« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments

  • 78 Replies
  • 22919 Views
*

lolz at trollz

  • 501
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #60 on: September 20, 2008, 07:10:31 PM »
peanuts do not land with a clank. 

Tom Bishop proves he is mentally retarded once again. 
Logged
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Video proof that the Earth is flat!

Run run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me cos I'm in the lollipop forest and you can't get there!
?

jargo

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2008, 01:37:20 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:36:13 PM

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

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

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

Well actually the peanut continues to move to the direction where the child was travelling when he threw the peanut.
So the peanut would probably land somewhere outside of the merry-go round.
Logged
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2008, 06:55:19 AM »
You're either not reading or not understanding.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:36:13 PM
Um. A rotating earth wouldn't be turning at a constant rate. It would be expressing centripital acceleration as the bodies on the surface change direction. Any rotating body is expressing centripetal acceleration. Any change in speed or direction is an acceleration.

For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:36:13 PM
Quote
Your child-on-a-merry-go-round analogy is false because the peanut will land further out than it was thrown. It is impossible for the ball to land further from the Earth's centre.

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

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

I didn't say it would land in his lap. It would land further out from the centre, right?
Are you saying the ball will and somewhere up in the air?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM »
Quote
You're either not reading or not understanding.

For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?

All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.

You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #64 on: September 21, 2008, 05:46:05 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.

Except two.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2008, 03:24:47 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
Quote
You're either not reading or not understanding.

For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?

All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.

You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.

I'm taking a University course in maths and physics. Does that count?

Let me run my argument by you again: Earth's angular velocity is constant. This means acceleration is entirely downwards (i.e. towards the centre of the Earth). Because the acceleration is entirely downwards, it does not affect where the ball will land.

Comprende?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 21, 2008, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.

No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2008, 05:16:07 AM »
Quote from: ghazwozza on September 22, 2008, 03:24:47 AM
Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 21, 2008, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.

No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.

I thought he was only referring to the surface of a spherical body.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2008, 05:38:59 AM »
Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 22, 2008, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: ghazwozza on September 22, 2008, 03:24:47 AM
Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 21, 2008, 05:46:05 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction.
Except two.

No, except an infinite number of points along the axis of rotation.

I thought he was only referring to the surface of a spherical body.

Whatever, it's not like it's particularly important.
Logged
*

MadDogX

  • 735
  • +0/-0
  • Resistor is fubar!
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2008, 06:24:24 AM »
Quote from: goldstein on September 22, 2008, 06:23:28 AM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 21, 2008, 02:52:10 PM
Quote
You're either not reading or not understanding.

For all intents and purposes, the rate (i.e. angular velocity) is constant. Why would it be changing?

All points on a rotating body are constantly changing direction. it doesn't matter if the velocity is constant. Any change of direction is an acceleration.

You seriously need to take an elementary high school physics course.


Tom, I'm seriously offering to pay your school tuition fees. PM me with the details and we can sort this out once and for all.


Leave the guy alone. He's only 19.
Logged
Quote from: Professor Gaypenguin
I want an Orion slave woman :(
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 05, 2008, 12:45:49 PM
Okay, I admit it.  The earth isn't flat.
*

longbow64

  • 49
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2008, 12:52:43 PM »
In any sort of circular motion centripetal acceleration exists. A ball dropped from a high enough altitude would arrive at a slightly different horizontal spot. It's just like if a child threw up a peanut while spinning around on a merry-go-round. The child will have moved away by the time the peanut hits the floor of the merry-go-round.

Where is your evidence that centripital acceleration does not exist?
[/quote]

This would be true if the earth was spinning in a disk, since the earth doesn't spin in FET, this doesn't happen.
Logged
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2008, 02:12:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 20, 2008, 02:36:13 PM
Q: A child spinning on a merry-go-round at a "constant rate" throws a peanut straight up into the air. Does the peanuts fall right back into his lap?

