of alpha or jack show up and curbstomp your crap into pieces, I can't be bothered with your delusion anyway tbh.
Enjoy.  :D
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: petej0 on August 13, 2017, 11:07:33 AM
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!


(http://i.imgur.com/M9dC3os.jpg)

In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: 29silhouette on August 13, 2017, 11:56:17 AM
In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.
It's typical with cikljamas.  He doesn't understand a particular subject, and proceeds to throw out scenarios that are hampered by his lack of understanding of other subjects, to try to disprove the initial misunderstood subject.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on August 13, 2017, 01:05:42 PM
So I take it this means you have realised your complete failure with your zigzag BS and are now trying to move/on cover it up rather than admit you were wrong like a rational adult would?

Note: Don't just post a similar wall of spam again. If you want to try acting like a rational adult, pick one of your several topics/hypothetical situations to discuss.

And when you do, make sure you discuss it using either relative motion, which would hold in the case of both a stationary Earth and spinning Earth, or you analyse both, a stationary and spinning Earth.

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.
Do you know why no one has ever experienced the second option?
Because you have never had the wind magically stop instantly.

I also notice how you leave out the stationary Earth scenario.
It works exactly the same:
You have wind blowing the balloon west.
It suddenly stops.
We can assume two solutions:
1. The balloon is going to instantly lose it's inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience instant blow of 250 km/h fast eastward wind due to its motion through the now stationary 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 phenomenon.


Do you know why? Because the wind doesn't magically stop in an instant, not going from 250 km/hr (or 300) to 0.

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.
No, it wont.
The boat is moving, it has inertia and that needs to be removed.
As soon as you turn off the propeller, you have a boat which is going at 30 knots (that is nautical miles per hour, knots per hour would be acceleration not speed) in stationary water.
It will keep going at 30 knots initially and the water will exert a force due to the relative motion resulting in the boat matching the speed of the water after some time.

The boat still has pre-existing initial inertia.
The inertia is simply its mass, its resistance to motion.

Do you know the formula/law F=ma?

M is the inertia. It is the resistance in motion which requires a force to act upon the object to accelerate it.

What you are likely thinking of is momentum.
Instead of gaining momentum in this situation, you need to lose it and the boats inertia will act against that, requiring a force to do so.

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.
No it doesn't. The boat propeller opposes the water resistance which is trying to make the boat move with the river. It is not magically cancelling the inertia.
If the river stopped flowing then the boat would start moving (in your absolute space).

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.
Not really. The water resistance will act to make the boat move with the water. It will result in a force which acts to oppose the relative motion 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.
No. It isn't going to be instant and it isn't going to magically produce a force.

At all times when the boat is moving relative to the water, the water will be exerting a force on the boat to try to have the boat match the speed of the water.
While the prop is spinning, it is exerting a force on the boat which oppose that water resistance force to keep the boat moving at a constant speed relative to the water.
When the prop is turned off, that force is lost, and the water resistance will cause the boat to match the speed of the water.

This applies to both the stationary water and moving water case. There is no difference. The relative motion is the same, so the analysis is the same.

Let's look it from this perspective :
Why apply so many analyses which are basically the same filled with the same errors?

How about you deal with your boats in water example before moving onto anything else?

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.
They don't turn instantly. Try again.
It isn't inertia. It's momentum. Try again.

Regardless, you keep making these pathetic strawmen without bothering to compare the stationary Earth example.
So lets also note what would happen with a plane which is flying that fast west (but now actually moving west rather than just west relative to Earth), which then turns left or right.

Guess what? The same thing will 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.
Air does behave like water, but with a much lower drag coeffecient.
It still isn't magic BS regarding inertia. It is still simply the air/water exerting a force due to the relative motion. This applies regardless of if the air is moving with a stationary plane or the plane is moving with stationary air. All that matters is the relative velocity.

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)...
Once again, it isn't inertia.
You are aware planes need to use air resistance to turn? If the air had no resistance they would be unable to turn. As such, their turn will be based upon the air. So they will start moving with one velocity relative to the air and then turn and go with some other velocity relative to the air.

Again, this applies with both a stationary Earth and rotating Earth.

If you instead turned the plane by magic (where to keep the situations comparable, you simply turned the plane and made it accelerate forwards), then (just considering the sideways component of the velocity) in one case you have stationary air with a moving plane, and in the other you have a moving air with a stationary plane. The 2 both have plane moving relative to the air, at the same velocity which will produce the same effect.

So once again, there is no difference between a stationary Earth and rotating Earth. Not in the sense that you would expect the plane to behave differently.

So, what we can conclude from all this is this :
I would say that you are a moron that doesn't understand relative motion or drag at all, but you have already tried this shit and had all the errors pointed out.
So what we can conclude is that you know your position is full of shit and you are recycling old arguments which you know are wrong in order to pretend your position is correct.

It requires on setting up pathetic strawmen to examine the hypothetical events which never occur in reality and then complain that the consequence of that event doesn't occur in reality.
It also requires completely ignoring the stationary Earth example.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on August 13, 2017, 01:07:42 PM
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!


(http://i.imgur.com/M9dC3os.jpg)
We know how relative motion works.
What is your question meant to be here?

Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Mikey T. on August 13, 2017, 01:11:12 PM
Balloons float in the atmosphere.  The atmosphere is rotating with the Earth, as a part of the Earth.  The 300 kph wind is in relation to what?  Again, you seem to assume that once something breaks contact with the ground it magically is separate from the Earth at that time. 
Its like the zig zag argument, thinking that the horizon is disconnected from the Earth.  This disconnection from the Earth is something you seem to repeat with the majority of your thought experiments. 
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on August 13, 2017, 01:23:53 PM
...Wall of text...

Sigh....Instead of some hypothetical thesis based on faulty knowledge and logic.

Go find a rifle range and fire a rifle east and then fire that same rifle west at targets a mile away and you will find you will hit one target consistently but miss the other consistently.  Why?  Because of the earths rotation. 

Once you do that.  Fire North vs South and you will notice you will miss left when you fire north and miss right when you fire south.

That isn't what happens.

If you are in the northern hemisphere, regardless of which direction you fire, you miss to the right.

If you fire north, you fire towards a section of Earth that is spinning slower, that means your bullet moves ahead (to the east) and ends up to the right.
If you fire south, you fire towards a section of Earth that is spinning faster, that means your bullet falls behind (to the west) and ends up to the right.

If you fire east or west, then your target rotates with Earth and once again, you miss to the right.

So it doesn't matter which way you fire, you continually miss to the right.

If you are in the southern hemisphere, you continually miss to the left.

The closer to the pole, the more significant the miss.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 13, 2017, 03:58:21 PM
Sentinel, DON'T PLAY WITH LIGHTERS, STRAW IN YOUR HEAD COULD GET INFLAMED!


(http://i.imgur.com/M9dC3os.jpg)

In all honesty I do not know what you are asking.

Jack has offered to us right answer :

"Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel."


But this is what i really intended to ask :

If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?

Let's assume that thus elongated box is transparent (made of glass for example) so that we can observe in the background the same panel with black and yellow squares while we are conducting our second experiment.

Now, our truck rushes again (pulling this time transparent box attached to the barrel), everything is the same (same speed of the truck, same speed of the bullet (soccer ball)), except this time soccer ball is going to be fired within closed system (into transparent box attached to the barrel).

The question is this :

Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???

If yes, why?

If no, why?

EDIT : at the same distance means this :
- in the same moment and at the same place (in the middle of our panel with black and yellow squares), that is to say in the moment when the truck will be at the same distance from the ball as it was the case while Mythbusters performed their experiment...
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on August 14, 2017, 02:51:30 AM
But this is what i really intended to ask :
If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?
Assuming it is a box, it will act just like you fired a cannon in the box. The only difference is the entire system will be moving sideways.
So, from the reference frame of the box, the ball is fired, until it moves with the box the air resistance will now be trying to accelerate the ball to make it match the speed of the box and gravity is pulling it down.
The ball moves to the right, hits the bottom of the box, which results in it being accelerated (and likely starting to spin), with it then bouncing along the ground.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box.

Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.

The exact same would happen if the box was stationary.

The question is this :
Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???
It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect.

Again, are you trying to make a point with this?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: napoleon on August 14, 2017, 03:41:17 AM
A boat floating in water displaces water.
The boat floats because the weight of the displaced water is equal to the weight of the boat.
If you would make the boat heavier by putting some load in it, the boat would go some deeper in water, but even then, if it floats....the weight of the displaced water is equal to the weight of the boat + load.

The same with balloon and gas. (let's assume we have a balloon which is strong and will not burst.
the balloon displaces air. the weight of the balloon is lighter than the weight of displaced air, so, it gains height.
at higher altitudes air is less dense, so eventually it will reach a height where the weight of the displaced air equals the weight of the balloon and it will stay at that height.
(normally that would be the height where the balloon expands so bad it will burst, but let us ignore that by saying it is a strong balloon).

So, a balloon floats in air. if the balloon is not ascending nor descending anymore we could say the density of the air at that height is the same as the average density of balloon + content.

so, the balloon now moves towards the same direction wherever the air-mass or "wind" moves.
wind moves to west --> balloon moves west
wind moves to east --> balloon moves east
wind stops suddenly --> balloon stops suddenly


Jack has offered to us right answer :

"Do you mean if you attached a box to the barrel would the ball hit the other wall of it?
If so, yes, because the ball is moving relative to the barrel."


But this is what i really intended to ask :

If we elongate our attached box (to the barrel) so much that back side of the barrel would be out of the range of soccer ball gun what is going to happen?

Let's assume that thus elongated box is transparent (made of glass for example) so that we can observe in the background the same panel with black and yellow squares while we are conducting our second experiment.

Now, our truck rushes again (pulling this time transparent box attached to the barrel), everything is the same (same speed of the truck, same speed of the bullet (soccer ball)), except this time soccer ball is going to be fired within closed system (into transparent box attached to the barrel).

The question is this :

Will soccer ball (in our second experiment) start to fall towards the ground at the same distance as it has happened in the first experiment when the ball has been fired into air which (air) we can consider as different (open) system in relation to the racing track and soccer ball gun???

If yes, why?

If no, why?

EDIT : at the same distance means this :
- in the same moment and at the same place (in the middle of our panel with black and yellow squares), that is to say in the moment when the truck will be at the same distance from the ball as it was the case while Mythbusters performed their experiment...
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 14, 2017, 04:31:40 AM
Again, are you trying to make a point with this?

As soon as we reach the same speed (in counter direction) of the system in motion (earth with rotating atmosphere), we are going to cancel out our initial momentum (which we had before we took off), from this moment on our speed has to be added to the speed of the rigid earth below us, and thus our relative motion becomes the result of two speeds (the speed of an airplane + the speed of the rotating earth below us).

Anyone who says that airplane can keep it's initial EASTWARD momentum (which it had before we took off), even after airplane has reached the same speed of the rotating earth (in counter direction) must be able to repeat Mythbusters' experiment (WITH ELONGATED GLASS CONTAINER) WHICH WOULD YIELD DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT and prove to us that such ridiculous claim has anything to do with reality.

As simple as that.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 14, 2017, 04:36:24 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: napoleon on August 14, 2017, 05:23:32 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 14, 2017, 06:01:53 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Canadabear on August 14, 2017, 06:20:33 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.

show us in an experiment that proves your claims.

not only a mind-play (what could happen if something happens), i am talking about a real physical experiment that show that the heliocentric model is wrong.

you would not only prove your claims, you would also get the nobel price for that.

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: napoleon on August 14, 2017, 06:55:04 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.
Sorry, somehow I missed Jacks explanation, but yeah it is pretty accurate.

I like Jack's posts because he usually answers patiently, understandible and complete.
this post was no excempion to that, so I agree with what he said.

But I kinda gave you the same answer.

Quote from Jack:
Quote
Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.
which is pretty much the same as performing the mythbusters experiment on a stormy day (as in: wind traveling in trucks direction with same speed as truck). The motion of the truck and the cannon firing the ball cancel each other out. What is left is the air inside the container travelling along with the truck.

I do not know how heavy the ball is, and how fast the truck is traveling. but if it is a plastic ball, and assuming the truck travels about 50mph to the left, the ball would end up somewhere on the left side of spot x.

according to the beaufort scale, windspeeds of 50mph are severe gales (9 on the beaufort scale).

so, basically I am not adding some crazy assumption because I am wrong. It is pretty much the same.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 14, 2017, 07:38:10 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.

show us in an experiment that proves your claims.

not only a mind-play (what could happen if something happens), i am talking about a real physical experiment that show that the heliocentric model is wrong.

you would not only prove your claims, you would also get the nobel price for that.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."

When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!

In a short paper it is impossible to enumerate those fruitless efforts of three centuries, all trying to establish incontrovertibly the veracity of Galileo's legendary "Eppur Si muove!". Those interested in particulars will find them sprinkled throughout the extensive literature dealing with the issues involved. For the purpose at hand we may restrict ourselves - as a cursory view of history clearly intimates - to a crucial experiment at the crossroads of classical and relativistic science. To wit, as already mentioned, the test performed in 1871 by Airy, a test more than a century earlier suggested by a forgotten genius, famous croatian physicist, one of the greatest (if not the greatest) theoretical physicists of all time, Josip Ruder Boškovic (1711 -1787).

James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich.

LET ME INTRODUCE TO YOU SIR RUÐER BOŠKOVIC : http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10055/1/Rudjer-Boskovic-a-famous-Croatian-scientist-born-300-years-ago-in-1711.html

"It is impossible to determine the definitive shape of the earth!!!" - (Ruder Boškovic)

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):

But the fact is, they all knew a non-moving Earth was the simplest solution. Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:

“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis. The moral of this historical fantasy is that it is often dangerous to believe in the absolute verification or falsification of a scientific hypothesis. All judgments of this type are necessarily made in some historical context which may be drastically modified by the changing perspective of human knowledge” (G. J. Whitrow, The Structure and Evolution of the Universe, 1949, 1959, p. 79).

Other scientists also saw a motionless Earth as a possible solution to MMX, but were unwilling to accept it due to their philosophical presuppositions. Of his own MMX experiment, Albert Michelson said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125).

Arthur Eddington said the same about MMX: “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” (The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.).

Historian Bernard Jaffe said: “The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Jaffe’s philosophical barrier was then revealed when he concluded: “This, of course, was preposterous.” (Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76.).

As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

And one of the chief participants in the experiment that bears his name (ALBERT A. MICHELSON), stunned by the results that went counter to his own heliocentric reflex:

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

FLAT EARTH - 130 YEARS HAS GONE BY SINCE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXP. :

LUNACY 3 :
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on August 14, 2017, 07:43:05 AM
in the mythbuster video:
the truck is moving (lets say 100mph) to the left
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
there is no wind

result: the ball will land exactly on spot x.

in your experiment:
the truck with barrel and enlonged glass container is moving left 100mph
the ball is fired on spot x with a speed of 100mph to the right.
the air inside the container is moving with truck to the left.
so the ball will land on the left side of spot x.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :

"the equivalent mythbuster experiment will be to do the same as in the video but now with wind blowing to the left in the same speed as the truck."
Then please explain what exactly is wrong about my explanation?
putting a glass container around it doesn't change a thing other than dragging along the air mass inside the container with the truck.
It would be the same as performing the mythbuster experiment on a stormy day.
nothing else changes, or am I missing something here? then please correct me. if not, please stop insulting.

Look what JackBlack answered to my question :

"It will land in a slightly different position due to the air resistance pulling it along (greater than the existing air resistance due to the motion of the truck).
However that change may be too small to detect."


He is right again. That change due to the motion of the truck (air drag) would be too small to detect it...

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.
Sorry, somehow I missed Jacks explanation, but yeah it is pretty accurate.

I like Jack's posts because he usually answers patiently, understandible and complete.
this post was no excempion to that, so I agree with what he said.

But I kinda gave you the same answer.

Quote from Jack:
Quote
Now, in the reference frame of an outside observer, the box is moving past to the left, and so is the air inside it.
The ball is fired and is initially stationary. The moving exerts a force on the ball trying to accelerate it to match the speed of the box and gravity pulls it down. This means it starts moving left slightly (but not at the speed of the box).
It then reaches the ground and starts bouncing resulting in it accelerating and likely starting to spin.
Depending upon how long the box is, it may still hit the wall, or it might come to rest on the bottom of the box moving with the box.
which is pretty much the same as performing the mythbusters experiment on a stormy day (as in: wind traveling in trucks direction with same speed as truck). The motion of the truck and the cannon firing the ball cancel each other out. What is left is the air inside the container travelling along with the truck.

