# Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories

• 8 Replies
• 2686 Views
?

#### Curiosity

• 8
##### Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« on: March 09, 2007, 10:00:31 PM »
I noticed that in Chapter 3 of his book, he argued for the absence of orbital or axial motion, using a model of dropping a ball on a sailing ship to demonstrate that if, in the presence of axial or orbital motion, objects that were dropped would fall behind where they were released.  This doesn't make sense to me.  As you hold the ball on the surface of earth, it is essentially moving through space at a the speed equivalent to the earth's movement.  According to Newton's law of inertia, the ball, when released, would continue moving through space at the same rate unless it encounters resistance.  On Earth, it will encounter no resistance due to the fact that the air is moving along with earth's motion, so it would stay in motion until it reaches the ground.  On the ship, however, the ball would encounter air resistance and so would fall behind the ship.  Please clarify this for me.

#### mightyfletch

• 186
• 14yr Meteorologist...because the Earth is round.
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2007, 09:05:54 AM »
The problem with using a sailing ship is that it rocks around while it moves due to the ocean waves.  So it would be difficult to accurately measure how a ball falls when your frame of reference moves around erratically.  Not to mention the areodynamics of the hull of the ship affecting it.  In fact dropping a ball would be difficult to use in any case.  You would have to drop it over a long distance through a vacuum since wind direction and speed can change significantly over any distance long enough to show axial motion.  One illustration is shown in the ascent of a weather baloon.  There is a web site that has a JAVA application showing weather baloon data.  As you move up the graph along the temperature line, a corresponding circular graph shows how it deviates from its launch location.  Type in a station identifier such as 'kbad' to retrieve the data.

http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/soundings/java/old/  It looks like the site is having some problems.  I guess you can try it later.

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, no, it's a plane, no, it's the International Space Station!

?

#### John McCall

• 147
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2007, 12:19:00 PM »
...fcku
Mongrelman's the real douche.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17891
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2007, 12:33:15 PM »
Quote

Rotating bodies exhibit centripetal acceleration. So yes, objects dropped from a significant height should indeed be shifted in location as the earth rotates below them.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 12:55:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### sokarul

• 19301
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2007, 01:11:22 PM »
Quote

Rotating bodies exhibit centripetal acceleration. So yes, objects dropped from a significant height should indeed be shifted in location as the earth rotates below them.
So now you believe the earth rotates?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17891
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2007, 01:18:22 PM »
Quote
So now you believe the earth rotates?

Notice the keyword "should" in my previous post.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham dismisses the notion of earthly rotation in his honest and inquisitive experiments. If the ship experiment is unsatisfying to the reader, in another experiment Rowbotham drops a weight down a long well and measures its displacement. His conclusion was zero rotation. I agree with Dr. Rowbotham's findings.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 01:21:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Roundy the Truthinessist

• Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
• The Elder Ones
• 27043
• I'm the boss.
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2007, 02:25:23 PM »
No shit, really?

And yet you argue for Universal Acceleration, which you yourself have said didn't exist in Rowbotham's model.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

#### sokarul

• 19301
• Extra Racist
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2007, 02:31:58 PM »
Quote
So now you believe the earth rotates?

Notice the keyword "should" in my previous post.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham dismisses the notion of earthly rotation in his honest and inquisitive experiments. If the ship experiment is unsatisfying to the reader, in another experiment Rowbotham drops a weight down a long well and measures its displacement. His conclusion was zero rotation. I agree with Dr. Rowbotham's findings.
lol tell that to newton.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

#### Ulrichomega

• 736
• Bring it Bishop.
##### Re: Samuel Birley Robowtham's theories
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2007, 05:09:55 PM »
How does dropping a rock down a well justify no rotation? Even if he could calculate how much the ball would deflect and then go down, measure where it FIRST hit and not where it bounced to, how could he...

Lost train of thought there, ok, but I think I got my point over a little bit.

EDIT: Actual response please, not some cryptic thing that says it is stated in the HOLY BOOK OF FE, written by the flawless and perfect celestial being Rowbathan, how the experiment was carried out.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...