When, why, and how long have you been a FE'er

Good grief, the Bishop doesn't even understand the most basic physics. Is the ball falling at a constant speed? No. So will it appear to follow a straight line trajectory to an outside observer? No.

Tom Bishop, do you understand acceleration?

The only way it would be a straight, diagonal line is if it was under NO ACCELERATION, only a constant velocity down with the velocity to the left or right carried from the ship.

But, because gravity (or the earth moving upward) is accelerating the ball (or toward the ball) at 9.8m/s^2, the velocity (or apparent velocity) is increasing over time, creating a parabolic path.

Tom, there is a net force on the ball, gravity (or you're UA if you prefer). IT HAS TO ACCELERATE. the ball will follow a parabola. And so will your ball in the train you mentioned above.

Tom this is high school physics.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on December 23, 2009, 04:29:59 PM

But have you ever read Earth Not a Globe?

Have you?

Quote from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm#page_62

CHAPTER III.
THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

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.

Seriously, is there any reason to continue reading when Rowbotham doesn't even know how parabolic motion works?

Quote from: Sutekh on December 23, 2009, 05:49:14 PM

Tom, there is a net force on the ball, gravity (or you're UA if you prefer). IT HAS TO ACCELERATE. the ball will follow a parabola. And so will your ball in the train you mentioned above.

Tom this is high school physics.

The parabola still takes the ball in a diagonal angle.

"Gravity" or the speed of the ball has nothing to do with what Rowbotham is talking about in the chapter. All he is saying is that the ball will fall into another position on a moving surface. The details beyond that are irrelevant for the subject matter.

as shown in the following diagram

HIs picture is a diagonal!!!

Now you admit it doesn't ?!?

Quote from: SupahLovah on December 23, 2009, 06:03:13 PM

as shown in the following diagram

The chapter is not about gravity, the speed of the ball through the air, or any of that. Just the fact that it will move diagonally to another position on a moving surface.

Quote

HIs picture is a diagonal!!!

So is parabolic motion.

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 12:05:00 AM

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 12:05:00 AM

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Quote from: dim on December 24, 2009, 12:22:45 AM

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 12:05:00 AM

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Dim, if I throw a ball up in the air then catch it, whilst riding along on a train at constant speed, will a ground based observer see the ball move in a diagonal line or a parabola?

Dim, you're really living up to your name. If I get in a car and drive from one side of a parking lot to the other by going round the perimeter, you can draw a straight line between where I started and where I finished, but that doesn't describe the path I took. Same with Rowbottom's ball. He claims a straight line is the path it takes. He is wrong.

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 12:05:00 AM

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Quote from: dim on December 24, 2009, 12:22:45 AM

Quote from: Sutekh on December 24, 2009, 12:05:00 AM

Quote from: dim on December 23, 2009, 11:45:49 PM

You guys, lost to Tom Bishop here this time, and may be again and again. What makeing you deny that river that flows in you!?

He explained very well. And this funky diagram shows that Earth has no motion. Which is cant be applied with RE.

seriously. a parabola is not a diagonal line.

Seriously, ball travels from point A to point B. And if to draw a line between them it will be diagonal, taking in account straight horizon line.

Seriously, drawing a line from the start point to the end point is not the same thing as tracing the path that the ball actually takes.

Seriously, drawing a line from the start point to the end point is not the same thing as tracing the path that the ball actually takes.

Quote from: markjo on December 24, 2009, 06:50:37 AM

Seriously, drawing a line from the start point to the end point is not the same thing as tracing the path that the ball actually takes.

The chapter isn't discussing the path the ball actually takes. It's not a discussion about the speed of the ball through the air. It's discussing how its resting place position will be displaced. The concept of parabola is irrelevant to the reader.

The only thing which matters is that the position will be displaced.

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


FIG. 47.

because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at

p. 65

[paragraph continues] 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 phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.

In the Victorian Age motion and gravity were often referred to as forces.

Another irrelevant nitpick.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2009, 09:48:02 AM

In the Victorian Age motion and gravity were often referred to as forces.

Another irrelevant nitpick.

I wasn't talking about gravity.  I was talking about the horizontal motion of the ball.  What causes the horizontal motion of the ball to be expended at the peak of it's trajectory?  Rowbotham said nothing about the ship accelerating so it must be assumed that the ship is traveling at a uniform rate.

I presume if he's not referring to it, he's not talking about it. From a zetetic point of view.