I do not know how heavy the ball is, and how fast the truck is traveling. but if it is a plastic ball, and assuming the truck travels about 50mph to the left, the ball would end up somewhere on the left side of spot x.

according to the beaufort scale, windspeeds of 50mph are severe gales (9 on the beaufort scale).

so, basically I am not adding some crazy assumption because I am wrong. It is pretty much the same.
Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

I already did it with these words (post # 18) :

But the real problem here is this :

Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???

And with these words (post # 15) :

Anyone who says that airplane can keep it's initial EASTWARD momentum (which it had before we took off), even after airplane has reached the same speed of the rotating earth (in counter direction) must be able to repeat Mythbusters' experiment (WITH ELONGATED GLASS CONTAINER) WHICH WOULD YIELD DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT and prove to us that such ridiculous claim has anything to do with reality.

Pay attention to bolded words : DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT

What this means?

It means that within our SECOND EXP. (WITH GLASS CONTAINER), the ball after reaching spot x (in front of our panel with black and yellow squares) would have to show to us the result (consequence) of alleged conserved initial momentum (we can neglect air drag impact on a ball - which is irrelevant according to you and Jack).

What would be that consequence?

The ball would have to fall to the ground SIGNIFICANTLY FARTHER TO THE LEFT than in Mythbusters' experiment because of the conserved initial momentum, not because of insignificant influence of air drag to the ball.


The ball would have to fall to the ground SIGNIFICANTLY FARTHER TO THE LEFT than in Mythbusters' experiment because of the conserved initial momentum, not because of an insignificant influence of air drag (on the ball).

Now, you are better conditioned (i hope) to understand these words (post # 1) :

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)...
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Canadabear on August 14, 2017, 01:55:05 PM
... lots of bla-bla ...


all you are saying is that there where experiments done mostly hundreds of years ago.

with the modern technique you should be able to replicate these experiments and test them if they are correct or if that what you see at these experiments can be explained also in a global earth system.

so, did anyone perform these experiments recently?

the experiments and works that prove a heliocentric model get performed every day.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on August 14, 2017, 01:59:34 PM
As soon as we reach the same speed (in counter direction) of the system in motion (earth with rotating atmosphere), we are going to cancel out our initial momentum (which we had before we took off), from this moment on our speed has to be added to the speed of the rigid earth below us, and thus our relative motion becomes the result of two speeds (the speed of an airplane + the speed of the rotating earth below us).

Anyone who says that airplane can keep it's initial EASTWARD momentum (which it had before we took off), even after airplane has reached the same speed of the rotating earth (in counter direction) must be able to repeat Mythbusters' experiment (WITH ELONGATED GLASS CONTAINER) WHICH WOULD YIELD DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RESULT and prove to us that such ridiculous claim has anything to do with reality.

As simple as that.
Not really, once again you completely misrepresent what is happening.

There isn't magic momentum to keep and a ball has completely different aerodynamics to a plane.
If you want to compare it to a plane, make it a piece of paper or the like. However if you make the box large enough in both directions, then the air will have enough time to act and bring the ball back to the speed of the box.


The plane has the initial momentum due to its motion with Earth (even if that is 0). It then has forces applied to it which change its momentum.
If it were to cut its engines, then the air resistance will result in a force to attempt to move the plane with the air. Ignoring winds, that would mean the air resistance will make it move with Earth.

But the same non-issue arises in the GC model. As the plane flies, it has momentum, and it needs to lose that in order to land.

So once again, your position does not go against the HC model.

Yes, your HC idiotic theory assumes that what you described above would happen in reality, but you are wrong, and because you are wrong you needed to add this false assumption :
Except you are unable to show why it is idiotic, or why it is distinguishable from GC in these cases, now why he is wrong.

He is ignoring the negligible contribution of air resistance.


Air drag has nothing to do with keeping initial EASTWARD momentum of the ball, or do you think that HC idiotic claim according which an airplane somehow manages to keep (all the time, no matter what) it's initial momentum (even after reaching the same rotational speed of the earth - in counter direction of earth's spin - ) is based on the assumption that the mechanics of keeping initial momentum is nothing else but air drag (wind)???
Except that is exactly how planes work, using air drag. They fly though the air. In stable flight the entire purpose of the engine is to overcome the air resistance slowing them down.
In the case of planes, it is the fact they fly through the air at speeds relative to the air which makes GC and HC indistinguisable.

If you want to go to a case where they are distinguishable, stop dealing with such pathetically slow things at such low altitudes.
Go to space, go to crafts circling Earth once every 90 minutes. In this case, they are going so fast, that their momentum throws them far enough to the side while gravity is pulling them down that the don't get closer to Earth (on average, ignoring air drag).

But even that doesn't distinguish much. The main difference is that in the time it takes them to orbit, Earth has moved over slightly, so instead of their track following the same great circle over Earth it precesses around.

For the real difference go to a geostationary orbit. In that case in the GC model they should fall straight to Earth. In the HC case, their sideways momentum means they orbit instead, yet remain over the same point.

Btw, i didn't insult you, i am insulting HC theory, and if you decided to believe in it without one single experimental proof which is able to corroborate veracity of that garbage of a theory, then i appeal to you to reconsider the basis upon which this stupid belief system stands, with the greatest possible attention.
No, you did insult him, as you have done yet again.

Again, we are not beleiving it without a single experimental proof.
That would be you. You reject HC and all the evidence for it and instead believe GC with no evidence at all backing it up. (and no, this like your zig-zag BS and all your other crap is not evidence for GC or against HC. They can't distinguish between the 2).
You repeatedly call HC a garbage theory or other crap like that, yet you can't mount a single rational argument against it.

No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.
And now you are going off onto a completely different topic.

No experiment has ever actually obtained a result of 0 for Earth's velocity. Instead they have either been unable to measure a velocity, or they have measured a velocity relative to some other entity.

This is because there is no absolute reference frame to measure Earth's velocity in.

However, they have been able to measure Earth's angular velocity, with early measurements indicating a period of roughly 24 hours, but with significant error (some over an hour).
More recent experiments have measured it much more accurately, measuring Earth's sidereal day of 23 hours and 56 minutes.

So no, we have measured Earth's motion.

The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of Arago, De Coudre's induction, Fizeau, Fresnell drag, Hoek, Jaseja's lasers, Jenkins, Klinkerfuess, Michelson-Morley interferometry, Lord Rayleigh's polarimetry, Troughton-Noble torque, and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."
I notice you left out Sagnac. Why was that? Is it because it showed rotational motion?
As for Airy's failure, no, that still detected motion. It detected motion of Earth relative to the "aether", which also holds as just motion relative to the distant star. It just can't tell which is moving.

But yes, several of those didn't detect Earth's motion.
Do you know something else that they didn't detect? Earth being at rest.

When the heliocentric theory was actually crushed into pieces irretrievably? In 1871. it happened!!!
Nope. It has never been crushed. It has had ignorant crap piled onto it which it has come out from even stronger. It has been verified repeatedly.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water added. This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.
Airy's experiment was a complete failure. It didn't prove anything at all.
It was based upon flawed assumptions.

It assumed light would propagate through an aether at a constant direction and merely be slowed down by the water without the water changing the direction at all.
It was a complete failure because it relied upon this completely flawed assumption.

If water is capable of interacting with light in such a way that it will slow it down, then it is capable of interacting with it in such a way as to pull it along with it.

What this means is that once again you would expect the same result for GC and HC.
But an important thing this experiment did rely upon which was shown, that Earth is moving relative to the stars or relative to any aether which exists.

These are quotes about one other experiment (Michelson-Morley experiment) that was performed 10 years after famous Airy's failure experiment (with the same results):
No. They had a completely different result.

Airy's failure and the experiments leading up to it showed motion. It showed that if aether is real, Earth moves relative to it.
MM showed the exact opposite, that if aether is real, Earth does not move relative to it.
That alone is enough to show the aether model is flawed and that aether does not exist.

But Airys failure still showed motion of Earth relative to something.
So neither of these show that Earth is stationary. Instead it shows there is no aether and you cannot use a simple linear interferometer to measure Earth's motion.

A stationary Earth is not a valid solution.

Take for example the words of physicist G. J. Whitrow in the 1950s:
Which shows how people like you may ignorantly latch onto various experiments and proclaim certain conclusions about their results without adequate analysis, exactly as you have done in claiming they show Earth to be stationary.

As "preposterous" as the measurements of Arago, Trouton and Noble, Airy, Thorndyke and Kennedy, Theodore de Coudres and several others. They also found the earth to have a zero velocity through space.
No, they didn't. No one has found Earth's velocity to be 0. They have all relied upon some assumption which was flawed, like aether being real.

LINCOLN BARNETT agrees:
“No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
And he is wrong. One of the earliest was Foucault's pendulum. The Sagnac effect also does it.

Now then, if you want to discuss this more, MAKE A NEW TOPIC FOR IT!!!
No more discussing your ignorance of interferometry and light here.
Leave this topic for your ignorance of relative motion and another failure to distinguish GC from HC.

I already did it with these words (post # 18) :
No you didn't. You just repeated the same strawmen. At no point did you address what he had said.


It means that within our SECOND EXP. (WITH GLASS CONTAINER), the ball after reaching spot x (in front of our panel with black and yellow squares) would have to show to us the result (consequence) of alleged conserved initial momentum (we can neglect air drag impact on a ball - which is irrelevant according to you and Jack).
No it wouldn't. It was accelerated relative to the truck.
The only person suggesting it magically keeps it initial momentum is you.
Enclosing the system so the air moves with it will only change the effect of air resistance which would be negligible.

The ball would have to fall to the ground SIGNIFICANTLY FARTHER TO THE LEFT than in Mythbusters' experiment because of the conserved initial momentum, not because of insignificant influence of air drag to the ball.
How was it magically conserved?

The only thing to make it move with the truck after being fired from it would be air resistance and contacting the walls.
So no, if air resistance is negligible it would fall to the same place.

Now, you are better conditioned (i hope) to understand these words (post # 1) :
Nope.
They are still just as wrong now as they were then.
The plane doesn't lose its mass (inertia), nor does it magically fly at double speed.
It is still flying in the air and thus the engines need to exert a force to overcome air resistance which is trying to move the plane with Earth (ignoring wind).
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 30, 2018, 02:12:43 AM
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, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels 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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2018, 02:53:47 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 30, 2018, 03:06:20 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sceptimatic on January 30, 2018, 05:00:38 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.


If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.


Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: inquisitive on January 30, 2018, 05:09:48 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.


If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.
Where would this observer be?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 30, 2018, 05:14:57 AM
If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 30, 2018, 10:20:32 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 30, 2018, 11:03:06 AM
Long time no see, cikljamas! How have you been?

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???

No, it's another example of you confusing yourself by mixing up frames of reference. Again.

"As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum)."

No. Using your numbers, relative to the surface of the earth, it's 400 km/h, not 800. In your example, both aircraft and earth are moving east at 400 km/hr before the plane starts its takeoff roll because the plane is stationary relative to the surface of the earth. The aircraft accelerates to 400 km/h relative to the surface in order to take off; the eastward speed of the earth is unchanged (still 400 km/h in an earth-centered inertial frame). In that ECI frame, the aircraft speed is now 800 km/h, but 400 km/h relative to the surface below it, which is also moving at 400 km/h.

There is no problem here other than you getting yourself tangled up.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on January 30, 2018, 11:23:01 AM
If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
The airplanes, the atmosphere, and the ground are all traveling 1000 m/h Eastbound when the airplane is on the ground.  This means that with respect to each other, neither the airplane, nor the atmosphere, nor the ground is moving (minus small variations in local windspeed).  This is the easiest way to view and/or calculate the motion.

If you insist on an "'absolute' frame of reference - with respect to the stars", then it makes things more complicated and that's why you're not understanding.  With all the numbers you've provided, an airplane traveling 500 m/h west for 6 hours will have a net change in position of 3000 miles east, but only with respect to the outside frame you've decided to maintain.  At the same time, the Earth will have rotated 6000 miles in the same time frame with respect to the same outside frame.  Although both are traveling east in your absolute frame, the airplane only goes half as far because of it's westward velocity and the net position change on Earth is 3000 miles to the west of where it started.  Exactly where we would calculate if we didn't bother adding in a superfluous reference frame. 

You've calculated the airplane's movement with respect to the outside frame, but you forgot, whether inadvertently or not, to remember the Earth's movement in the outside frame.


Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Papa Legba on January 30, 2018, 11:27:16 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???

You're right.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2018, 12:22:09 PM
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.
Because it does.
Just because the atmosphere is dragging you doesn't mean you can't use the thrust from an engine to move relative to it.
In the case of Cox, their thrust matched the drag so they were able to continue at a constant speed relative to Earth to watch the sun stay put. (note: I have no idea what you are referring to so I am doing this as a hypothetical).

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.
Yes, you do appear to be absolutely mental.
Brian Cox and the pilot flew at a speed to counteract the rotation of Earth. No magic moving sun required.

If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.
No they wouldn't.
If they were on a spinning ball (which they were), an observer watching the sun set (depending on the location of the observer and the plane and the sun) would see the plane flying forwards (i.e. west) relative to the plane, flying off towards the sun.
Why do you say such stupid crap like the plane would need to appear to go backwards?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2018, 12:27:30 PM
Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
If they started flying in a straight line then they would ascend until their engines failed. If instead they flew level, then they would see Earth appear to fly past below them.

I also notice you have changed the speeds and positions.
Assuming they are still taking off against Earth's rotation (which produces a ground speed of 700 km/hr), at a speed of 400 km/hr relative to Earth, they would be travelling at 400 km/hr relative to Earth, and relative to an Earth centred Earth rotating reference frame they would be travelling at 300 km/hr (700-400). You appear to be making the same mistake as the riddle with the missing dollar.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
Sure, if they are on the equator.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993
Yes, read more of you getting your ass handed to you.

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :
Except there are plenty which can.
We have geostationary and geosynchronous satellites which require Earth to spin, and the observed ground track of other satellites show Earth is spinning.
We have Foucault's pendula which show an apparent precession due to Earth's rotation which varies with latitude.
We have laser ring gyroscopes.
We have the Eotvos effect.

These are all experiments which can detect Earth's motion.
Now stop just repeating the same lies.

This is obviously death of HC theory, however, i don't doubt JackBlack is going to come up with some utterly nonsensical attempt of refutation of this obviously irrefutable argument...Until JackBlack step in, maybe some other heliocentrist would want to take a shot???
You mean this is obviously just more ignorant stupidity by people that wish to reject reality (i.e. you).
However you don't doubt that myself or someone else will come and refute your pathetic garbage with a completely rational argument, showing just how easy it is to refute yet another of your "irrefutable" arguments.

I am yet to see you make an argument that doesn't take more than 5 seconds of rational thought to realise it is pure garbage.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: inquisitive on January 30, 2018, 12:30:16 PM
If I jump up in the air where will I land 2s later?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 30, 2018, 01:57:39 PM
Hi Alpha, nice to hear from you again! I live one day at a time (day by day)...If you live each day as it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right! :)

As for my argument, i am not sure if you are 100 % sure that i am right, but i am sure that you can't be less than 99 % sure about it.

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???

HOW????????????

Don't play dumb again, please!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: frenat on January 30, 2018, 02:04:24 PM
Planes fly in relation to the Earth not some outside absolute.  You're trying to change the frame of reference for your hypothetical person on the train.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2018, 02:18:11 PM
As for my argument, i am not sure if you are 100 % sure that i am right, but i am sure that you can't be less than 99 % sure about it.
I am 100% sure that you are wrong.
I am fairly confident that he is as well.
So it would be closer to 0% sure that you are right.

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).
How about we do it inside, so the air is moving with the train rather than outside.

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the [inside] of a stationary train, for a change?
No, it wouldn't.
The same applies when the train is in motion.


Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?
Our walker would be walking, not flying.
But lets move them back inside the train.
As the air is moving with the train, there would be no difference in time for them flying forwards or backwards from one end of the train to the other.

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth)
Well at least you are now starting to label your own crap as a myth.

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???
You don't seem to understand momentum at all.
It starts with a particular momentum, which is dependent upon the reference frame used.
In an Earth Centred Earth Rotating frame, this would be the momentum of Earth.
As it starts its take-off (i.e. accelerating along the run way) in a direction against the rotation of Earth it is losing this initial momentum, but not all of it.
So it doesn't keep it's entire initial momentum.

Now how about you address what actually happens rather than repeated strawmen?

