Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?

  • 24 Replies
  • 4274 Views
?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« on: July 28, 2010, 04:02:34 AM »
Hello, FE and RE people. I would like to share my thoughts with you and show you something:

Okay, for this we will get ENaG and take into considiration one of the experiments; one of those that shows that Earth has no axial motion. Here I advise you to read carefully the entire page i linked below:

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

Now my little addition word for this:

If the Earth revoling then speeds of every point of the surface of the Earth that are in different latitudes should differ(due to rotundity). From normal RE literature we know that point on the surface that lays on the equator will have a speed of rotation around 1500km/s, and the point on the surface that lays on the territory of England would have a speed around 1000 km/s. What it giving to us?

Here is a citation from the ENaG(from the same link): "in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air"

So, with all other conditions even we should be astonished with the fact, that if the world was RE - the place where ball will come down behind the point from it was thrown MUST DIFFER ACCORDING TO THE LATITUDE WHERE EXPERIMENT HAPPENS. But no such thing is observable. On every latitude the distance is the same!

If so, how would we appreciate the modern physics with this notorious Foucault pendulum, if the big part of the science is based on the rotunditiy and velocity of the planet, but the simpliest RE laws are not happen on the Earth?

In other words, when two strenghts(impulses) that drive the ball upwards and let's say eastward are gone, then, if on the RE, third impulse comes into play - the speed of the rotation of the Earth on every exact latitude. So, this strenght must be different around the globe, hence we should get different results at different latitudes. But seems, like that not happens. It really shows now that the Earth has no axial motion(therefore no orbital motion also).

Do you have any concerns about this phenomena? Let's talk.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 04:04:59 AM by dim »

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2010, 04:27:31 AM »
My main concern was the spelling and grammar which made your post incoherent.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2010, 04:30:24 AM »
Oh, sorry. English is mine third language and i didn't master it yet. So please, be intuitive, moreover I gave a link to ENaG with proper spelling. Mine only addtion was to implement the experiment on different latitudes(which is not fully covered with ENaG) and I added speeds of the Earth's rotation. It's simple. And for me - it shows that Earth has no motion... What are yours?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2010, 04:36:18 AM »
Do you have any concerns about this phenomena? Let's talk.

Yes.

1) A non rotating earth does not prove a flat earth
2) Foucault's Pendulum proves that the earth is rotating.

Denial seems to be your strongest weapon here. Tom usually weighs in with some conspiracy stuff.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2010, 04:46:25 AM »
Do you have any concerns about this phenomena? Let's talk.

Yes.

1) A non rotating earth does not prove a flat earth
2) Foucault's Pendulum proves that the earth is rotating.

Denial seems to be your strongest weapon here. Tom usually weighs in with some conspiracy stuff.

Well, Earth non rotating axially for sure shows flatness of thea Earth(or at least not an ortodox model of it), cuz if Earth has no axial motion it hence woulnd not have orbital too, unless you can explain changing of day and night).

About Pendulum, the experiment was held couple of years after complete ENaG book was released, in 1851. It was done in the presence of French major people, and from the history it understood that all elite in the world are concerned in making different hoaxes to keep people dimmed. So, what I really think, the Foucault Pendulem is a merely mathematical pendulum which shows nothing. And moreover, you probably can't create this pendulem by yourself due to toughness of such a composition.

So yes, I deny Foucault, but showing you a little reworked ENaG theory that really shows Earth has no motion. So?

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2010, 04:51:23 AM »
explain changing of day and night

The heavens could move about the earth. This was quite a commonly held belief so I'm told.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2010, 04:53:19 AM »
explain changing of day and night

The heavens could move about the earth. This was quite a commonly held belief so I'm told.

So, you're FE'er ? Or at least you have doubts concerning ortodox space theory?

BTW, with such stuff i was banned on the russian astronomy portal, btw i was banned on "forever" with moderators deleting my posts. So, thats why i came here.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2010, 05:15:02 AM »
The ball you are trowing vertically is already traveling at 1500 km/h (assuming your example at the Equator) and the ball will be in the air for about a second, which is 1/86400 of a rotation of Earth, so for all practical purposes the stretch of land from which you threw the ball did not turn (it turned a total of about 0.004 degrees).

If you could throw your ball on a perfectly vertical direction, and there was no wind at all, and the ball lasted a few minutes in the air, you would have a plausible experiment, but since those conditions are impossible you would be incapable of determining whether your results came from a round Earth rotating, or a flat Earth rotating, or the wind, or the air resistance, or a cannon that was not perfectly vertical.

