ENaG Denies Newton's Laws of Motion?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

According to the above link, ENaG says that Newton's Law of Motion (An Object in motion stays in motion specifically) doesn't exist.  Why?

Well, he says that

"By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, S; 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."

An object in motion will stay in motion.  An object at rest will stay at rest.
According to the book, the forward motion stops when the ball hits the apex of it's trajectory.  It also claims that it's trajectory is a diagonal line, which is odd since the forward motion is constant and the vertical is an acceleration down of 9.8M/2^2  This, as anyone should be able to tell you, is a curve, not a straight line.

So... any Flat Earthers want to try and defend this?  (besides Tom who is going to try anyway)?

The book should be taken with a hefty amount of salt, and then thrown away because it tastes disgusting.

I'm actually a little shocked Tom Bishop hasn't shown up to proclaim how I'm wrong.

Maybe he agrees with me?

I thought Rowbotham's M.O was to throw away conventional science?

I thought Rowbotham's M.O was to throw away conventional science?

From what I've read, that's about right.  Throw away conventional science and use lots of triangles.

Ignoring this topic doesn't make it go away, FE's.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

According to the above link, ENaG says that Newton's Law of Motion (An Object in motion stays in motion specifically) doesn't exist.  Why?

Well, he says that

"By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, S; 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."

An object in motion will stay in motion.  An object at rest will stay at rest.
According to the book, the forward motion stops when the ball hits the apex of it's trajectory.  It also claims that it's trajectory is a diagonal line, which is odd since the forward motion is constant and the vertical is an acceleration down of 9.8M/2^2  This, as anyone should be able to tell you, is a curve, not a straight line.

So... any Flat Earthers want to try and defend this?  (besides Tom who is going to try anyway)?

ENaG fails to take into consideration the rest of that law.  "An object at rest, tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion, tends to remain in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force.  Gravity would be that outside force.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 15, 2010, 01:01:00 PM

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

According to the above link, ENaG says that Newton's Law of Motion (An Object in motion stays in motion specifically) doesn't exist.  Why?

Well, he says that

"By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, S; 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."

An object in motion will stay in motion.  An object at rest will stay at rest.
According to the book, the forward motion stops when the ball hits the apex of it's trajectory.  It also claims that it's trajectory is a diagonal line, which is odd since the forward motion is constant and the vertical is an acceleration down of 9.8M/2^2  This, as anyone should be able to tell you, is a curve, not a straight line.

So... any Flat Earthers want to try and defend this?  (besides Tom who is going to try anyway)?

ENaG fails to take into consideration the rest of that law.  "An object at rest, tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion, tends to remain in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force.  Gravity would be that outside force.

Not even that.
It takes into account gravity just fine.  What it doesn't do is take into account that the ball isn't going to stop moving forward suddenly. 

Hint: It still denies it

One week has gone, and still not an answer. Is this really what people like Bishop believes?

It seems apparent to me now that they tend to ignore threads with actual substance, or ones that can't be easily nitpicked or derailed.

I declare Victory.

It's a diagram illustrating his point. You're the pedant here.

From what I understand, the object (thrown upwards diagonally) fails to travel in a parabola.  It simply reaches its apex and falls directly down (somehow losing all x-axis momentum).  Is this correct?  If it's the case, the diagram is what's in question, as we know and can repeatably find that objects fail to act in the way described.

It's a diagram illustrating his point. You're the pedant here.

Agreed. If it showed a curved path you've complain it's not perfectly parabolic. If it was perfectly parabolic you'd complain about the lack of factoring air resistance.

Get a life and stop jacking it!

ENaG is full of junk like this.  Its a important book for its time, and now, but much of it is incorrect.  Take the useful from it and throw away the crap, just like you Round Earthers do with Newton all the time.

Then again, many of you are fond of Astrology.


Of course, the ball does travel in a straight line until it stops in RE physics too.

If it showed a curved path you've complain it's not perfectly parabolic. If it was perfectly parabolic you'd complain about the lack of factoring air resistance.

Stop making such uninformed assumptions.  Just stop.

Of course, the ball does travel in a straight line until it stops in RE physics too.

No, it travels in a straight line until acted upon by an outside force (that force mainly being gravity in this instance).  The force of gravity imparts acceleration to the falling object, causing it to form a parabolic curve.

aahhhh, one statement of victory brought out the swarm.  I love it when people are predictable.


Anyway...

My issue isn't with the diagram but what it implies.  The argument is junk as it says that a ball will not move with the Earth once you let go of it. (ie. toss it up).  Obviously this is a junk argument.  His desire to put the path of the ball works when one force per direction is being applied (like dropping it) but not when you throw it up because the displacement is not the same.  The force up slows until gravity takes over and brings it down.  All that time the ball is moving with the ship.

I'm not as concerned about the parabola, as you can see, as with the other stuff.

And John, if ENaG is full of junk, perhaps you should have Tom or someone edit out the junk. 
Then again, how can you trust part of a book if the author puts in junk?

All that time the ball is moving with the ship.

It surprises me how people could argue against this.  I'd like to put a person like that on a moving train and watch them be incredibly careful about not dropping any knives or forks--meanwhile, I'll be juggling just to prove a point.

And John, if ENaG is full of junk, perhaps you should have Tom or someone edit out the junk. 
Then again, how can you trust part of a book if the author puts in junk?

Well, not everyone holds my views on it.

How can one trust Newton if he believed in Astrology?  Easily, because his other ideas are worthwhile. 

ENaG is full of junk like this.  Its a important book for its time, and now, but much of it is incorrect.  Take the useful from it and throw away the crap, just like you Round Earthers do with Newton all the time.

So which bits of ENaG are not crap?  Rowbotham based his claim that the earth does not rotate on the erroneous "fact" that a ball thrown from a moving vehicle will expend all of its forward motion at the apex of its trajectory.  If his premise is flawed, then how can we trust his conclusion?


Edit: quote error

Ok Children, enough arguing.

Let's get back to the matter at hand, being that ENaG has many "junk" parts to it.

Yes, it certainly does.

Thats pretty much the end to it.  Its not a bible or a Codex of complete truth.  Its an outdated book that is referenced due to it having relevant bits to current theory in it.  Except by some who still hold it to be true and are incorrect.

Remember that original point? I know it wasn't very good and I trounced it pretty well, but perhaps we should be discussing that rather than leaping on a passing remark and raping it to death?

Remember that original point? I know it wasn't very good and I trounced it pretty well, but perhaps we should be discussing that rather than leaping on a passing remark and raping it to death?

I'll split the thread.

Its not a bible or a Codex of complete truth.  Its an outdated book that is referenced due to it having relevant bits to current theory in it.  Except by some who still hold it to be true and are incorrect.

Much like the entire basis behind it.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 28, 2010, 04:17:39 PM

Ok Children, enough arguing.

Let's get back to the matter at hand, being that ENaG has many "junk" parts to it.

Yes, it certainly does.

Thats pretty much the end to it.  Its not a bible or a Codex of complete truth.  Its an outdated book that is referenced due to it having relevant bits to current theory in it.  Except by some who still hold it to be true and are incorrect.

Cue Tom Bishop.