Don't play dumb again, please!
You are far too good at that for either us to have a chance.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 30, 2018, 03:40:32 PM
Hi Alpha, nice to hear from you again! I live one day at a time (day by day)...If you live each day as it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right! :)

Can't argue with that.

Quote
Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?
Quote

It would take the same amount of time to walk the same length of train, whether the train was moving or not, if your speed relative to the train is the same. That should be obvious.

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

The frame of reference is the train, right?

Quote
Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

IN the previous step you had a walker. Now you describe flying. 10 km/h relative to the moving train, or 10 km/h relative to the earth?

Quote
Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

Momentum is conserved in a closed system. If you're in a stationary or moving train and start walking, your change in momentum (mass times velocity, mv) is balanced by a change in the opposite direction of train's momentum (if it were free of friction or, more likely, transferred to the earth through friction between the train's wheels and the earth). Since a train (and even more so for the earth) is vastly more massive than a person, its change in momentum is hard to detect, but it's there. If you start flying by pushing against the air, your change in momentum is balanced by the change in momentum of the air you moved, which is eventually transferred, through friction, to the earth.

Quote
So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???

HOW????????????

It transfers momentum to the earth, or gains it from the earth, when it accelerates (which depends on the direction it's accelerating). The earth is so massive that its change in momentum is vastly too small to measure, but it's there, but its speed does change infinitesimally. The momentum of the Concorde changes; the momentum of the closed system (earth, atmosphere, Concorde) is conserved.

You're making this way more complex than it needs to be and you're confusing yourself in the process.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on January 30, 2018, 07:55:27 PM
If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68699.msg1849993#msg1849993

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1 :

NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :


The first video miss represents the Michelson Morley experiment. It also seems to exclude the Foucault Pendulum, but I didn't get too far in.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Macarios on January 30, 2018, 09:45:33 PM
Balloon carried by 300 km/h wind westwards would lose initial angular momentum.
When wind stos blowing, it means air now rotates with Earth again, carrying the balloon just like before the wind.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2018, 11:06:46 PM
NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 1: 

Let's just start with you claim that, "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION".
I agree that no experiment can detect any absolute linear motion of the earth, but there are numerous experiments that can measure absolute rotational motion.

I can present more material on absolute rotational motion being detectable while absolute linear motion is not.

The earliest demonstration of the earth's rotation were Léon Foucault's gyroscope, but he had no means of keeping it spinning, so was not "convincing".
Then came the Foucault Pendulum, which would swing for long enough to show rotation, though modern ones are kept in motion by a small magnetic impulse.

After that the the Michelson–Morley experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) and numerous later similar experiments have lead the conclusion that linear motion was not detectable.

But the work of Sagnac leading to the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment) proved that the earth rotated at roughly once per 23 hours and 56 minutes.
Since that time ring-laser gyroscopes in many forms have become commonplace and prove beyond a dould that the earth rotates once per sidereal day.

This earlier post presents a set of connected (in findings, not in time) experiments:
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can you please explain how flat earth can be possible? « Message by rabinoz on July 15, 2017, 01:24:09 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71197.msg1929351#msg1929351)

<< Link corrected >>
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sceptimatic on January 31, 2018, 02:37:51 AM
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: totallackey on January 31, 2018, 02:48:20 AM
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#
Exactly correct.

Good to see you back posting scepti...
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 03:35:24 AM
I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.
Nope. You are throwing logic and common sense out the window to pretend your delusions are correct.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
i.e. go at the same speed, not the same velocity (which has directionality as well.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.
Yes, SPEED, not velocity.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.
Nope. If you take the time to understand what Brian is saying, you realise they are discussing speed and there is no problem at all.

To compare it to the train, it would be moving at the same speed as the train, but in the opposite direction. That will make the outside appear to stand still. Moving even faster makes it look like the outside is going "backwards".
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 31, 2018, 04:37:41 AM
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

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, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels 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 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).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him forward at let's say 10 km/h).

What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train. This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.

You get it now?

Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???


Feel free to play dumb as long as you want... 8)
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 31, 2018, 11:06:16 AM
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

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, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels 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 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).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

That's a poor example because a drone needs to be light (so it can fly with the least power necessary) while having a fair amount of surface area (for the airfoils, structure, mechanics, electronics, etc.). Because of this, aerodynamic drag will quickly transfer the drone's inertia to the air around it, which then transfers that momentum to the car. This will bring the drone to a stop with respect to the air inside the train car, and, presumably, with respect to the car itself.

Quote
What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him [it?] forward at let's say 10 km/h).

For the sake of the thought experiment, let's say the drone does maintain its forward velocity imparted by the walker's velocity with respect to the car (perhaps it's so streamlined that it has zero horizontal drag), and the drone keeps pace with our walker.

So now he commands it to move 10 km/h faster than he's walking, in the same direction he's walking. Is that what you mean? I'm assuming that's the case in what follows.

Quote
What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train.

The walker is moving 10 km/h with respect to the train car and the drone is moving 20 km/h with respect to the car. If they're moving in the opposite direction that the train is moving at 10 km/h, the walker is not moving with respect to the ground, and the drone is moving at 10 km/h wrt the ground in the opposite direction as the train. If  they are both moving in the train in the same direction the train is moving at 10 km/h, then the walker is moving at 20 km/h and the drone is moving at 30 km/h, all with respect to the ground.

Quote
This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.

You get it now?

I guess. The bigger question is, do you?

Quote
Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

So he's moving 10 km/h toward the back of the train and, thus, not moving with respect to the ground. OK.

Quote
Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

In that case he would be hovering over the same spot wrt the ground as the train passes below him at 10 km/h. Is that what you mean?

In either case it would take exactly the same length of time (3.6 seconds) to move 10 m wrt the train.

10 m / (10 km/h) = 10 m / (10,000 m/h) = (1 / 1000) h

(1 / 1000) h * 3600 sec / h  = 3.6 sec.

Why would it be different?

Or, by flying above the train at 10 km/h with respect to the ground in the opposite direction the train is moving at 10 km/h, then he's moving at 20 km/h wrt the train, and it would take half that time to cover 10 m of train. So?

Quote
Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

His momentum changed when he started walking. The momentum of the system (walker, train, earth) stays the same, so he gained momentum from (or lost momentum to) the train and earth (depending on which direction he accelerated in).

Quote
So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???[/i]

It doesn't. Its momentum changes when it accelerates. Momentum of the Concorde and the atmosphere and the earth together is conserved.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on January 31, 2018, 12:31:53 PM
Alpha, forget the ground, because the ground is our inertial frame of reference, which is not so important in our thought experiment.

Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

This is crucial moment in our thought experiment.

When our walker walks the same distance in the moving train vs stationary train it takes the same amount of time for him to cross that distance, as i already explained few times so far, only the point of his arrival will be the different when viewing from the inertial frame of reference a.k.a. absolute FOR, a.k.a. the ground.

However, his drone will get faster at the back side of the train because his speed will have to be added to the speed of the train, in another words his drone will move independently (because his drone is detached from the base of the train which carries our walker to the front side of the train) of the rigid construction of the train.

Another important reason why his drone will move 20 kmh with respect to the train (although our walker will walk only 10 kmh with respect to the train) is the mythical conserved initial momentum. Of course it wouldn't work in reality, but you have to assume and TO ACCEPT this theoretical construct all the way up until you will be ready to recant your HC religion, because as soon as you start to question this construct your whole theory collapses as a house of cards.

You can't discard this theoretical construct in the case of our thought example but in the same time use this same construct when needed to explain away this very issue :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth.
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?
Their answer is INERTIA (a.k.a. conserved initial momentum) which is absolutely ridiculous explanation, but that is exactly how they try to explain away this heliocentric conundrum.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on January 31, 2018, 12:40:10 PM
You can't discard this theoretical construct in the case of our thought example but in the same time use this same construct when needed to explain away this very issue :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all but still flies 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND due to the roatation of the earth.
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.
Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?
Their answer is INERTIA (a.k.a. conserved initial momentum) which is absolutely ridiculous explanation, but that is exactly how they try to explain away this heliocentric conundrum.
It's not a conundrum.  I explained it to you earlier on this page. 

Relative to the stars, the westbound plane does, in fact, move eastward.  But you're forgetting that relative to the stars, the Earth is moving eastward twice as fast, so the plane's location will always be west of where it started relative to the Earth. 

Which is exactly where it would be if we did the whole problem without a superfluous external reference frame.

There is no conundrum here except why you would use an external reference frame for the plane and then forget to use the same reference frame for the Earth.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on January 31, 2018, 12:51:47 PM
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :
To show you are full of shit, yes, it would suffice to those with intellectual honesty and rationality.

However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)
Yes, because you are full of shit. We explained why.
If you were honest you would respond to why.

...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...
We already did. It failed miserably.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.
And there you go setting up another pathetic false analogy.

Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward.
Yet another abismal failure from you, being completely incapable of comparing Earth to any rational anaolgy, instead you need to continually lie and isrepresent it.

But nope, you are wrong yet again.
The person is walking relative to the trian.
Yes, initially the drone is moving with him due to the force applied by his hand.
When he removes his hand, yes the drone has a bit of forward momentum.
However, once it has been released you have the drone moving through the air, which is moving with the train.
This produces drag.
You have no force to counter this drag.
This means the drone will slow down.

You have failed to describe reality yet again.

What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.
What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train. This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.
And yet again you lie.

What is there pulling the concorde along the ground?
It's engines.
What is there pulling it through the sky?
It's engines.
In both cases it is the same.
There is no magic addition of speed.
The Concorde starts moving along the ground due to the thrust of its engines pulling it/pushing it through the air. It then leaves the ground and continues moving through the air.
There is no magic addition of extra speed.

You get it now?
I got it from the beginning. Do you get it now, or do you need to go back to school and learn some simple physics?

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?
Again, WHO GIVES A SHIT?
The air does not move with the train, it moves with Earth.
Your analogy does not acurately represent the situation.
Discuss what happens when you fly inside the train, where the air is moving with the train.

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum
Why would we need to explain this?
It doesn't happen.
If you want to discuss your fantasy land, go ahead, but we don't need to explain it. We will stay explaining reality.

Feel free to play dumb as long as you want... 8)
Again, you do far too good a job of that.


Another important reason why his drone will move 20 kmh with respect to the train (although our walker will walk only 10 kmh with respect to the train) is the mythical conserved initial momentum.
Yes, you do seem to like discussing this mythical concept of yours, rather than reality, yet you repeatedly pretend it is what reality is meant to be.

You can't discard this theoretical construct in the case of our thought example but in the same time use this same construct when needed to explain away this very issue :
We don't.
You are blatantly msirepresenting how it works.
The momentum doesn't magically get conserved in such a way that nothing can remove it like you pretend.

Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?
Their answer is INERTIA (a.k.a. conserved initial momentum) which is absolutely ridiculous explanation, but that is exactly how they try to explain away this heliocentric conundrum.
NO IT ISN'T!
Stop blatantly lying about us just because you cannot honestly and ratioanly refute what we say.

The reason it works like this is because planes fly through the air. This results in drag of the air significantly affecting their speed and results in the planes speed being relative to the air.
As the air (mainly) rotates with Earth, the plane moves relative to Earth.

That is why that works. Notice how inertia isn't discussed at all?
A key reason why is the ENGINES!!
Planes don't just let their inertia carry them. They have engines to provide thrust.

Now compare that to orbits.
An orbit at a particular altitude is the same velocity in an Earth Centred Earth Rotating reference frame, regardless of if it is going east or west. This results in the speed relative to the ground being significantly different.
While inertia can play into this, the engines used to get them into orbit make it irrelavent except when discussing how much fuel/impulse is required and where is the best location to launch from (the equator is best for orbits going with Earth, the worst for orbits going against Earth or polar orbit).

Now are you going to rationally and honestly address what people have said or continue with these pathetic strawmen and lies?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 31, 2018, 04:27:37 PM
Alpha, forget the ground, because the ground is our inertial frame of reference, which is not so important in our thought experiment.

So we're only concerned with movement relative to the train car. OK.

Quote
Is he flying at 10 km/h with respect to the train now, still toward the back? Why the change from walking to flying?

This is crucial moment in our thought experiment.

When our walker walks the same distance in the moving train vs stationary train it takes the same amount of time for him to cross that distance, as i already explained few times so far, only the point of his arrival will be the different when viewing from the inertial frame of reference a.k.a. absolute FOR, a.k.a. the ground.

There has never been any issue with that.

Quote
However, his drone will get faster at the back side of the train because his speed will have to be added to the speed of the train, in another words his drone will move independently (because his drone is detached from the base of the train which carries our walker to the front side of the train) of the rigid construction of the train.

Hold it. That makes no sense.

Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?

Quote
Another important reason why his drone will move 20 kmh with respect to the train (although our walker will walk only 10 kmh with respect to the train) is the mythical conserved initial momentum.

That makes no sense, either. What would cause the drone to change from 10 km/h to 20 km/h? Earlier you stipulated that the walker commanded it to accelerate by 10 km/h. Is that still the case?

Quote
Of course it wouldn't work in reality, but you have to assume and TO ACCEPT this theoretical construct all the way up until you will be ready to recant your HC religion, because as soon as you start to question this construct your whole theory collapses as a house of cards.

Will you cut the useless rhetoric and just explain your idea as clearly and calmly as you can, please.

Quote
You can't discard this theoretical construct in the case of our thought example but in the same time use this same construct when needed to explain away this very issue :

1. An airplane flies at 1500 miles/h ("absolute" speed = earth's speed + local speed) EASTBOUND

OK. I take it we're near the equator and the plane's airspeed is 500 mi/h, assuming no wind.

By the way, this is usually referred to as an Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) frame of reference. Inertial means the frame of reference is not rotating, so fixed points on the surface of the earth are moving relative to it because of earth's rotation.

Quote
2. An airplane is parked at the airport and doesn't move at all relative to the ground but still flies moves 1000 miles/h EASTBOUND in ECI coordinates due to the rotation of the earth.

OK. Do you agree with the corrections and clarifications made?

Quote
3. An airplane flies at 500 miles/h "absolute" speed due west (within earth's local frame of reference), but this airplane actually travel (within the ECI "absolute" frame reference - with respect to the stars) ALSO EASTBOUND since the speed of earth's rotation (1000 miles/h) TOWARDS EAST overpowers airplane's local speed (500 miles/h), and it's local (within earth's local frame of reference) local westbound direction.

Yes. That's why the sun will still set in the west even though you're flying west, at 500 mi/hr airspeed and no wind, at the equator. It sets more slowly than it would if you weren't moving west at high speed, but it still sets.

Quote
Now, when we ask heliocentrists how is this possible, what is an answer which they offer to us every single time?

What's not possible about it? In both cases the airplane is flying nose-first through the atmosphere with 500 mi/hr airspeed.

Quote
Their answer is INERTIA (a.k.a. conserved initial momentum) which is absolutely ridiculous explanation, but that is exactly how they try to explain away this heliocentric conundrum.

No, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it? You seem to want to insist this should happen and get all wrapped around the axle when told it doesn't. You are, quite simply, wrong.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 01, 2018, 04:05:53 AM
Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?

Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?

Our walker (as far as he himself is concerned) also cancels out continually (by every step that he makes) initial inertia which is the result of train's motion in counter direction, however since he is constantly in direct contact with the rigid surface of the base of the train, he can't harness such (canceled out) inertia in order to proceed faster towards the back side of the train.

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

No, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it?

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Let's take a look at one another thought experiment :

Imagine one big hall which entire base is rolling 60 km/h in one direction, and in the middle of that big rolling field some biker ride his bike in counter direction. For the observer who stands at grandstand of our big bowl/arena this biker seems as if he is standing still, although his bike is running 60 km/h. Now, our biker fires a rocket (equipped with camera) sideways. What we are going to see in the footage of that camera which is attached to that rocket? It is more than obvious that in the footage of that camera we are going to notice very distinctly how the base of our big hall is rolling perpendicularly to the direction of motion of flying rocket. (left to right if the biker fired rocket to the right, or right to left if the biker fired rocket to the left).

Now, you can argue that such result would be the consequence of carrying out our experiment inside non-moving hall. O.K., then feel free to carry out the same experiment inside the moving train and see how much different the final result would be. I assure you that even though there would be some minor differences, the final result of such experiment would prove my point, without the shadow of a doubt.

EDIT :

Another part of an experiment above would be as following :

Our biker holds his little drone which initial inertia has been canceled out already due to the motion of our biker (60 km/h) and now our biker releases the drone which also flies 60 km/h.

What would be the result of it?
The drone would fly away towards another end of our big hall while our biker will still stay apparently (for the observer who stands at grandstand of our big hall) at rest.

Now, imagine that our biker rides a bike in the same big hall, but this time entire base is at rest.
When he arrives in the middle of the hall he reaches 60 km/h, and in that same moment he also puts in forward motion his little drone.

What would be the result of it?
The drone will keep the pace with our biker by hanging over his head all the way to the end of the riding field of our big hall.

If we conducted such experiment inside running train, we could expect somewhat different result (with respect to the test with rolling field), due to the air flow (air drag) inside the train, but such result would still be much closer to the result yielded in a "rolling field" experiment than in a "stationary field" experiment.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 01, 2018, 10:25:50 AM
Why does the speed of the train matter if we aren't concerned with the ground, and only with motion with respect to the train?

If the walker is walking at 10 km/h and releases the drone (which has the remarkable property of zero drag), it will continue moving in the same direction at the same 10 km/h. Why would it not?
<rather confused explanation>

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

Now there's a clearer explanation of what you, incorrectly, seem to think happens.

You think that removing the physical connection between an object and a moving train would immediately cause the object to cease traveling at the velocity of the train. That is wrong. Period.

You can test this for yourself by traveling on a train and, while it's not accelerating (i.e. not speeding up, slowing down, or turning) drop something like a tennis ball. If the train is traveling at, say, 36 km/h (36 makes the math easy) and it takes the dropped ball a half second to fall to the floor (dropping it from 125 cm will be close to that), then the train moves

d = 36 km/h * 1000 m/km * (1/3600) h/s * (1/2) s
 = 36,000 m / (3600  s) * (1/2) s
 = 10 m/s * (1/2) s
 = 5 m

in the time it takes the ball to drop.

That's a fairly slow train. A train traveling at twice that speed (72 km/h) moves 10 meters in that time.

Do you really think that if you hold a ball about 125 cm above the floor of a moving train and release it, it will land several meters toward the rear of the train? Of course it won't. Yet this is what you surmise would happen.

That should be very easy to test, without the need for a drone or running down the aisle of a moving train.

Quote
This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

Just try the dropped-ball experiment instead of rambling any more about effects that you think should happen but don't.

Quote
No, inertia is simply why the aircraft doesn't immediately lose 1000 mi/hr of eastward speed and stop moving in the ECI frame the moment its wheels leave the earth. Why should it?

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???

Did you mean 1,000 mi/h instead of 100?

At any rate, no. I don't agree with that. Why do you think I would?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 01, 2018, 12:34:20 PM
Our walker (as far as he himself is concerned) also cancels out continually (by every step that he makes) initial inertia which is the result of train's motion in counter direction, however since he is constantly in direct contact with the rigid surface of the base of the train, he can't harness such (canceled out) inertia in order to proceed faster towards the back side of the train.
And there you go ignoring the air again.
As the air is moving with the train, the drone which moves through the air will move relative to the train. (Assuming you are using some of the simpler flight modes rather than the GPS lock one).

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result?
Inside the train, NO!
The only difference will be in the time taken.

Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train
10 km/hr relative to the train is still 10 km/hr relative to the train.

Yes. Why?
No he wont.

He wont magically start running faster when going towards the back of the train.

Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.
No more so than he will fly past the based of the train when running forwards.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.
Yes, runners move faster than walkers. But the running running 10 km/hr forwards or backwards will still take the same time going forwards or backwards.

So, you do agree that the airfraft is going to lose 100 mi/h eastward speed sooner or later (rather sooner than later)???
Why 100 miles/hr?
What would majically make it lose it?

Let's take a look at one another thought experiment :
How about you deal with your repeated failures first?
You get your ass handed to you, with a clear explanation of the massive flaws in your claims, and rather than try any rational response you ignore it and move on to another BS analogy?

Imagine one big hall which entire base is rolling 60 km/h in one direction
And yet again, you intentionally make the comparison dishonest. This does not match how Earth should behave. For it to match Earth you need the entire hall moving.

So this is yet another dishonest failure on your part.
Due to how many of these I have already refuted, I will just skip this pile of crap.

If we conducted such experiment inside running train, we could expect somewhat different result (with respect to the test with rolling field), due to the air flow (air drag) inside the train, but such result would still be much closer to the result yielded in a "rolling field" experiment than in a "stationary field" experiment.
You started off well.
The experiment inside a moving train would match that of a stationary field without wind.
This is because the only difference between the 2 is that one has the entire system translating.
This produces no effect on the relative motions.
The air moves with the train, just like it moves with Earth. Stop ignoring that, and stop ignoring how inertia actually works.

Also note that the kinds of experiments you are suggesting have already been carried out using boats.

When the boat is moving steadily, motion inside the boat is the same as motion when the boat is at a dock or motion on land.
It is only motion outside the boat, exposed to the wind, which is different.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Macarios on February 01, 2018, 05:08:21 PM
If Concorde turns directly to the north, or to the south, it follows meridian.
How to see then movement of the ground to the left or right?
Without intentional turn airplane lean on air and don't drift aside.
It follows the movement of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 02, 2018, 04:24:32 AM
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Detecting the aether wind was the next challenge Michelson set himself after his triumph
in measuring the speed of light so accurately.  Naturally, something that allows solid
bodies to pass through it freely is a little hard to get a grip on.  But Michelson realized
that, just as the speed of sound is relative to the air, so the speed of light must be relative
to the aether.  This must mean, if you could measure the speed of light accurately enough,
you could measure the speed of light travelling upwind, and compare it with the speed of
light travelling downwind, and the difference of the two measurements should be twice
the windspeed.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.  All the recent accurate measurements
had used light travelling to a distant mirror and coming back, so if there was an aether
wind along the direction between the mirrors, it would have opposite effects on the two
parts of the measurement, leaving a very small overall effect.  There was no technically
feasible way to do a one-way determination of the speed of light. 
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.  As he
explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on the following
puzzle:

Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both swim at
the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second).  The river is flowing at a steady
rate, say 3 feet per second.  The swimmers race in the following way: they both start at
the same point on one bank.  One swims directly across the river to the closest point on
the opposite bank, then turns around and swims back.  The other stays on one side of the
river, swimming upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the
width of the river, then swims back to the start.  Who wins? 
Let’s consider first the swimmer going upstream and back.  Going 100 feet upstream, the
speed relative to the bank is only 2 feet per second, so that takes 50 seconds.  Coming
back, the speed is 8 feet per second, so it takes 12.5 seconds, for a total time of 62.5
seconds.

The swimmer going across the flow is trickier.  It won’t do simply to aim directly for the
opposite bank-the flow will carry the swimmer downstream.  To succeed in going
directly across, the swimmer must actually aim upstream at the correct angle (of course, a
real swimmer would do this automatically).  Thus, the swimmer is going at 5 feet per
second, at an angle, relative to the river, and being carried downstream at a rate of 3 feet
per second.  If the angle is correctly chosen so that the net movement is directly across, in
one second the swimmer must have moved four feet across:  the distances covered in one
second will form a 3,4,5 triangle.  So, at a crossing rate of 4 feet per second, the swimmer
gets across in 25 seconds, and back in the same time, for a total time of 50 seconds.  The
cross-stream swimmer wins.  This turns out to true whatever their swimming speed.  (Of
course, the race is only possible if they can swim faster than the current!
)

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

Now, we have to be smart and inventive as Michelson was.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:

A quick reminder :

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

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

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.

First we have a runner No 1 who runs 20 km/h through let's say 1000 m long interior of the stationary train.

It is going to take 3 minutes for him to cross the entire distance of 1000 m.

Now, our runner No 2 runs also 20 km/h (at least during the first 10th (100 m) of the whole distance) across the interior of slowly moving train in a counter direction of train's motion.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

1. Air drag will be so negligible that we could discount it entirely!
2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance) of our runner NO 2 at the finish line (the backside of our moving train) due to the property of running (see above)!

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 02, 2018, 08:00:51 AM
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 02, 2018, 08:19:30 AM
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.
I don't know which is worse, repeatedly making the same errors despite having them explained to you multiple times, or the delusion that you are even holding your own in the debate, to say nothing of winning it. 

You seem to think this is some kind of epic title fight when every post against you is a knockout punch, and for some reason, you can't even recognize you're wrong when it is explained to you patiently and repeatedly.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 02, 2018, 08:48:44 AM
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.

Of course what i claim is expected. However, this is the end of the game, also. Feel free to admit that too. :)

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Macarios on February 02, 2018, 11:38:43 AM
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

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, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels 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 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).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him forward at let's say 10 km/h).

What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train. This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.

You get it now?

Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???


Feel free to play dumb as long as you want... 8)

Concorde is "hanging on the air".
Thrust moves it forward against air drag, aerodynamic won't let it drift left or right.
After left or right turn it will keep following local meridian just like the air it leans on.

If the train goes at constant speed, windows are closed, and drone is observed inside the train,
simple turning the drone on will make it lean on the air in the train, and simple start moving together with the car.
To make it follow the walker it is not enough to just let it hang in the air.
Drone has to add forward thrust (lean forward to add horizontal component to lifting propellers).

Walker on the train roof has air moving relative to the ground, not the train.
Contrary to that, air is moving with the Earth, not the surrounding Space.

Now you understand why Concorde follows meridian just as does the air it leans on.
Your argument is based on the air movement that doesn't happen that way.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 02, 2018, 12:20:35 PM
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.

Of course what i claim is expected. However, this is the end of the game, also. Feel free to admit that too. :)
If you use inertial FOR then thier times will be the same regardless of the train's velocity.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 02, 2018, 12:25:21 PM
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.
There you go with your delusions again.
It has been repeatedly shown that the truth is not on your side.

Regardless, even when the truth is on someones side, they can still make absolutely horrible arguments and lose a debate.
So far every "irrifutable" argument you have presented has been refuted.

It is also clear that the truth has not always been on your side. Previously you claimed Earth was flat, but have since recanted and claimed it is round.
Now you are still claiming it is geocentric; I wonder how long it will be until you admit it is not.

Introduction :
Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment
And here you go off on an irrelavent tangent.
How about you deal with the claims made in the OP before moving on to other experiments handing your ass to you?

M-M didn't prove Earth was stationary. It proved that either Earth was stationary, relative to an aether or the aether model was wrong.
It was consistent with ballistic theory and is consistent with relativity.
Sagnac proved that Earth was moving w.r.t. the aether if it exists, and showed balistic theory was wrong.
Stellar abberation, the basis of Airy's failure (which was just a complete failure incapable of showing anything), showed Earth was moving relative to an aether if it exists.

These results combined showed that there is no aether, or at least none in the sense it was used.
Light does not propogate through a medium travelling at some speed relative to this medium. Nor is light ballistic travelling at some speed relative to the source.
Instead light was seen to behave in a rather unusual way, having he same speed regardless of what it was measured against, as long as what it was measured against was an inertial reference frame.
So far, the only theory I know of that reconciles all these results is relativity.

Now deal with the OP, either admitting you were wrong or defending your claims before moving onto other ways to show you are wrong.

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
And that is quite irrelavent.
As you don't need to be in constant contact with the surface to continue along with the train.
Your swimmers were a wonderful example of that. Notice how they were touching the water which was moving?
Similarly, if you are in a train you are touching the air that is moving.

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result?
As was explained before: NO!!
There would be no diffference at all.
Regardless of what speed you go (relative to the train or the air inside the train), regardless of what method you use, as long as you do it the same for forwards and backwards, there is no difference.

You seem to act like when people run, their feet leave the ground and they they stay frozen in the air until their foot touches the ground at which point they continue moving.
In reality, they don't stop moving. Even when their feet are off the ground, they continue to move.

Stop ignoring this. Stop pretending their speed is magically changing.

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.
This was already refuted. Why do you repeat the same crap.
The base of the train will not slip below his feet any additional amount in either direction.

As a simple example, lets say our runner is going at 1 m/s and is in the air for 1 s each "step".
Lets also say the train is travelling at 1 m/s.

This means when the running is running backwards, their speed relative to an outside observer is 0 m/s. (1-1). When they are running forwards, their speed relative to an outside observer is 2 m/s.
This means that when running backwards they have cancelled out their initial momentum, but when running forwards, they have twice as much.
So while running backwards, they go into the air and are just moving up and down w.r.t. the outside observer, and the train passes below for 1 s at 1 m/s.
This means relative to the train they are moving 1 m backwards.
When running forwards, they go into the air and are now moving 2 m/s forwards.
In this time the train moves forward 1 m, but they move forward 2.
This means relative to the train they have moved 1 m forwards.

There is no difference between forwards and backwards.

With flying, again there is no difference because it flies relative to the air which moves the same as the train.

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.
No, first you need to understand simple physics rather than continually making claims which fly directly in their face.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.
And now you go changing it yet again, trying to make it an accelerating FOR.

2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!
What initial inertia?

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance)
No it won't.
They are still running at 20 km/hr relative to the train and will still take 3 minutes.

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!
Plenty of people already have.
It shows that you cannot determine if Earth is in motion by such a simple experiment.
I have also moved along a moving train, and moving planes, even running. Guess what? No magic change in speed when moving backwards.
When I ran in the plane (which was travelling much faster than I could run), I didn't magically fly backwards like your claims would indicate.

In fact, it is a very simple experiment to do.
Get in a moving vehicle, basically any will do, and get to a high speed (like cruising down the highway). Then while travelling at a constant speed, gently throw something forwards such that its speed would be much slower than the car. See if it magically flies backwards.
Guess what? It doesn't.
This refutes your nonsense.

You seem to have no understanding of inertia.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 02, 2018, 01:17:02 PM
Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Nice description of M-M, but it showed no aether wind, and I don't see the relevance to your problem.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What follows says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Quote
He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

If the train is accelerating, it's a different situation. Please stick to the original argument until it's settled.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 02, 2018, 02:50:36 PM
Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!
Plenty of people already have.
It shows that you cannot determine if Earth is in motion by such a simple experiment.
I have also moved along a moving train, and moving planes, even running. Guess what? No magic change in speed when moving backwards.
When I ran in the plane (which was travelling much faster than I could run), I didn't magically fly backwards like your claims would indicate.

You ran in the plane?
And people in white haven't taken you into custody?

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth
round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and
eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there
are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they
support geocentricity-

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected
the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth!
Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the
Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within
2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted
to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a
telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not
have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle
so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary
earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it
was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated
a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table
between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the
target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this
completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason
that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with
similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”

But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.
What Einstein meant to say by these words was this : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :

1. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + 2. NULL RESULT = 3. THE EARTH IS AT REST

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...

Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, *this was an extremely important discovery.* The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.

The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.

It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.

 If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

I hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 02, 2018, 02:51:07 PM
The only defense (that remained to these days) against geocentric implications of MMX experiment is that all interferometer experiments have yielded a "NULL" result ("no aether" whatsoever)!!!
Now, all you have to do is to check out whether this guy is telling the truth or not (Pay attention to what a guy is saying at 10 min in the video) : Lunacy - part 3 :
*1.* "NATURE", PAGE 590, AUG.1986 VOL. 322 : https://www.nature.com/articles/322590b0.pdf
*2.* The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations." This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Over many years, he developed increasingly sensitive apparatus, using them at higher altitudes and in open structures, making clear and positive detection of the ether. His experiments yielded systematic periodic effects which pointed to a similar identifiable axis of cosmic ether-drift, though of a variable magnitude, depending upon the season, time of day, density of materials shielding or surrounding the apparatus, and altitude at which the experiment was undertaken. He argued that basement locations, or interferometers shielded with opaque wood or metal housings, yielded the most tiny and insignificant effects, while those undertaken at higher altitudes and in less dense structures yielded more readily observable effects. The Michelson-Morley experiment, by comparison, was undertaken in the basement of a stone building closer to sea-level. Even so, it produced a slight positive result which was in agreement with Miller's results. Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is
independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years. Michelson and a few others of the period took Miller's work seriously, but Einstein and his followers appeared to view Miller only as a threat, something to be "explained away" as expeditiously as possible. Einstein in fact was catapulted into the public eye following the end of World War II. Nuclear physics was then viewed as heroic, and Einstein fast became a cultural icon whose work could not be criticized. Into this situation came the Shankland team, with the apparent mission to nail the lid down on Miller's coffin. In this effort, they nearly succeeded.

*3. Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment*

The original experiment of Michelson and Morley was performed in 1887 in order to confirm the theory that says earth exists in an unseen sea of pre-matter called the aether, and that the daily rotation of the earth around itself and the constant travel of the earth around Sol, our sun, would expose any instrument on the earth's surface to what was called an "aether wind". The concept is that the aether, conceived as the medium that allows light waves to travel from one point in the cosmos to another, would influence the measurement of the length of a path of light, depending on whether the path is in line with the expected "wind" or is oriented perpendicular to it.