A: Yes.  It depends on the size of our merry-go-round.  If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #71 on: September 30, 2008, 12:21:10 PM »
Quote
A: Yes.  It depends on the size of our merry-go-round.  If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.

I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.

But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2008, 12:23:02 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 43248
  • +9/-9
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #72 on: September 30, 2008, 12:46:02 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2008, 12:21:10 PM
Quote
A: Yes.  It depends on the size of our merry-go-round.  If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.

I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.

But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.

Just out of curiosity, what does a spinning merry-go-round (a flat disc) have to do with the a spinning spherical earth?  The forces involved are at different angles to the axis of rotation, therefore not comparable.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Rig Navigator

  • 808
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #73 on: September 30, 2008, 11:38:09 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2008, 12:21:10 PM
Quote
A: Yes.  It depends on the size of our merry-go-round.  If the radius of his merry-go-round was, lets say one mile, and it took an hour to make one rotation, it would definitely land in his lap.

I've never seen a merry-go-round with a one mile radius. Don't inject your fantasies into rational debate.

It is a thought experiment.  You mentioned centrifugal force on a small merry-go-round, and I upscaled it since we are talking about motion on a planetary scale.


Quote
But even if that sized merry-go-round did exist and was spinning, the peanut would still be deflected on its way down. It would just take more careful observation to detect it.

But it wouldn't have enough deflection to have the results that Rowbotham has saying that we should observe.  If we aren't going to be able to observe the deflection without careful measurements, which his experiment does not call for or even have, then it is invalid as evidence for or against RE and FE.
Logged
?

MrKappa

  • 448
  • +0/-0
  • Math abstracts reality... it does not create it...
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #74 on: October 01, 2008, 05:51:37 AM »
Quote from: ghazwozza on September 13, 2008, 03:07:31 PM
He distinguishes between an object being thrown upwards and an object being dropped. He says the former will fall diagonally (although it would actually fall in a parabolic arc).

I read this thread and this is the first time I have heard this. Are you saying that if I drop something from a height it should actually curve rather than fall straight? Or are you referring to the way water forms an arc when it is propelled parallel to the surface of the earth? I hope this is what you are referring to. If not... could you please post reference to something which explains its. I only ask for the sake of learning.




 
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #75 on: October 01, 2008, 11:44:39 AM »
Quote
But it wouldn't have enough deflection to have the results that Rowbotham has saying that we should observe.  If we aren't going to be able to observe the deflection without careful measurements, which his experiment does not call for or even have, then it is invalid as evidence for or against RE and FE.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2008, 01:05:06 AM
Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment, if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration. Sort of like what happens if a kid tosses up a ball while he's spinning around on a merry-go-round.

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

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9074
  • +0/-0
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #76 on: October 01, 2008, 04:10:44 PM »
...so how do you 'exaggerate' math without it being wrong?  ;)
Logged
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.
?

secondspendulum

  • 9
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2008, 07:06:37 PM »
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on October 01, 2008, 04:10:44 PM
...so how do you 'exaggerate' math without it being wrong?  ;)

Uhhhh....
Example:

Exaggeration of math = using 10x instead of just x?

I think?
Logged
Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 05, 2008, 03:47:09 PM
Rowbotham was an idiot.  Ships disappear due to bendy light.
?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments
« Reply #78 on: December 12, 2008, 04:24:56 AM »
Centripetal Acceleration is always along the line of radius from the centre of rotation.

On a Flat Disk, like a merry-go-round, this will be toward the edge of the disk. On a rotating sphere, this will always be vertical to the surface of the Sphere.

So on a Rotating Round Earth, this centripetal acceleration would act to change the vertical vector of the thrown object. On a Flat Disk (like a merry-go-round), this will be towards the centre of the disk.

Thus, if an object is thrown on a disk, it is no longer attached to the rotation, and so is no longer being accelerated. The result is that it will move at a tangent from the point it was released.

So, Tom, you are wrong.
Logged
Everyday household experimentation.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »