Conducting one of Rowbotham's Experiments

I was reading through Earth is Not a Globe and decided to conduct one of the experiments as suggested by this site and the author.

While reading through Section 2 of the version that I found on Google (http://books.google.com/books?id=oTUDAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Earth+Not+a+Globe

I saw the experiment about dropping objects off of the mast and decided that it would be a perfect first experiment.



The derrick on the rig is 50 meters from the top to the rig floor.



While underway avoiding Gustav was the perfect time to conduct the experiment.  So I made sure that there was no one on the rig floor, and then tossed a shackle straight into the air.



It rose and then fell straight down to the rig floor.  I repeated the experiment with a wrench.  Still a straight drop.

Well, maybe 4 knots wasn't fast enough.  I tried the experiment again while on the crewboat to the beach.  This time I was tossing peanuts up about 10 feet and then watching to see where they fell.  I tossed the peanut up and it landed at my feet.

Well, maybe 20 knots wasn't fast enough.  Not having a train handy...



I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight.  This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead.  The peanut still came straight down into my lap.

Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present.  So Rowbotham's conclusion...

is flawed.

Nice one.
I applaud your efforts.

You should know that we all know Rowbotham is full of crap. (I'm sure you do already)

Prepare yourself for fancy new physics. This ought to be interesting.

Perhaps some weakly thought out rebuttal from Tombot as well

Luv ya work Rig

No need to bother doing experiments to show that this conclusion is crap, Rowbotham lacks basic scientific knowledge, his explanation is full of errors. He incorrectly labels momentum as a force, he assumes the object loses all momentum when it reaches the top of its path, he doesn't know objects fall in parabolic paths and generally has no knowledge of physics.

All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.

NB: He refers to gravity as a force. Engy loves it when people do that.

NB: He refers to gravity as a force. Engy loves it when people do that.

Considering the theory espousing gravitation hadn't been invented yet, I'll excuse his ignorance of it.

Very nice experiment(s). The fact that Rowbotham has no knowledge of elementary physics should be pretty obvious though. His motives were religious zealotry, not scientific curiosity. Rowbotham wasn't a scientist trying to prove a theory, he was trying to discredit science as a whole because it didn't fit into his christian beliefs.

Either that or he just wanted to have a good laugh while people actually took up his bull as the truth. Samuel Birley was probably the father of Something Awful. Or 4chan, or whoever is running this place.

All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.

Well, if it didn't keep being brought up as "proof" I would agree, but the experiments contained in that book are still brought up on a regular basis.

Quote from: ghazwozza on September 12, 2008, 07:29:53 AM

All of Rowbotham's work is full of such errors, and can be safely ignored.

Well, if it didn't keep being brought up as "proof" I would agree, but the experiments contained in that book are still brought up on a regular basis.

That is the standard method to making an argument out of nothing: Rowbotham pops up when you need "proof" and you are introduced to Zetetic science when you say the argument is not scientific, but disappears when someone challenges his results, or, even worse, repeats them with newer, better methods and equipment.

You can find (if you have a really boring day) where Narcberry and others declare all the real FE'rs have done all the experiments in that book. At least, I remember it was Narcberry, I may be wrong. No Flat Earther corrected him then.

How many of them have shown their faces in this thread?

Hey, I was planning on doing the first experiment soon. Only without doing anything. ...You'll see later on.

Hey, I was planning on doing the first experiment soon. Only without doing anything. ...You'll see later on.

I am looking forward to seeing your pictures.

I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight.  This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead.  The peanut still came straight down into my lap.

Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present.  So Rowbotham's conclusion...

Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?

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

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

Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?

Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.

This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.

Secondly, while Rowbotham's math in the text was a bit exaggerated for this particular experiment,

"Exaggerated" is not the right word. "Completely incorrect" might be the phrase you're looking for, see my previous posts.

if the earth were rotating the body in freefall should have landed in a slightly different spot due to centripetal acceleration.

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

If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.

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

Like I said, centripetal acceleration couldn't be detected by this experiment, even in RET. Rowbotham himself makes no mention of centripetal acceleration.

Quote

I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight.  This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead.  The peanut still came straight down into my lap.

Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present.  So Rowbotham's conclusion...

Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?

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

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

Tom,

The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible.  For example, at the equator:

  a = ω2r
  ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
  r  = 6,378,000m

  a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s²

Please do more research before you make such claims.

Tom Bishop makes yet more ridiculous claims. 

Quote

I decided to repeat the experiment on an airplane in flight.  This time I was unable to toss the peanut 10 feet, so I was tossing it the three feet to the overhead.  The peanut still came straight down into my lap.

Based on these experiments, I can concluded that dropping balls off of the mast of sailing vessels does nothing to prove whether there is motion present.  So Rowbotham's conclusion...

Uh, first of all you're an idiot. Your results were exactly the same as Rowbotham's and you're concluding that he's wrong?

Tom, have you actually read the text of Rowbotham's experiment? 

Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

Tom, how exactly does the ball "expend" its forward motion as it hits the apex of its trajectory?  This is a fundamental error that renders the entire experiment invalid.

Here is an error in his reasoning even a layperson (with no knowledge of maths or physics) could understand:

He distinguishes between an object being thrown upwards and an object being dropped. He says the former will fall diagonally (although it would actually fall in a parabolic arc). He says the latter will reach the top of its motion and then fall straight down.
But now consider throwing it with less and less speed, so that the upward leg gets smaller and smaller, the object will now travel a short distance and then fall straight down. Now imagine letting this speed go to zero -- by this reasoning the object will simply fall straight down. But, this is exactly the same as dropping it, and he said earlier that it will fall diagonally when dropped!
As you can see, magical Rowbothian physics leads to contradictions and cannot be true.

TB: Can you please never bring up Rowbotham's reasoning again? Not one of his arguments has ever stood up to even brief scrutiny.

Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.

This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.

Was the plane accelerating or moving at a set velocity? It certainly would happen on a plane if it were accelerating.

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

Centripetal acceleration is not provided by gravity. 

If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.

Go back to school.

Tom,

The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible.  For example, at the equator:

  a = ω2r
  ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
  r  = 6,378,000m

  a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s2

Please do more research before you make such claims.

The effect from centripetal acceleration may be negligible, but it's still there on a spinning globe. The fact that the OP could not detect any difference in the landing position of bodies acts only as additional evidence that the earth is still.

Quote

Tom,

The centripetal acceleration caused by the rotation of the earth is so small it's negligible.  For example, at the equator:

  a = ω2r
  ω = 1 rotation per day = 0.004166 deg/sec = 0.000072722 rad/sec
  r  = 6,378,000m

  a = (0.000072722)2 x 6,378,000 = 0.03373 m/s2

Please do more research before you make such claims.

The effect from centripetal acceleration may be negligible, but it's still there on a spinning globe. The fact that the OP could not detect any difference in its landing position acts only as additional evidence that the earth is still.

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

Not even close.  See: phsyics.

The last time I checked Centripetal Acceleration existed in Physics.

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

What exactly is "phsyics"?

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

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

What exactly is "phsyics"?

Unit 1 in Foundations of Fail 103.

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

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

What exactly is "phsyics"?

No-one likes a grammar nazi Robosteve.

Well, maybe E.Jack, but thats about it.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 14, 2008, 03:21:51 AM

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

Not even close.  See: phsyics. 

What exactly is "phsyics"?

No-one likes a grammar nazi Robosteve.

Noone likes Sokarul, either.

Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.

Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.

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

Quote

Yes, because he tried the same experiment in a plane and still got the same result, proving the experiment itself is in error.

This is exactly what any scientist could have told you from looking at Rowbotham's ridculously flawed reasoning.

Was the plane accelerating or moving at a set velocity? It certainly would happen on a plane if it were accelerating.

It would only happen if the plane were not following an inertial path. The Earth is following an inertial path around the sun, so it wouldn't happen.

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. 

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.

Quote

If you mean centripetal acceleration caused by the sun's gravity, it acts on the Earth too and so again will not change where the ball lands.

Go back to school.

I suggest you do that.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 04:48:01 AM

Don't be so sure. You can in all reality only speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.

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

Anyone who models themselves after a terrorist doesn't deserve recognition for anything they say EVER, and I like Sokarul, so everyone who's spoken up in this thread who matters likes Sokarul. I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.

I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.

Such a statement means you advocate his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements found on this board. If so, your objectivity can definitely be questioned.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on September 14, 2008, 06:24:05 AM

I don't even know who Sokarul is, but Sokarul is cool in my book.

Such a statement means you advocate his ignorant, pompous and incorrect statements found on this board. If so, your objectivity can definitely be questioned.

I like him even more now. None of you cited examples of why I should hate him... I'll bet he's just argumentative, and a dick. Can any long term RE'ers cite reference that I should dislike Sokarul?

I was mostly trying to point out that I dislike being moderated by a bin Laden, but I'm going to see where this goes... could be interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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