The experiment did not find the expected result but rather than looking for a reason the aether wind might not be measurable in this way, the idea of there being an aether in the first place was questioned. Einstein then declared that an aether was "not necessary", and since Einstein's theories gained widespread acceptance, any further investigation into the subject of the aether was relegated to the fringes of science.

Many attempts have been made to explain why the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus of Michelson and Morley was improper for showing the aether wind, but no one has repeated the experiment in a different setting, such as in a satellite orbiting the earth.

Now recently Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video that was uploaded on YouTube:

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 02, 2018, 02:55:58 PM
Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Nice description of M-M, but it showed no aether wind, and I don't see the relevance to your problem.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What follows says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Quote
He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

If the train is accelerating, it's a different situation. Please stick to the original argument until it's settled.


The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 02, 2018, 04:02:53 PM
See my post above.

If you use inertial FOR then their times will be the same regardless of the train's velocity.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 02, 2018, 06:02:42 PM
The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 03, 2018, 01:40:25 AM
You ran in the plane?
And people in white haven't taken you into custody?
Why would people in white take me away?
Do you have any rational response, or just pathetic crap like this?

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth
round the sun.
That is a very dishonest way of presenting it.
Most know about it, it was of the experiments which showed the aether does not exist and that light propagates without a medium with the same speed in any inertial reference frame.
While yes it did fail to detect the movement of Earth relative to the aether, it didn't detect no motion of Earth. i.e. it did not show Earth is stationary.
The 2 are fundamentally different.


However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they
support geocentricity
No they aren't.
The FEers pretend they are, so they can pretend there is some grand conspiracy.
In reality, these experiments (or their basis) when taken together show the aether is BS.
I already addressed them in my previous post, but of course, you ignored them.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.
They are not evidence for geocentricity. They are evidence that Earth rotates and that relativity is correct, that is the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame.
They do not show Earth is stationary.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
And far more precise measurements have been carried out which still detect no motion even at much smaller velocities.

But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:
You have already spouted all this shit before and had it refuted repeatedly.
It did not measure any motion of Earth w.r.t. the aether.
It placed a lower limit on it.

Now quit with the irrelevant BS and stick to the failure that is your OP.
Before moving on with other garbage, either admit your OP is wrong or defend it.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
No, it wont.
The actual results refute your argument.
It doesn't matter if they are running or walking. It takes the same time going forwards or backwards.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 03, 2018, 02:20:40 AM
The only defense (that remained to these days) against geocentric implications of MMX experiment is that all interferometer experiments have yielded a "NULL" result ("no aether" whatsoever)!!!
Now, all you have to do is to check out whether this guy is telling the truth or not (Pay attention to what a guy is saying at 10 min in the video) : Lunacy - part 3 :
*1.* "NATURE", PAGE 590, AUG.1986 VOL. 322 : https://www.nature.com/articles/322590b0.pdf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you even read the material you reference?
At 11:00 in that video we have a reference to this note in Nature E. W. Silvertooth, “Special Relativity,” Nature, vol. J22 (August 1986): p.590.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/e17vovqgp9t8ofh/E.%20W.%20Silvertooth%20Special%20Relativity%20Nature%20vol.%20J22.%20August%201986.%20p.590%20a.png?dl=1)          (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nsk0q3zyuhckvj2/E.%20W.%20Silvertooth%20Special%20Relativity%20Nature%20vol.%20J22.%20August%201986.%20p.590%20b.png?dl=1)
Now at 11:28 in the video we have: “Results: The Field Exists, . . . . . . They said, ‘huh the field is there’ and not only is it there, but it measured precisely the way Michelson and Morley had predicted one hundred years earlier.”
No, the note in Nature does not say that! It actually says: “If present findings are sustained, it may not be necessary to extend the Michelson-Morley into outer space in order to obtain positive, as opposed to null, results in interferometric tests in linear motion”.
Talk about reading words that aren't there.

Quote from: E. W. Silvertooth
]Initial indications are that the beam modulation pattern is attributable to the Earth's motion through space at cosmic speeds commensurate with those found from the isotropy assumption of the 3K cosmic background radiation.
Far from supporting your stationary earth hypothesis Silvertooth claims that the earth is moving at "cosmic speeds".
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 03, 2018, 02:35:37 AM
The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

In seems that i have to remind you to this excerpt from one of ours previous discussions (since you really like (insist on) dropping balls experiments) :

1. I've got Galileos's book (which was translated very recently to serbian language from an old version of italian language) "The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) :

https://imgur.com/a/HDFbU

... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth (many of which originates - all the way back - from Aristoteles) with Galileo's mathematical conjectures (and DISHONESTY that bursts all over his book) which veracity Galileo wasn't capable to corroborate with honestly and carefully performed experiments (if any experiment at all that he himself had carried out)!!!

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

3. In the days of modern cockpit instruments : artificial horizons, directional gyros (gyrocompass and turning indicators), etc..., those old arguments against or for the rotation of the earth are absolutely obsolete, but still valid...

---- Mr Rowbotham says :

>>>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 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.
<<<

READ MORE : http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

---- Although Galileo new about this very kind of an argument (he even cited Aristoteles on this very kind of an argument) he had never tried to experimentally test one, not only that, he had never even referred to someone else's attempt of carrying out such an experiment!!! - On the other hand Galileo spent a lot of time to talk about one another kind of an experiment which Rowbotham described with these words, at the very beginning of the chapter that i linked above :

>>>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.<<<

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?

4. Galileo demonstrated some flaws in the full geocentric model, and left us a legacy of observational astronomy, but he did not prove that Earth rotates on its axis or revolves around the Sun, nor did he even answer the arguments against those positions that had been well-known for 2000 years.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
No, it wont.
The actual results refute your argument.
It doesn't matter if they are running or walking. It takes the same time going forwards or backwards.
What results?
It does matter very much!!!

Rabinoz, enjoy the paradox that could not have been greater :

(https://imgur.com/a/DizrU)

https://imgur.com/a/DizrU




Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 03, 2018, 02:44:06 AM

Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?

When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
How can you hope to debate this sort of thing when you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about?
Quote from: Physics Classroom
Inertia and Mass
Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Objects tend to "keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.
Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
Please read Physics Classroom, Newton's Laws - Lesson 1 - Newton's First Law of Motion, Inertia and Mass (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass).
Carry on till you have some idea what is meant by Inertia, Forces, Momentum, Conservation of Momentum,  etc.

Then you might not come up with so many silly ideas.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 03, 2018, 02:57:41 AM
Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?
When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :

>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.<<<

First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!

Gravitational pull is weak enough that it's strength allows us to easily fire heavy cannon bullets vertically in the air so that they can stay aloft for many, many seconds before they fall back to the earth!!!

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

While flying upward the ball is freed (so to say) from the influence of the weak gravitational pull to the much greater extent than it is the case during it's downward trajectory. This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth because the air hasn't got the property of pushing laterally the ball in the direction of alleged rotational motion of earth's atmosphere, and the gravitational force is not strong enough to bind the ball to the certain point on the earth during it's entire vertical flight (especially during the first half of it's vertical flight).

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

Because of everything i said above, you are forced to cling to the classical interpretation of inertia and use it as such in order to explain away alleged 4,6 miles impossibly long lateral motion of the ball.

But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 03:45:57 AM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

(http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg)

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).

If the speed is taken into account:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf


One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.


"2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

While flying upward the ball is freed (so to say) from the influence of the weak gravitational pull to the much greater extent than it is the case during it's downward trajectory. This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth because the air hasn't got the property of pushing laterally the ball in the direction of alleged rotational motion of earth's atmosphere, and the gravitational force is not strong enough to bind the ball to the certain point on the earth during it's entire vertical flight (especially during the first half of it's vertical flight).

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)."

Exactly.

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 06:08:53 AM
Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.


"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.


"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8


"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.


"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)


Two famous experiments especially designed to detect the 30 km/s orbital speed.

Hoek Experiment

Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450

"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.

To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Hoek/Hoek1.jpg)

Mascart Experiment

E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214

"Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work

Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving."
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 03, 2018, 08:57:09 AM
Foucault pendulum.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 03, 2018, 09:35:12 AM
Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

Unfortunately, there's no passenger train service within a couple hundred miles of where I live. Even more important, your proposed experiment has too many variables that are hard to control in practice. For instance, you're suggesting timing three separate relatively short runs, but have no way to ensure that your pace was the same all three times. Accurate and repeatable timing could also be an issue.

On the other hand, dropping some object like a ball or a book on a moving conveyance would show quite easily that your premise is wrong, is simpler, easily repeatable, and much less likely to disturb other passengers.

As I recall, you live in Europe, so the first issue should be less of a problem. In addition, you could try dropping an object in a conveyance of pretty much any size. In the quarter second it takes a dropped object to fall 30 cm, a car traveling at 100 km/hr will travel almost 7 meters. According to your assertion, if you held something against the roof of a car traveling at 100 km/hr and let it fall, it should hit the rear window instead of dropping straight down. Surely you know that doesn't happen, don't you?

Quote
---- Mr Rowbotham says :

>>>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

He might have said that, but that doesn't mean it is true. Mr. Rowbotham made money peddling BS to anyone who would pay him. There is no evidence that he actually tried this, and it's obvious he just made it up.

There's no need for a ship with a tall mast, either. Nowadays it's common and easy to travel at 100 km/h and more, making his prediction easy to test.

Don't believe everything Rowbotham says. Test it yourself.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: 29silhouette on February 03, 2018, 12:35:32 PM
But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).
Why would air obstruct and slow down the ball?  The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 12:43:13 PM
The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.

But it cannot be.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.

No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.


http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html

Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 03, 2018, 01:18:58 PM
Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.
You started out so well, then crashed and burned.
It is already more than obvious that all three times will be the same, that the motion of the train wont magically make it harder for you to walk to the front or back.
This is obvious as you need to expend no effort to keep moving with the train.
It is obvious as if you drop something on the train it doesn't magically fly to the back of the train, that if you jump on a train you don't magically fly back.

So yes it is obvious, that you are wrong.
But you don't seem to believe us.
I have tried some of these tests myself, but you don't accept that.
So perhaps you should go and try them and film them for all of us to see?

In seems that i have to remind you to this excerpt from one of ours previous discussions (since you really like (insist on) dropping balls experiments) :
... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth
His arguments are pure crap as has been explained to you multiple times, yet you continue to bring up the same refuted crap.

Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!
Then why do his "experiments" completely defy all known observations?

He spouts a bunch of ignorant crap about moving systems, which he never bothers to verify (as doing so would show that he is wrong), shows that theses things don't happen for Earth and then falsely concludes that Earth isn't moving.

those old arguments against or for the rotation of the earth are absolutely obsolete, but still valid...
They may be valid, but as these arguments against the rotation of Earth are based upon false premises which have been disproven, they are not sound. They do not show Earth to be stationary.

It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal
No it wont. It will follow a parabolic path relative to Earth, following the motion of the ship, such that in the reference frame of the ship, it will be straight down.
Again, this has been verified numerous times. It occurs numerous times each day with people dropping objects in a moving train or car and having them fall down rather than fly to the back of the train/car.

As such, your con-man RowBoat is blatantly lying to everyone.

Now put the ship in motion
And in the reference frame of the ship, you will have the same result.

but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction
No it wont. It will take a parabolic path as has been observed numerous times.
The only force acting to stop its horizontal motion is atmospheric drag. It will continue its horizontal motion with the ship.

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
You don't even need to go on a ship to see this is bullshit.
All you have to do is throw something in a diagonally upwards direction, or watch a game of golf.
How often do you see the objects following arcing paths? ALWAYS!!
How often do you see them follow a diagonal path up to a peak? NEVER!!!
How often do you seem them magically stop moving forwards and drop straight down? NEVER!!!!

Again, your conman Row Boat is blatantly lying.
You repeating his bullshit after it has already been refuted means you are now blatantly lying.

Simple experiments show him to be full of shit, so why do you repeat these lies?

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?
You mean to expose conman Row Boats dishonesty as we just have?

What results?
The results of objects in motion moving relative to another object in motion.
People can just as easily walk/run/hop to the front of a moving train as they can to the back of one.
There is no magic difference in speed.

It does matter very much!!!
Yes, and that is why you blatantly lying about it does matter very much.

(https://imgur.com/a/DizrU)
And that is just more bullshit.
Relativity does not need an aether.

When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?
Good question, when will you?

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :
So far all you have been able to prove is that you and your conman are either complete morons incapable of even basic reasoning and observation; or dishonestly liars without a shred of decency, honesty or integrity.

from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49.
No it wouldn't.
The cannon doesn't magically fire the ball directly upwards.
The ball retains its horizontal velocity and continues to move with Earth.
Again, this is just another example of the dishonesty of you and conman rowboat.

You have been provided with videos which show it to be pure bullshit.

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :
You mean that it is a load of crap?
Or do you mean you will spout more crap about it to further show your dishonesty?

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!
No it doesn't.
If it did, it wouldn't be a 28 second long flight. It would continue its flight going upwards at a constant velocity until gravity became significant and began to slow it down before pulling it to Earth.

The fact that the ball slows down and falls back to Earth shows gravity is having a significant influence.

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.
Yes, that is quite true.
The air resistance is quite negligible.

This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth
No it wont (at least not the way you are presenting it, in reality, it follows an elliptical sub-orbital trajectory), as it is still maintaining its horizontal trajectory.


THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???
INERTIA!!
I would like an answer from the dishonest scum that repeatedly lies about reality:
WHAT MAGICALLY MAKES IT STOP MOVING LATERALLY?

Because of everything i said above, you are forced to cling to the classical interpretation of inertia and use it as such in order to explain away alleged 4,6 miles impossibly long lateral motion of the ball.
You mean we are forced to cling to reality, while you are forced to reject it.

But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball
Nope.
Firstly, they are 2 different factors.
We don't need the atmosphere to have inertia.
The ball being able to penetrate the atmosphere doesn't magically mean inertia doesn't apply.
Regardless, the same result (ignoring wind) would be expected with and without air resistance.


Oh goody, you even provide a video showing that you are full of shit.
Of course, you lie about it and pretend it doesn't.

When the cart is in motion:
Notice how the ball doesn't go straight up as your conman Row Boat claims it would?
Notice how it doesn't follow a diagonal path?
Notice how it doesn't drop vertically down after reaching the peak.

This shows that all your prior claims (which are merely parroting your glorious leader's (conman Rowboat) claims.

So good job showing that both you and RowBoat lack any integrity or honesty.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 03, 2018, 01:46:55 PM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
(http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg)
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf
Notice how this doesn't match (at least not directly)?
You have provided a formula with no justification at all.

Let's try the formula they have:
x = −(4ωV^3/3g^2)*cos(λ)

First, what do all these mean?
Well x is the lateral displacement.
ω is the angular velocity of Earth.
V is the vertical velocity.
g is the gravitational acceleration on Earth (assumed to not change significantly during the motion of the ball)
λ is the latitude.

Now rather than try to work out V for the ball, we will use the relation:
t=2V/g (where t is the time in the air)
to get V=gt/2
And thus:
x = −(4ω(gt/2)^3/3g^2)*cos(λ)
x = −(4ωg^3t^3/(8*3g^2))*cos(λ)
x = −(ωgt^3/6)*cos(λ)

This now appears to match fairly well with your formula.
You have just substituted ω=2*pi/T

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)
So now all you need to show is that the gun was in fact perfectly level, and that the measurement was accurate.
What is 8 inches a measure of?
It clearly isn't the separation between the centres, as that would have stuck the gun.
So this appears to be more dishonesty on his part.

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).
If the speed is taken into account:
No, the Coriolis force is the sole reason this deflection happens.
As I showed above, the formula is the same.

One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
Nope, as that goes against all known, reproducible evidence.

Exactly.
No, not exactly. Pure BS. It almost couldn't be further from the truth.

Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...
i.e. irrelevant BS without substance to further try and avoid the failings of the OP.

Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light
That is all you need to read to realise the experiment wont help you.

His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving."
Nope. Just another indication that aether is BS.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.
No. Air doesn't magically become a superfluid after the first few several hundred meters.
It is still air, it still has drag. As such, it will still be pulled by Earth.
If it wasn't there would be massive winds causing massive drag causing the air to start rotating with Earth.

No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.
Nope. There is, you just ignore it and try to use science you are ignorant of to pretend there isn't.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 03, 2018, 07:06:47 PM
The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.

But it cannot be.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.
But:
Quote from: sandokhan
No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.
Hogwash!

Quote from: sandokhan
The Climate System, EESC 2100 Spring 2007,  Atmospheric Forces, Balances, and Weather Systems (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html)
I suggest that you read all of it, not just pick out the little bit that suits you.

Quote from: sandokhan
Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.
See above!

Turbulence from global thermal effects, local thunderstorms and less local severe weather systems provides plenty of turbulence to very high altitudes.

And there is nothing outside to slow it down!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 03, 2018, 07:16:43 PM
Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?
When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?
I asked you a civil question, When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
Because you obviously do not know, so all you can do is respond with a sickeningly rude reply!

So answer the question!

Quote from: cikljamas
But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).
1) What is the "law of inertia"? Please quote it!

2) There is no "air resistance" obstructing the horizontal motion of the cannon ball.

So you and Rowbotham are totally incorrect as is usually the case.

PS As always you are confusing inertia and momentum and one so totally ignorant of physics shown not be debating physics.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 10:08:21 PM
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).

That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the magnitude of the force.

Friction can only be invoked for a few hundred meters. After the boundary layer, NO FRICTIONAL FORCES ARE INVOLVED.

None that can explain how all of the layers of the atmosphere rotate along at the very same speed as the first layer.

Remember, the frictional force is inversely proportional to the altitude: after the few hundreds of meters, it cannot be invoked anymore.

This is a fact of science.


What is needed is a NEW FORCE: A LATERAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE ALTITUDE, in order to explain the rotation of the atmosphere. This is called the restoring forces paradox.


Thermal effects cannot be brought into the discussion.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Here is the barometer pressure paradox, a total defiance of both the thermal effects and of the gravitational effects:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707294#msg1707294


From Galileo Was Wrong:

"If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.)

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."


In the RE model, from the very start, the Earth would be turning in a free roaming gaseous envelope (the atmosphere).

Friction would work only very near the surface, where the "pull" would be strongest; further away from the Earth this force would logically become weaker and weaker, as would the movement of the gaseous envelope surrounding the Earth.

Inversely proportional: the higher the altitude, the weaker the friction.


There has to be friction outside of the Earth: the Ruderfer experiment tells us that the ether must exist in order to explain both the missing solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.


Moreover, the damping effect of the frictional layer should have PUT A STOP TO THE EARTH'S ROTATION A LONG TIME AGO.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."


Restoring forces paradox

"This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.

Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.

 

Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.

Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.

Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).

 

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 03, 2018, 10:18:40 PM
Didn't I already correct you, wind is from a difference in pressure, not a difference in weight.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 10:54:39 PM
Let's put your word to the test.

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

Atmospheric pressure, sometimes also called barometric pressure, is the pressure exerted by the weight of air in the atmosphere of Earth.

Atmospheric pressure is closely approximated by the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of air above the measurement point.


The pressure is caused by the weight of air.

The hydrostatic pressure is equal to the weight divided by the surface area.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-relationship-between-air-pressure-air-density-542996

Air pressure, or atmospheric pressure, is defined as the weight of air in Earth's (or another planet's) atmosphere.

Pressure is directly proportional to the weight.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 03, 2018, 11:10:47 PM
That link doesn't claim what you say it claims.  Air pressure and air density are related. But nothing says anything about the weight of air above s location. By your definition in th mountains would always be low pressure. Desity can change Independent of the air above it. To see this just look how water affects air pressure. Or for that mater, temperature.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2018, 12:06:38 AM
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).
Not quite.
They are monotonically decreasing as r increases.
Gravity is proportion to 1/r^2, or inversely proportional to r^2.
Friction is much more complex.

Regardless, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Either discuss the topic or get lost.



It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air.
And there you go ignoring inertia yet again.

If it was rotating with Earth, its own inertia would keep it going.

Moreover, the damping effect of the frictional layer should have PUT A STOP TO THE EARTH'S ROTATION A LONG TIME AGO.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.
Nope. It applies to all bodies.
Angular momentum can't magically be discareded.
At best you no longer consider it as part of angular momentum and instead consider it as linear momentum where the gas would continue along a straight path (but then gravity pulls it down causing it to follow a curved path).

There is nothing to stop the gas from spinning and nothing to stop Earth from spinning.

There is no magical damping effect to stop Earth spinning.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.
And in doing so would result in the air speeding up to match the speed of Earth while Earth slows down negligibly.


The atmosphere is a very thin shell with a very low density. It does not have a large enough mass to stop Earth.
Even if it started at rest around Earth and was spun up by Earth, it would have a negligible effect.

Again, this shows a complete ignorance of inertia.
If you have a very large mass moving at a decent speed, a tiny mass can't stop it.
You can't jump out in front of a moving truck with a full load and stop it. It will run you over and keep on going.
But you can easily jump out in front of a moving piece of paper and stop it.

Now deal with the topic at hand or fuck off.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2018, 01:07:04 AM
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).
Incorrect! Gravity in inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the earth, so hardly changes in the altitudes involved.
"Friction" will fall off with the density of the atmosphere, which falls off approximately exponentially with height.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the magnitude of the force.
Sure, but nothing like, "INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).".

Quote from: sandokhan
Friction can only be invoked for a few hundred meters. After the boundary layer, NO FRICTIONAL FORCES ARE INVOLVED.

None that can explain how all of the layers of the atmosphere rotate along at the very same speed as the first layer.

Remember, the frictional force is inversely proportional to the altitude: after the few hundreds of meters, it cannot be invoked anymore.

This is a fact of science.
No, it's not!

Quote from: sandokhan
What is needed is a NEW FORCE: A LATERAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE ALTITUDE, in order to explain the rotation of the atmosphere. This is called the restoring forces paradox.
There is no paradox!

Quote from: sandokhan
Thermal effects cannot be brought into the discussion.
Incorrect!
Apart from drag (friction) there are vertical circulations that are a result of the temperature gradient between the equatorial and polar regions.

It looks as though you have skipped your homework or you'd have known all about this.
Read about it in, Met Office, Global circulation patterns (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/how-weather-works/global-circulation-patterns) and find out what this is all about:
(https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/images/migrated-image/f/figure-4-global-cells%28edit%292.jpg)
Yes, there are plenty of opportunities for vertical mixing in the atmosphere.

Quote from: sandokhan
<< Irrelevant!  >>
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2018, 01:10:02 AM
Friction only applies for the first several hundreds of meters.


http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html

Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.


Friction is inversely proportional to the altitude.

As such, modern science leaves UNEXPLAINED how the upper layers of the atmosphere rotate at the same time speed as that of the Earth.


Friction = damping effect.

Modern science ignores this damping effect by assuming that the angular momentum is being conserved.

Let us go the textbook on atmospheric physics:

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."


The damping effect of the upper layers of the atmosphere which cannot rotate at the same speed as the Earth itself would have put a stop to the ROTATION OF THE FIRST LAYER OF THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH DEPENDS ON FRICTION.

Thus, the entire atmosphere could not rotate at all along with the Earth.

Since the entire structure is not a closed system, angular momentum is not being conserved at all.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."


The first layer of the atmosphere, closest to the Earth would have been stopped in its tracks by the fact that the other upper layers could not rotate along at the same speed as that of the Earth itself.

Taken together, the entire atmosphere would have served as a formidable damping term which would have stopped the rotation of the Earth.


In the RE model, from the very start, the Earth would be turning in a free roaming gaseous envelope (the atmosphere).

Friction would work only very near the surface, where the "pull" would be strongest; further away from the Earth this force would logically become weaker and weaker, as would the movement of the gaseous envelope surrounding the Earth.

Inversely proportional: the higher the altitude, the weaker the friction.


There has to be friction outside of the Earth: the Ruderfer experiment tells us that the ether must exist in order to explain both the missing solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.


The air could NOT be speeding up to match the speed of the Earth. Modern science does not provide a mechanism for that, other than friction for the first several hundreds of meters.

The very first layer would come to a stop, given the damping effect of the other upper layers of the atmosphere.

The entire atmosphere would have acted as a huge damping term.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.

Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sceptimatic on February 04, 2018, 01:17:49 AM
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.


So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#
Exactly correct.

Good to see you back posting scepti...
Cheers.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2018, 01:24:24 AM
The Hadley cells argument cannot be used by the RE.

A professor of atmospheric physics tries to use the Hadley cells hypothesis:

The boundary layer (BL) in general is the interface area between 2 different
environments, the region where one environment influences the other. If
there is no effect of one env. on the other then there's no BL.

The BL between air and the earth's surface includes the transfer of heat and
moisture and wind currents (convection). The local friction of earth and air
on a flat surface is only inches thick, since the air is non-viscous. But
the irregular topography of the earth is said to produce a frictional BL of
about 6 miles - Death Valley to Mt. Everest.

The problem with this picture is that if the air is dragged along by the BL
of the rotating earth, it should display a latitude-dependent velocity
profile, with upper level winds blowing to the West, which is exactly what
is NOT observed.

If the air somehow rotates with the earth, the coupling being achieved by
some special dispensation from scientific principles, then there's no
frictional BL, since there's no relative motion between ground and air.

Here's the tricky part: the atmosphere is not attached to the Earth.
Therefore, the Earth can spin independently of the atmosphere. But we've got
these convection cells of air rotating from the equator to the poles, and an
Earth spinning beneath it. Thus, the air appears to be moving eastward as
the Earth moves eastward at a rate of 1050 miles per hour along the
equator.


Whoa, professor!
If the Earth spins independently of the air, and the N-S Hadley convection
cells prove this, then why is the E-W motion of the air NOT independent of
the Earth's rotation (sic), as the N-S circulation is? Is the air a gas when
moving along a longitude line, and a solid when moving along a latitude?
What is the origin of this astounding anisotropy? When does the 'tricky'
part become 'untricky'- it seems more like 'impossible' ?

Put another way: if the Sun's heating (insolation) at the equator provides
the thermal energy that maintains the Hadley cell N-S rotation, what
force/energy keeps the equatorial winds rotating at the same speed as the
rotating (sic) Earth?


The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.


The density argument is defied by the gases in the upper atmosphere.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.


Beyond a few hundreds of meters, friction disappears completely.

It cannot be invoked anymore.

Then, for the upper layers of the atmosphere a NEW FORCE WOULD BE NEEDED, a lateral gravitation. This leads directly to the restoring forces paradox.

"This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.

Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.

 

Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.

Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.

Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).

 

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."


Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2018, 01:29:43 AM
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."


First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.



Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm



NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Lonegranger on February 04, 2018, 01:57:03 AM
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."


First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.



Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm



NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

Wow......
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2018, 02:22:29 AM
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.
Rubbish, there is no "barometer pressure paradox" on any scale.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.
http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf
Where's your big problem? Do you even understand what this means?
Quote
Figure 7a shows the time and zonal mean updraft
mass flux profile from the convection scheme for the
equatorial grid points.
The altitude range plotted is roughly from sea-level to 14,000 m. That high enough to cause atmospheric mixing?

Quote from: sandokhan
While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.
So what?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2018, 02:27:32 AM
Friction only applies for the first several hundreds of meters.
This was already shown to be bullshit, and is irrelavent to the topic at hand.
Deal with the topic at hand, or fuck off.
Your insentient need to continually change the subject shows you are completely incapable of rationally and honestly defending the claims made.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2018, 03:16:24 AM
The Hadley cells argument cannot be used by the RE.
. . . . . .
Put another way: if the Sun's heating (insolation) at the equator provides
the thermal energy that maintains the Hadley cell N-S rotation, what
force/energy keeps the equatorial winds rotating at the same speed as the
rotating (sic) Earth?
Nothing is needed to keep the atmosphere moving with the earth. There is simply nothing to stop it or slow it down.
But there is still drag between the earth's surface (including mountains etc) at the equator.
Then the Hadley (and other) cells provide mixing of low an high altitudes keeping the atmosphere all moving at roughly the same speed.

Quote from: sandokhan
. . . . . . . . .
The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.
So what? But there is no rapid decrease in gravity with altitude! There is not much atmosphere above 20 km.
If g = 9.8 m/s2 at sea level, it is about 9.74 m/s2 at 20 km - big deal!

Quote from: sandokhan
<< irrelevant >>
Conclusion
The World either rotates or it doesn't.
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude.
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.
Incorrect:
Quote from: sandokhan
If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.
Totally irrelevant, but no "restoring vector field" is needed anyway, as has been explained numerous times.

Quote from: sandokhan
Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."
Totally incorrect! As are most things that you come out with, but we'll leave that for another day.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 04, 2018, 06:07:04 AM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

(http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg)

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).

If the speed is taken into account:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf


One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
-------

Not only that.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).

Why?

Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).

JackBlack could say : "So what?"

Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?

Although our moving object is in motion within local FOR, this very motion - in counter direction of earth's rotation - is the very reason (which makes all the difference) why such discharged ball won't have any impetus in this case (shooting the ball upwards), while shooting the ball from the cannon which is attached to the non-moving (local FOR) frame to which is attached our stationary cannon (situated at 52 degrees N) assumes 1000 km/h initial inertia (impetus) of our APPARENTLY stationary cannon, hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.

How HC believers are going to explain that? All that they can call upon is "air drag", however, Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that last remaining bit of HC hopes since we now know that higher layers of atmpshere can't keep the pace with the rigid earth.



Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.
You started out so well, then crashed and burned.
It is already more than obvious that all three times will be the same, that the motion of the train wont magically make it harder for you to walk to the front or back.

The motion of the train wont make it harder or easier for you to WALK to the front or back of the train, but when our walker becomes our runner then we are going to see the differences in the final results of his running (not walking) race comparing his results after running in counter direction of train's motion vs running in the same direction of train's motion.

PRE-INTRODUCTION
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-on-a-train-running-at-100km-per-hour-and-at-the-same-time-you-ran-forward-through-the-carriages-would-you-be-moving-faster-than-the-train-What-would-your-speed-be-if-you-then-chose-to-run-backwards-on-the-train

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/adding_vels.html

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Detecting the aether wind was the next challenge Michelson set himself after his triumph
in measuring the speed of light so accurately.  Naturally, something that allows solid
bodies to pass through it freely is a little hard to get a grip on.  But Michelson realized
that, just as the speed of sound is relative to the air, so the speed of light must be relative
to the aether.  This must mean, if you could measure the speed of light accurately enough,
you could measure the speed of light travelling upwind, and compare it with the speed of
light travelling downwind, and the difference of the two measurements should be twice
the windspeed.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.  All the recent accurate measurements
had used light travelling to a distant mirror and coming back, so if there was an aether
wind along the direction between the mirrors, it would have opposite effects on the two
parts of the measurement, leaving a very small overall effect.  There was no technically
feasible way to do a one-way determination of the speed of light. 
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.  As he
explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on the following
puzzle:

Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both swim at
the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second).  The river is flowing at a steady
rate, say 3 feet per second.  The swimmers race in the following way: they both start at
the same point on one bank.  One swims directly across the river to the closest point on
the opposite bank, then turns around and swims back.  The other stays on one side of the
river, swimming upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the
width of the river, then swims back to the start.  Who wins? 
Let’s consider first the swimmer going upstream and back.  Going 100 feet upstream, the
speed relative to the bank is only 2 feet per second, so that takes 50 seconds.  Coming
back, the speed is 8 feet per second, so it takes 12.5 seconds, for a total time of 62.5
seconds.

The swimmer going across the flow is trickier.  It won’t do simply to aim directly for the
opposite bank-the flow will carry the swimmer downstream.  To succeed in going
directly across, the swimmer must actually aim upstream at the correct angle (of course, a
real swimmer would do this automatically).  Thus, the swimmer is going at 5 feet per
second, at an angle, relative to the river, and being carried downstream at a rate of 3 feet
per second.  If the angle is correctly chosen so that the net movement is directly across, in
one second the swimmer must have moved four feet across:  the distances covered in one
second will form a 3,4,5 triangle.  So, at a crossing rate of 4 feet per second, the swimmer
gets across in 25 seconds, and back in the same time, for a total time of 50 seconds.  The
cross-stream swimmer wins.  This turns out to true whatever their swimming speed.  (Of
course, the race is only possible if they can swim faster than the current!
)

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

Now, we have to be smart and inventive as Michelson was.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:

A quick reminder :

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

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

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.

First we have a runner No 1 who runs 20 km/h through let's say 1000 m long interior of the stationary train.

It is going to take 3 minutes for him to cross the entire distance of 1000 m.

Now, our runner No 2 runs also 20 km/h (at least during the first 10th (100 m) of the whole distance) across the interior of slowly moving train in a counter direction of train's motion.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

1. Air drag will be so negligible that we could discount it entirely!
2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance) of our runner NO 2 at the finish line (the backside of our moving train) due to the property of running (see above)!

