Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 07:22:44 AM

None of you cited examples of why I should hate him...

He's not worth the search effort to compile evidence that we've seen countless times.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 07:22:44 AM

I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick.

Like I said, ignorant, pompous and incorrect. You can add dick to that too if you'd like.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 07:22:44 AM

Can any FE'ers point me to his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements?

I'm sure if you're here long enough, some will materialize right before you.

You should be aware by now I'm not going to take your word for anything in particular... You're good for Pseudo-intellectual soundbites, but you're likely 90 degrees removed from my own frame of reference.

Well, let me try this to be sure... Is he incorrect in the way Narcberry is incorrect? Is he pompous the way RoboSteve is pompous? Is he ignorant the way Tom is ignorant?

I'm still just betting he's a dick... If you even given your mod status don't want to cite reference, then just step back. Someone will soon enough, or like you said, soon enough some will materialize right before me.

Well, let me try this to be sure... Is he incorrect in the way Narcberry is incorrect?

No, narc trolls and makes his posts on purpose.

Is he pompous the way RoboSteve is pompous?

Worse.

Is he ignorant the way Tom is ignorant?

If I related it to dogmatism, then perhaps.

Damn, man, you're keeping me up now, I gotta know... Paraphrase the worst thing he's ever said in your recollection.

None of you of you cited examples of why I should hate him... I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick.

Click on "Members" and search for "Sokarul". Go to his history and look at his posts.

I'm drunk and tired... I'll dig in tomorrow. You couldn't cite one instance of him pissing you off though?

Quote from: sokarul on September 13, 2008, 11:32:54 PM

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

What exactly is "phsyics"?

Funny thing is I could see you posting that even if physics was spelled correctly.   

The last time I checked Centripetal Acceleration existed in Physics.

That wasn't the part I had a problem with. 

Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.

Conservation of momentum and inertia.

Do the experiment in a car. Travel in a straight, forward direction without turning, and toss an object up in the open space of the car and you will experience conservation of momentum and inertia. Now, while still traveling in the car, turn. As you turn, toss the object up in the space again. What happens? Now the ball moves opposite the direction of which you are turning.

The earth is spinning on an axis, and the same rules apply. The object does not change location due to conservation of momentum and inertia. If the earth suddenly stopped spinning, we'd all be in for a world of hurt.

Uh, first of all you're an idiot.

Wow, that is twice you have called me that.

Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?

Which part matched his results?  In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...

And then there was the "experiment" from the train that he described...

He explain that the same results should be observed.  I increased the speed of the platform by a factor of 10, but still no deviation in the path.

Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.

I just posted all of the text, can you point out the math that discusses the centripetal force please?

Since you observed no centripetal acceleration with your measuring instruments your experiment only supports the notion that the earth is still.

Or that his original explanations were completely flawed.

Anyone who likes Sokarul doesn't deserve to count as a "someone", therefore noone likes Sokarul.

Wow, called an idiot and noone in a single thread.  This is getting better.

Physics fail.

What is the acceleration provided by? An object in circular motion is constantly accelerating. Objects don't just accelerate on their own, something must be causing it.

This might help.

In any sort of circular motion centripetal acceleration exists. A ball dropped from a high enough altitude would arrive at a slightly different horizontal spot. It's just like if a child threw up a peanut while spinning around on a merry-go-round. The child will have moved away by the time the peanut hits the floor of the merry-go-round.

Where is your evidence that centripital acceleration does not exist?

Which part matched his results?  In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...

Yep. If the boat is accelerating the ball would fall behind the boat.

Quote

Which part matched his results?  In his description, the ball thrown up would have landed behind the sailboat because of the movement of the boat...

Yep. If the boat is accelerating the ball would fall behind the boat.

Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?

Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?

It clearly says that the boat was put in motion. Any body which is put in motion must accelerate.

Quote

Where does it say that the boat was accelerating?

It clearly says that the boat was put in motion. Any body which is put in motion must accelerate.

Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating.  He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.

Quote

Centripetal acceleration is entirely provided by gravity and acts perpendicular to the Earth's surface (in RET). This means it will not change where the ball will land.

Centripetal acceleration is not provided by gravity. 

Incorrect.

Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating.  He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.

Quote

Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating.  He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.

OK, what Victorian term or phrase did Rowbotham use to indicate that the boat was not at a uniform speed?  Also, if the boat was not at a uniform speed, then what possible use could that experiment have served?

Quote

Rowbotham said nothing of the boat accelerating.  He only talks of the ball expending both its forward and upwards motion at the apex of its trajectory then falling solely due to gravity.

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.

So, since when can a sailing ship accelerate enough for a ball thrown upward to land behind it?  That's ludicrous.  It's clear he means the ship is traveling at near constant velocity.

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?

Quote from: ghazwozza on September 15, 2008, 05:07:40 AM

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?

If you have biceps the size of Florida, sure.

Quote from: ghazwozza on September 15, 2008, 05:07:40 AM

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?

Let's assume it's thrown at less than escape velocity. In fact, let's assume it's thrown at a relatively low speed.

Does throwing it upwards at 11.2 kilometres per second still count as throwing it upwards?

Not even his rifle shooting upward experiment has that sort of acceleration.

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

But Rowbotham says that he read Newton, and the term is very common there.  It is probably safe to say that he was familiar with the concept regardless of the "popularity" of the word in Victorian language.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 14, 2008, 08:38:30 PM

Of course he wouldn't have used the term accelerate. The word "accelerate" didn't come into popularity in language until the 1900's when the first "accelerators" appeared in motor vehicles.

The meaning behind Rowbotham's Victorian terms and phrases remain clear, however.

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

No reply, TB?

No reply, TB?

I knew it was too much to expect one.

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

If the earth were a spinning globe the ball would not land exactly where it was dropped due to centripetal acceleration from the earth's rotation. It would take careful measurement to observe the difference, but the ball will be in another location from where it was dropped nonetheless.

The effect of centripetal acceleration also occurs when a child tosses a peanut straight up into the air while spinning around on a merry-go-round.

Quote

As I understand it, he's talking complete crap. So here's a challenge, TB:

Using modern language and a modern understanding of physics, explain why, if RET were correct, a ball thrown directly upwards would not land back where it started.

If you can't do this, Rowbotham's experiment is useless because it shows nothing.

If the earth were a spinning globe the ball would not land exactly where it was dropped due to centripetal acceleration from the earth's rotation. It would take careful measurement to observe the difference, but the ball will be in another location from where it was dropped nonetheless.

The effect of centripetal acceleration also occurs when a child tosses a peanut straight up into the air while spinning around on a merry-go-round.

This isn't exactly the rigorous physical explanation I was looking for, but OK.

Centripetal acceleration acts (by definition) exactly inwards. This means that it would affect the time it takes the ball to return to Earth, but not where it falls. I'll repeat: centripetal acceleration does not act horizontally.

See here. Note that because the Earth turns at a constant rate, tangential aceleration is zero. (Coriolis effect is negligeable compared to experimental uncertainties.)

Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.

Centripetal acceleration acts (by definition) exactly inwards. This means that it would affect the time it takes the ball to return to Earth, but not where it falls. I'll repeat: centripetal acceleration does not act horizontally.

Sure it does.

See here. Note that because the Earth turns at a constant rate, tangential aceleration is zero. (Coriolis effect is negligeable compared to experimental uncertainties.)

Um. A rotating earth wouldn't be turning at a constant rate. It would be expressing centripital acceleration as the bodies on the surface change direction. Any rotating body is expressing centripetal acceleration. Any change in speed or direction is an acceleration.

Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.

Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?

A: No. The child has spun away by the time the peanut falls down - he has changed direction and thus accelerated away from the peanut. The peanut hits the surface of the merry-go-round with a clank.