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!

EDIT : FOR BOTH RUNNERS (IN THE STATIONARY TRAIN, AND IN THE MOVING TRAIN) OUR EXPERIMENT BEGINS (WE START TO MEASURE THE TIME) AFTER OUR RUNNERS PASS THE MARK WHICH DESIGNATES END OF THE FIRST 100 m OF THE WHOLE 1000 m LENGTH, THAT IS TO SAY : AFTER SLOW, IMPERCEPTIBLE ACCELERATION OF THE TRAIN ENDS.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

Unfortunately, there's no passenger train service within a couple hundred miles of where I live. Even more important, your proposed experiment has too many variables that are hard to control in practice. For instance, you're suggesting timing three separate relatively short runs, but have no way to ensure that your pace was the same all three times. Accurate and repeatable timing could also be an issue.

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 04, 2018, 06:22:26 AM
“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - *NICOLAS COPERNICUS*

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy ; FOR IN THIS EXACT "SCIENCE" THE ALTERATION OF MILLIONS OF MILES IS "A MERE DETAIL!"

It is to be remembered that at that time the earth was believed to stand still, while the sun, moon,
planets and stars moved round it daily from east to west, as stated by Ptolemy ; but this did not seem
reasonable to Copernicus. He was a daring and original thinker, willing to challenge any theory— be
it ever so long established— if it did not appear logical to him, and he contended that it was unreasonable
to suppose that all the vast firmament of heavenly bodies revolved around this relatively little earth, but,
on the contrary, it was more reasonable to believe that the earth itself rotated and revolved around an enormous sun, moving within a firmament of stars that were fixed in infinite space ; for in either case the appearance of the heavens would be the same to an observer on the surface of the earth.

This was the idea that inspired Nicholas Copernicus to labour for twenty-seven years developing the
Heliocentric Theory of the universe, and in compiling the book that made him famous :— ” De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium,” which was published in the last year of his life : 1543.

Ptolemy had made it appear that the sun and stars revolved around a stationary earth, but Copernicus
advanced the theory that it was the earth which revolved around a stationary sun, while the stars
were fixed ; and either of these entirely opposite theories gives an equally satisfactory explanation of
the appearance of the sun by day and the stars by night. Copernicus did not produce any newly-
discovered fact to prove that Ptolemy was wrong, neither did he offer any proof that he himself was
right, but worked out his system to show that he could account for all the appearances of the heavens
quite as well as the Egyptian had done, though working on an entirely different hypothesis ; and offered
his new Heliocentric Theory as an alternative.

He argued that it was more reasonable to conceive the earth to be revolving round the sun than it was
to think of the sun revolving round the earth, because it was more reasonable that the smaller body should move round the greater.

And that is good logic.

We see that Copernicus recognized the physical law that the lesser shall be governed by the greater, and
that is the pivot upon which the whole of his astronomy turns ; but it is perfectly clear that in building up
his theories he assumed the earth to be much smaller than the sun, and also smaller than the stars ; and that
was pure assumption unsupported by any kind of fact. In the absence of any proof as to whether the
earth or the sun was the greater of the two, and having only the evidence of the senses to guide him,
it would have been more reasonable had he left astronomy as it was, seeing that the sun appeared to move
round the earth, while he himself was unconscious of any movement.

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

All major encyclopedias and historical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over.

BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on February 04, 2018, 07:33:11 AM
“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - *NICOLAS COPERNICUS*

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy ; FOR IN THIS EXACT "SCIENCE" THE ALTERATION OF MILLIONS OF MILES IS "A MERE DETAIL!"

~snip~

The Sun is 93 million miles away.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 04, 2018, 08:41:50 AM
The Sun is 93 million miles away.
I am the president of USA.

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 04, 2018, 10:11:39 AM
Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?

Yesterday I performed the even simpler, far more practical, and more conclusive experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) I recommended.

Driving at a steady 62 mi/hr (100 km/hr) on a straight stretch of level road with the windows closed, I held a "squeeze ball" (a soft ball with vinyl cover) at the ceiling and let it drop into the passenger seat. It fell straight down to the cushion 38" (97 cm) below the drop point (see specification drawing; the trajectory was pretty much exactly along the line indicating front-seat headroom in the drawing). The diameter of the ball is about 6 cm, so the distance of the fall was about 90 cm.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/SubaruDimensions_zpsn31ifevc.png)

Using the formula for distance traveled, s, under constant acceleration, a

s = 1/2 a t2

and solving for t (time), we get

t2 = 2 s / a
t = sqrt (2 s / a)

Plugging in the distance of fall for s, and the standard value for acceleration of gravity,

t = sqrt (2 * 0.9 m / (9.8 m/s2))
 = sqrt (0.18 s2)
t = 0.43 seconds

Distance traveled by the car is, of course distance = velocity times time

d = vt

v = 100 km/h
 = 100 km/h * 1000 m / km / (3600 s/h)
v = 28 m/s

So, in the 0.43 seconds it took the dropped ball to fall to the seat, the car traveled

d = 28 m/s * 0.43 s
d = 12 meters.

The specifications for the car show the overall length as 189.6", or 4.816 meters, meaning the car travels 2 1/2 times times its own length while the ball is in the air.

If "detaching" the ball and allowing it to free fall inside the cabin meant all its forward momentum immediately vanished, the car would be "scooting past it" until it hit something. It didn't; it dropped straight down from the FOR of the car, which means it maintained exactly the same forward speed as the car.

Your hypothesis:

Quote
Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

says that being "in the air" and not in contact with the vehicle (steadily moving train in your case, steadily moving car in mine) will "allow the rigid base of the [vehicle] to [slide] below ... to a certain extent". To what extent? In the case of the dropped ball in the air for about 0.4 seconds, how far would you expect the rigid body of the car to "slide" past the ball? I observed zero. Therefore, your hypothesis is not supported unless the "extent" is so close to zero that it couldn't be detected.

Don't believe me? Conduct your own experiment. In the meantime, please save everyone's time (especially yours) and cease with the wordy speculation based on your flawed premise.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Papa Legba on February 04, 2018, 12:10:25 PM
Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?

Yesterday I performed the even simpler, far more practical, and more conclusive experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) I recommended.

Driving at a steady 62 mi/hr (100 km/hr) on a straight stretch of level road with the windows closed, I held a "squeeze ball" (a soft ball with vinyl cover) at the ceiling and let it drop into the passenger seat. It fell straight down to the cushion 38" (97 cm) below the drop point (see specification drawing; the trajectory was pretty much exactly along the line indicating front-seat headroom in the drawing). The diameter of the ball is about 6 cm, so the distance of the fall was about 90 cm.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/SubaruDimensions_zpsn31ifevc.png)

Using the formula for distance traveled, s, under constant acceleration, a

s = 1/2 a t2

and solving for t (time), we get

t2 = 2 s / a
t = sqrt (2 s / a)

Plugging in the distance of fall for s, and the standard value for acceleration of gravity,

t = sqrt (2 * 0.9 m / (9.8 m/s2))
 = sqrt (0.18 s2)
t = 0.43 seconds

Distance traveled by the car is, of course distance = velocity times time

d = vt

v = 100 km/h
 = 100 km/h * 1000 m / km / (3600 s/h)
v = 28 m/s

So, in the 0.43 seconds it took the dropped ball to fall to the seat, the car traveled

d = 28 m/s * 0.43 s
d = 12 meters.

The specifications for the car show the overall length as 189.6", or 4.816 meters, meaning the car travels 2 1/2 times times its own length while the ball is in the air.

If "detaching" the ball and allowing it to free fall inside the cabin meant all its forward momentum immediately vanished, the car would be "scooting past it" until it hit something. It didn't; it dropped straight down from the FOR of the car, which means it maintained exactly the same forward speed as the car.

Your hypothesis:

Quote
Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

says that being "in the air" and not in contact with the vehicle (steadily moving train in your case, steadily moving car in mine) will "allow the rigid base of the [vehicle] to [slide] below ... to a certain extent". To what extent? In the case of the dropped ball in the air for about 0.4 seconds, how far would you expect the rigid body of the car to "slide" past the ball? I observed zero. Therefore, your hypothesis is not supported unless the "extent" is so close to zero that it couldn't be detected.

Don't believe me? Conduct your own experiment. In the meantime, please save everyone's time (especially yours) and cease with the wordy speculation based on your flawed premise.

So you did an experiment whilst driving your car solo at 60 mph and made all the measurements by eye alone, with no recording of any data whatsoever?

And we're expected to take this experiment seriously?

This kinda nonsense is why everyone I know believes this forum is run by bots.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on February 04, 2018, 12:23:18 PM
The Sun is 93 million miles away.
I am the president of USA.

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round



Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 04, 2018, 02:03:54 PM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
Yes, we saw Sandy post that before.
Now tell us how the gun was confirmed to be perfectly vertical and how the "8 inches" was measured.
Or the 2 feet, which was the upper limit of the claimed deviation.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).
Why?
Not by the amounts you are claiming, and it has nothing to do with cancelling out inertia.
The reason is purely due to removing the Coriolis effect from the situation.
However you then have the competing effect of wind resistance and I don't think a cannonball moving at 1000 km/hr through the air (relative to the air) would still have a negligible effect. I think the wind is more likely to contribute and push it over.

Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).
No, within relativity, even Newtonian relativity, in which the shape of Earth and if it is orbiting the sun or not is completely irrelevant, inertial FOR are equivalent.
What happens in one inertial FOR can happen in another inertial FOR.
Previously the only possible exception was light due to the hypothesised relative motion of the hypothesised aether. But that was shown to be wrong.

Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?
Yes, you do, as you have completely failed to justify your claims.

hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.
Yes, and that is what means it will keep moving with Earth and land close to the cannon.
You want it to magically lose that impetus just because it was shot upwards.

How HC believers are going to explain that?
We aren't the ones that need to explain it.
The ball is moving with Earth. It has impetus because of that.
It is fired out of the cannon.
This does not magically remove that impetus.
This means it will continue with that impetus and thus continue moving with Earth.

You need to explain why it should magically lose all that impetus and fly up while Earth continues moving sideways.

All that they can call upon is "air drag"
No, in this case we call upon inertia and conservation of energy. The ball doesn't magically stop going sideways because of that.

Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that
Nope.
He provided the same childish refuted BS.

The motion of the train wont make it harder or easier for you to WALK to the front or back of the train
Nor will it make it harder or easier for you to run or hop or jump, of to have an object fly, nor will it magically make objects fly backwards when dropped.
This is likely confirmed by hundreds of millions of people on a twice daily basis.

when our walker becomes our runner then we are going to see the differences in the final results of his running (not walking) race comparing his results after running in counter direction of train's motion vs running in the same direction of train's motion.
No we are not
Every single observation made so far shows your claims to be bullshit.
Simple analysis shows them to be bullshit.
All we have supporting them are your baseless claims.

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment
Stop trying to change the subject.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:
You have already done this.
Your garbage was refuted.
Respond to what has been said, stop ignoring it.

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :
Yet you previously claimed the acceleration is irrelevant.

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival
No it wouldn't.
The final result would be all three taking the same time.
This was explained before and you just ignored it.

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!
No, we can't.
Carrying out simple honest experiments shows your claims to be pure bullshit.
The same things happen in the moving and stationary train.
There is no magical ease of moving backwards and no magical difficulty of moving forwards.
This shows your experiments cannot detect motion and thus are useless to determine if Earth is moving.

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...
Nope, just showing your experiment to be nonsense. You are trying to use runners. How are you going to ensure that they are running the same going forwards and backwards?

A far better experiment would be a long track which an enclosed box rides along, 100 m in length, with video cameras installed along the length at regular intervals.
At each end is a cannon (a small one) which can fire balls (like tennis balls) in the same way repeatedly.
Perform a few tests while it is stationary to confirm it behaves well.
Then perform the tests while the box is in motion at a constant rate.
You will have the same results.

Or even simpler, drop a pen or something on a train, and see if it flies towards the back.

As an example, if you drop a pen from a height of 2 m, then just using the simple equations of motion:
a=-g
v=-gt
z=h-0.5gt^2
you end up with it hitting the floor when h=0.5gt^2
Thus t=sqrt(2h/g).
So if you drop it from 2 m high, it will take roughly 0.63 seconds.
If you have a train going at even a modest speed of 10 km/hr, this will equate to it moving at a rate of ~ 2.8 m/s and thus a motion of 1.7 m.
I (as well as many other people) have dropped objects on trains, including ones moving much faster.
Guess what? They don't magically fly to the back of the train.

This shows you and conman RowBoat are wrong.

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong.
No. These simple experiment show you and your conman rowboat to be wrong.

You "conclusions" are based upon rejecting reality, as such they don't show anyone to be wrong.
But simple experiments show your premises to be wrong.

You repeatedly ignoring these experiments and explanations and repeating the same refuted crap show you don't care about the truth.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: rabinoz on February 04, 2018, 05:06:24 PM
we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus),
You still don't have the slightest of what inertia is! It certainly has no connection with "impetus".
And "impetus" is such a vague term that it's virtually meaningless in any debate on motion!

Quote
impetus
noun
the force or energy with which a body moves.
     "hit the booster coil before the flywheel loses all its impetus"
synonyms: momentum, propulsion, impulsion, impelling force, motive force, driving force, drive, thrust, continuing motion.
Just look at all the synonyms to see how out of place such a word is here.

Please, oh, please learn a little elementary physics before trying to prove the earth stationary.

You cannot prove the earth stationary with measurements like this unless they can be done to extreme precision to show the absence of rotation.
Which they won't!
Plenty of experiments do show that the earth rotates, marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodolites utilise that fact.

You posted videos claiming that "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION". Don't you believe you own video?
I don't entirely agree with those videos, but that's another story.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 05, 2018, 05:00:04 AM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

(http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg)

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).

If the speed is taken into account:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf


One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.

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.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

v2 = u2 + 2ar

At the peak of it's flight, u = 0, therefore

r = 8532 / 19.6

= 37,123 m

READ MORE : https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/2ei4i4/how_high_vertically_can_a_50_cal_shoot_straight/

Let's consider 100 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 still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Does this happen in reality???
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 05, 2018, 05:09:52 AM
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 05, 2018, 05:19:44 AM
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.


Very well done.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 05, 2018, 05:32:50 AM
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.

Thank you very much for your valuable links and info!!!

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).
Why?
Not by the amounts you are claiming, and it has nothing to do with cancelling out inertia.
The reason is purely due to removing the Coriolis effect from the situation.
However you then have the competing effect of wind resistance and I don't think a cannonball moving at 1000 km/hr through the air (relative to the air) would still have a negligible effect. I think the wind is more likely to contribute and push it over.

Now, we have to apply the same method as we did in the case of our decisive thought experiment in which we ensured 4 times greater speed of our runner (inside the 1000 m long train) with respect to the speed of the train.

We have to avoid such enormous speeds (so that nobody can complain about supposed air drag), even very low speeds will suffice, let's say 50 km/h. So, if we shot the bullet in the air from the back side of the train which moves WESTWARD (in counter direction of the alleged spin of the earth), and if HC theory were true we should have canceled out to a certain extent initial inertia (impetus) of our gun, and the ball should fall closer to the gun in accordance to such diminished degree of (non-existent) initial inertia.

Does this happen in reality???
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 05, 2018, 11:54:58 AM
How high does a bullet go?

Does the change in topic mean you've given up on your "running on a train" idea? Did you try to simply drop an object and see, simply, yet definitively, that you were wrong from the outset? I hope so.

Any comment on the experiment I ran in my car (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2018550#msg2018550)? There have been no replies about that from you. Maybe the the reply by PL soon after was related to that post, but his posts are not worth reading and I've been ignoring them since he declared I am not here to respond, or debate (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1706909#msg1706909) more than two years ago, and he seems to be true to his word about that based on quoted bits.

Quote
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.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

Let's see. Using your numbers for muzzle velocity and acceleration...

From a starting velocity v1 and constant acceleration a, the new velocity v2 after time t will be

v2 = v1 + a t

v1 = muzzle velocity =  853 m/s
a = acceleration = -9.8 m/sec2

a is negative because it's in the opposite direction when v1 is vertically upward.

We want to find the time when vertical velocity, v2, is zero.

0 = 853 m/s + (-9.8 m/sec2) t

Rearranging

9.8 m/sec2 t = 853 m/s

t = 853 m/s / (9.8 m/sec2)

t = 87 seconds

Theoretically, it takes that same time to fall, though, so we need to double that to 174 seconds.

Plugging that value for t into the formula presented, using the other figures provided, at the equator, we get

δ = π * g * t3 * cos λ / (3 * TE)
 = π * 32 ft/s2 * (174 s)3 * cos (0) / (3 * 86,400 s)
 = π * 32 ft/s2 * 5,268,024 s3 * 1.0 / (259,200 s)
 = π * 168,576,768 ft s / (259,200 s)
 = π * 650 ft
δ = 2043 feet = 623 meters

Quote
Let's consider 100 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 still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Sanity check:
(174 s / (100 s))3 = 1.743
 = 5.28

623 m / (118 m) = 5.28

Checks!

Quote
Does this happen in reality???

Returning to the Barrett example since it has a muzzle velocity specified, let's see!

What deflection from perfectly vertical would cause the bullet to travel 623 m horizontally in 174 seconds?

dh = vh t

dh is horizontal distance, vh is horizontal component of velocity. t is, of course, time.

vh = vmuzzle sin(z)

z is the "zenith angle", the angular deviation from true vertical.

dh = vmuzzle sin(z) t

We want to solve for z.

sin(z) = dh / (vmuzzle t)
 = 623 m / (853 m/s * 174 s)
 = 623 m / (148,422 m)
sin(z) = 0.0042

z = sin-1(0.0042)
z = 0.24° = 14 arc minutes

It doesn't take much deviation from perfectly vertical aim to swamp the effect you're looking for. Also, this completely ignores the effect of wind on a bullet in flight for almost three minutes. The horizontal adjustment of telescopic rifle sights is called "windage" for a reason; bullets are typically in flight for a few seconds at most, and, for accurate shooting, even with much less time for the wind to have an effect, wind matters!

"Does this happen in reality???"

Who knows? It probably can't be rigorously tested.

Do the drop test in a moving train. It should be definitive and you can end this discussion.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2018, 01:09:47 PM
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.
Only if it is fired perfectly vertical with no problems due to the air.
As the bullet won't be falling down perfectly down and instead will be falling at terminal velocity, it will be seriously effected by the wind.

The site even pointed out some of these problems but you just ignore it because it doesn't help your dishonest presentation of this BS.

Regardless, this is yet another distraction from your failings in the OP.
Care to address them?

Now, we have to apply the same method as we did in the case of our decisive thought experiment in which we ensured 4 times greater speed of our runner (inside the 1000 m long train) with respect to the speed of the train.
Your thought experiment was shown to be pure bullshit.

We have to avoid such enormous speeds (so that nobody can complain about supposed air drag)
Which is why I said an enclosed box, so the air moves with it.

if HC theory were true we should have canceled out to a certain extent initial inertia (impetus) of our gun, and the ball should fall closer to the gun in accordance to such diminished degree of (non-existent) initial inertia.
No, only if your delusional BS is true.
That is why there are 2 guns, one forwards, one backwards.


In reality it goes more like this (numbers tweaked a little to make the math simpler):
You fire the ball at 120 km/hr relative to the gun. The motion of the gun does not effect the velocity the projectile leaves relative to it and takes 2 minutes to fall and hit the bottom of the box.
The box moves at 60 km/hr.

This means in the stationary case, the ball travels 2 km before hitting the bottom of the box.
In the case of the moving box, the velocity in the forwards direction is now 180 km/hr, the 60 km/hr of the box plus the 120 km/hr of the gun. This means it hits 3 km from its launch point.
However, the box (and gun) has moved 1 km in the same direction and thus relative to the train the ball hits 2 km forward of the gun.
In the case of the backwoods facing gun, it nor fires at 60 km/hr, the 120 km/hr of the gun minus the 60 km/hr of the box.
This means it now lands 1 km backwards of the gun.
However the box (and gun) moved 1 km forwards, meaning it hits 2 km backwards of the gun.

Notice the same result in the moving and stationary cases?
This is what actually happens in reality.

So no, your pathetic straw man doesn't happen in reality.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2018, 01:13:04 PM
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.
Yes, you have a precise formula, but the experiment itself is not precise enough.
It requires something not affected by the air at all, which is consistently accurate.
We do not have such a projectile device.
Cannons are not accurate enough.
Bullets and tennis balls are far to light.

Instead there are much more reliable tests, such as laser ring gyroscopes or Foucault's pendulum.
These are the most direct experiment to prove Earth is rotating.

Others options exist like a geosynchronous satellite.

Very well done.
No, very poorly done, completely ignoring how the bullet moves through the air.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sandokhan on February 05, 2018, 01:25:18 PM
Chatbots do not have any knowledge of Mach's principle:

'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'

Ernst Mach

Ring laser gyroscopes are one of the most direct proofs of geocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846888#msg1846888

A ring laser gyroscope will record the effect of the ether drift/strings upon the laser beams: the Sagnac effect.

On a windless day, any vertically fired projectile experiment will yield valid results.

The numbers are incredible.

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.

A difference of twenty-two meters.

The final result for the cannon ball experiment was 8 inches, where at least 5.2 ft should have been recorded.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2018, 02:02:38 PM
Chatbots do not have any knowledge of Mach's principle:
You are obviously grasping at whatever BS you can.

And you fail to understand Mach's principle yourself.
And again you try and derail the topic.

Why is it that you repeatedly fail to stay on topic?
Is it because you can't handle defeat?

Ring laser gyroscopes are one of the most direct proofs of geocentrism:
Nope. They prove Earth rotates.
Regardless, this is not the thread to discuss that.

On a windless day, any vertically fired projectile experiment will yield valid results.
Nope, only a perfectly fired one which will not be influenced by any random perturbations.

The final result for the cannon ball experiment was 8 inches, where at least 5.2 ft should have been recorded.
No, the final result varied dramatically, from back into the barrel, to a landing at most 2 feet from the cannon, with no indication of what that was a measure of or in what direction.
Of course, with his dishonest representation that wouldn't matter as he claims it should have been very far away.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: ack1308 on February 06, 2018, 10:43:57 AM
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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 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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.


If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.
Uh, nope.

The earth is rotating, along with the mass of atmosphere that surrounds it.  At the equator, the effective rotational speed is a tad over a thousand miles an hour.  A jet can break that speed by exerting x amount of thrust toward the rear.  If the pilot decided to fly east at that speed (and had infinite fuel) he could get around the earth to meet the rising sun a lot quicker than those of us standing on the ground and waiting.

However, if he flies west and adjusts his throttle to make his ground speed equivalent to the effective rotation speed, a hypothetical ground observer would see him vanish over the horizon in the direction of the setting sun -- going forward -- in short order.  Just as any plane travelling at more than the speed of sound would do.

Because the Earth is rotating, carrying any observer away from the sun, and the jet is simply flying toward the setting sun.

Note that the jet has neither gained nor lost inertia.  Inertia is a product of mass.  You have it whether you're sitting still or in motion.  It's what makes things hard to start moving and hard to stop moving.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 04:52:11 AM
How high does a bullet go?

Does the change in topic mean you've given up on your "running on a train" idea? Did you try to simply drop an object and see, simply, yet definitively, that you were wrong from the outset? I hope so.

Any comment on the experiment I ran in my car (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2018550#msg2018550)? There have been no replies about that from you. Maybe the the reply by PL soon after was related to that post, but his posts are not worth reading and I've been ignoring them since he declared I am not here to respond, or debate (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1706909#msg1706909) more than two years ago, and he seems to be true to his word about that based on quoted bits.

Quote
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.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

Let's see. Using your numbers for muzzle velocity and acceleration...

From a starting velocity v1 and constant acceleration a, the new velocity v2 after time t will be

v2 = v1 + a t

v1 = muzzle velocity =  853 m/s
a = acceleration = -9.8 m/sec2

a is negative because it's in the opposite direction when v1 is vertically upward.

We want to find the time when vertical velocity, v2, is zero.

0 = 853 m/s + (-9.8 m/sec2) t

Rearranging

9.8 m/sec2 t = 853 m/s

t = 853 m/s / (9.8 m/sec2)

t = 87 seconds

Theoretically, it takes that same time to fall, though, so we need to double that to 174 seconds.

Plugging that value for t into the formula presented, using the other figures provided, at the equator, we get

δ = π * g * t3 * cos λ / (3 * TE)
 = π * 32 ft/s2 * (174 s)3 * cos (0) / (3 * 86,400 s)
 = π * 32 ft/s2 * 5,268,024 s3 * 1.0 / (259,200 s)
 = π * 168,576,768 ft s / (259,200 s)
 = π * 650 ft
δ = 2043 feet = 623 meters

Quote
Let's consider 100 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 still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Sanity check:
(174 s / (100 s))3 = 1.743
 = 5.28

623 m / (118 m) = 5.28

Checks!

Quote
Does this happen in reality???

Returning to the Barrett example since it has a muzzle velocity specified, let's see!

What deflection from perfectly vertical would cause the bullet to travel 623 m horizontally in 174 seconds?

dh = vh t

dh is horizontal distance, vh is horizontal component of velocity. t is, of course, time.

vh = vmuzzle sin(z)

z is the "zenith angle", the angular deviation from true vertical.

dh = vmuzzle sin(z) t

We want to solve for z.

sin(z) = dh / (vmuzzle t)
 = 623 m / (853 m/s * 174 s)
 = 623 m / (148,422 m)
sin(z) = 0.0042

z = sin-1(0.0042)
z = 0.24° = 14 arc minutes

It doesn't take much deviation from perfectly vertical aim to swamp the effect you're looking for. Also, this completely ignores the effect of wind on a bullet in flight for almost three minutes. The horizontal adjustment of telescopic rifle sights is called "windage" for a reason; bullets are typically in flight for a few seconds at most, and, for accurate shooting, even with much less time for the wind to have an effect, wind matters!

"Does this happen in reality???"

Who knows? It probably can't be rigorously tested.

Do the drop test in a moving train. It should be definitive and you can end this discussion.

Your math is wrong!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 04:56:22 AM
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg

g = 32ft/s2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).

If the speed is taken into account:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf


One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
-------

Not only that.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).

Why?

Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).

JackBlack could say : "So what?"

Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?

Although our moving object is in motion within local FOR, this very motion - in counter direction of earth's rotation - is the very reason (which makes all the difference) why such discharged ball won't have any impetus in this case (shooting the ball upwards), while shooting the ball from the cannon which is attached to the non-moving (local FOR) frame to which is attached our stationary cannon (situated at 52 degrees N) assumes 1000 km/h initial inertia (impetus) of our APPARENTLY stationary cannon, hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.

How HC believers are going to explain that? All that they can call upon is "air drag", however, Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that last remaining bit of HC hopes since we now know that higher layers of atmpshere can't keep the pace with the rigid earth.



Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.
You started out so well, then crashed and burned.
It is already more than obvious that all three times will be the same, that the motion of the train wont magically make it harder for you to walk to the front or back.

The motion of the train wont make it harder or easier for you to WALK to the front or back of the train, but when our walker becomes our runner then we are going to see the differences in the final results of his running (not walking) race comparing his results after running in counter direction of train's motion vs running in the same direction of train's motion.

PRE-INTRODUCTION
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-on-a-train-running-at-100km-per-hour-and-at-the-same-time-you-ran-forward-through-the-carriages-would-you-be-moving-faster-than-the-train-What-would-your-speed-be-if-you-then-chose-to-run-backwards-on-the-train

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/adding_vels.html

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Detecting the aether wind was the next challenge Michelson set himself after his triumph
in measuring the speed of light so accurately.  Naturally, something that allows solid
bodies to pass through it freely is a little hard to get a grip on.  But Michelson realized
that, just as the speed of sound is relative to the air, so the speed of light must be relative
to the aether.  This must mean, if you could measure the speed of light accurately enough,
you could measure the speed of light travelling upwind, and compare it with the speed of
light travelling downwind, and the difference of the two measurements should be twice
the windspeed.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.  All the recent accurate measurements
had used light travelling to a distant mirror and coming back, so if there was an aether
wind along the direction between the mirrors, it would have opposite effects on the two
parts of the measurement, leaving a very small overall effect.  There was no technically
feasible way to do a one-way determination of the speed of light. 
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.  As he
explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on the following
puzzle:

Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both swim at
the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second).  The river is flowing at a steady
rate, say 3 feet per second.  The swimmers race in the following way: they both start at
the same point on one bank.  One swims directly across the river to the closest point on
the opposite bank, then turns around and swims back.  The other stays on one side of the
river, swimming upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the
width of the river, then swims back to the start.  Who wins? 
Let’s consider first the swimmer going upstream and back.  Going 100 feet upstream, the
speed relative to the bank is only 2 feet per second, so that takes 50 seconds.  Coming
back, the speed is 8 feet per second, so it takes 12.5 seconds, for a total time of 62.5
seconds.

The swimmer going across the flow is trickier.  It won’t do simply to aim directly for the
opposite bank-the flow will carry the swimmer downstream.  To succeed in going
directly across, the swimmer must actually aim upstream at the correct angle (of course, a
real swimmer would do this automatically).  Thus, the swimmer is going at 5 feet per
second, at an angle, relative to the river, and being carried downstream at a rate of 3 feet
per second.  If the angle is correctly chosen so that the net movement is directly across, in
one second the swimmer must have moved four feet across:  the distances covered in one
second will form a 3,4,5 triangle.  So, at a crossing rate of 4 feet per second, the swimmer
gets across in 25 seconds, and back in the same time, for a total time of 50 seconds.  The
cross-stream swimmer wins.  This turns out to true whatever their swimming speed.  (Of
course, the race is only possible if they can swim faster than the current!
)

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

Now, we have to be smart and inventive as Michelson was.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:

A quick reminder :

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

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

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.

First we have a runner No 1 who runs 20 km/h through let's say 1000 m long interior of the stationary train.

It is going to take 3 minutes for him to cross the entire distance of 1000 m.

Now, our runner No 2 runs also 20 km/h (at least during the first 10th (100 m) of the whole distance) across the interior of slowly moving train in a counter direction of train's motion.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

1. Air drag will be so negligible that we could discount it entirely!
2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance) of our runner NO 2 at the finish line (the backside of our moving train) due to the property of running (see above)!

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!

EDIT : FOR BOTH RUNNERS (IN THE STATIONARY TRAIN, AND IN THE MOVING TRAIN) OUR EXPERIMENT BEGINS (WE START TO MEASURE THE TIME) AFTER OUR RUNNERS PASS THE MARK WHICH DESIGNATES END OF THE FIRST 100 m OF THE WHOLE 1000 m LENGTH, THAT IS TO SAY : AFTER SLOW, IMPERCEPTIBLE ACCELERATION OF THE TRAIN ENDS.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71601.msg2017281#msg2017281) yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

Unfortunately, there's no passenger train service within a couple hundred miles of where I live. Even more important, your proposed experiment has too many variables that are hard to control in practice. For instance, you're suggesting timing three separate relatively short runs, but have no way to ensure that your pace was the same all three times. Accurate and repeatable timing could also be an issue.

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?

https://imgur.com/a/JjbYY

odiupicku5 days 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
Urban explorer22 hours 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!?

Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 10, 2018, 08:47:44 AM
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?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

* This looks dangerous. Don't try it unless you really know what you're doing!
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 09:47:42 AM
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?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: sokarul on February 10, 2018, 11:34:10 AM


https://imgur.com/a/JjbYY

odiupicku5 days 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
Urban explorer22 hours 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!?



Trains are non inertial FOR. 
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Alpha2Omega on February 10, 2018, 12:17:21 PM
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?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?

What? If he's running toward the rear or the train ("counter direction of train's motion") the wind (due to the train's motion) will make it easier for him to run faster. If he's running toward the front of the train, he will be running into the wind, which will tend to slow him down.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2018, 12:33:34 PM
623 meters? Isn't that awesome? What else do we need in order to prove that the earth is stationary?
How about some actual proof?

odiupicku5 days 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
Urban explorer22 hours 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!?
I see you yet again need to resort to moving outside the train, where the air is moving relative to the train which makes a comparison to Earth far more challenging.
Assuming there is no wind (relative to Earth) and the train is moving with significant speed, standing still on the train will make it feel like you have wind pushing you back.

How about you go back to dropping an object inside a train and seeing where it lands?
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: 29silhouette on February 14, 2018, 07:37:49 PM
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?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?
Moving objects really are not an area of strength for you.
Title: Re: INERTIA
Post by: Jonathan_Smith on February 18, 2018, 08:18:57 AM
Inertia = mass so inertia can't be lost anyway. Would appreciate if you would correct the terminology which would help me understand the question