And the part of Rowbotham's book you quoted is pure garbage, so much so that you have a hard time even understanding if he really believes that cannon balls move in a straight line and then suddenly collapse.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2010, 05:25:03 AM »
The ball you are trowing vertically is already traveling at 1500 km/h (assuming your example at the Equator) and the ball will be in the air for about a second, which is 1/86400 of a rotation of Earth, so for all practical purposes the stretch of land from which you threw the ball did not turn (it turned a total of about 0.004 degrees).

If you could throw your ball on a perfectly vertical direction, and there was no wind at all, and the ball lasted a few minutes in the air, you would have a plausible experiment, but since those conditions are impossible you would be incapable of determining whether your results came from a round Earth rotating, or a flat Earth rotating, or the wind, or the air resistance, or a cannon that was not perfectly vertical.

And the part of Rowbotham's book you quoted is pure garbage, so much so that you have a hard time even understanding if he really believes that cannon balls move in a straight line and then suddenly collapse.

Well, in Rowbotham's experiment the ball up in the air for about 24 seconds. So from the moment ball beings it's descent there is much time for Earth's rotation. 1500km/h = 0,41km in a second. Let's multiply on 12 - there's a big amount.
And in his experiment he claims that all conditions were perfect for this. Anyway, if you read this chapter of ENaG entirely and focused you will find a letter of English Prime Minister to his Warchief. The letter was about firing balls at different locations of Earth, and all artilerrymen show that no changes happen in different locations. So?

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2010, 05:30:32 AM »
About Pendulum, the experiment was held couple of years after complete ENaG book was released, in 1851. It was done in the presence of French major people, and from the history it understood that all elite in the world are concerned in making different hoaxes to keep people dimmed. So, what I really think, the Foucault Pendulem is a merely mathematical pendulum which shows nothing. And moreover, you probably can't create this pendulem by yourself due to toughness of such a composition.

So yes, I deny Foucault, but showing you a little reworked ENaG theory that really shows Earth has no motion. So?
The Foucault Pendulum experiment has been repeated hundreds or thousands of times. You would have a point if the experiment had been done once and had never been successfully repeated, but you can go to many universities right now and see one for yourself, with better design and execution than the original.

The chronology of the experiments is quite irrelevant for science. Any experiment that is improved over time and done with increasing accuracy and consistent results is acceptable science. Experiments like the Bedford Canal experiment in that book, that were never repeated successfully with better equipment and better experiment design are just a sad footnote in the History of Science.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2010, 05:36:03 AM »
About Pendulum, the experiment was held couple of years after complete ENaG book was released, in 1851. It was done in the presence of French major people, and from the history it understood that all elite in the world are concerned in making different hoaxes to keep people dimmed. So, what I really think, the Foucault Pendulem is a merely mathematical pendulum which shows nothing. And moreover, you probably can't create this pendulem by yourself due to toughness of such a composition.

So yes, I deny Foucault, but showing you a little reworked ENaG theory that really shows Earth has no motion. So?
The Foucault Pendulum experiment has been repeated hundreds or thousands of times. You would have a point if the experiment had been done once and had never been successfully repeated, but you can go to many universities right now and see one for yourself, with better design and execution than the original.

The chronology of the experiments is quite irrelevant for science. Any experiment that is improved over time and done with increasing accuracy and consistent results is acceptable science. Experiments like the Bedford Canal experiment in that book, that were never repeated successfully with better equipment and better experiment design are just a sad footnote in the History of Science.

Haven't heard the Bedford canal experiment was never repeated successfully - where to get information about this?

About Foucault Pendulum - as i noted before this is merely mathematical pendulum, that is works how it works bacause of very precise and tough technology of this composition. I bet nobody can create and operate this pendulum without very special knowledge.

That's my opinion.
And I never heard about technologies that utilize Earth's rotation on different latitudes. Moreover, does aircraft use less fuel when flying westward? The answer is NO, i guess. But on the rotating Earth they ought to.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2010, 05:43:49 AM »
So, you're FE'er ? Or at least you have doubts concerning ortodox space theory?

No. I'm a RE'er. I was challenging your premise that a non rotating earth equals a flat earth.

The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2010, 05:47:28 AM »
The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

Exactly! For example, snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect when firing from long range, since the trajectory of the bullet is slightly altered from 100% straight flight path due to rotation of the Earth.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2010, 05:53:21 AM »
So, you're FE'er ? Or at least you have doubts concerning ortodox space theory?

No. I'm a RE'er. I was challenging your premise that a non rotating earth equals a flat earth.

The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

As i already noted, topic on ballistic was talked over in the time of Crimean War, in the time when it was very important. And artillerymen show that no difference is happen.

Not rotating Earth maybe not shows that earth is flat, but i shows that all we are heard and read about the space is under the question at best.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2010, 06:02:44 AM »
The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

Exactly! For example, snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect when firing from long range, since the trajectory of the bullet is slightly altered from 100% straight flight path due to rotation of the Earth.

Oh well. I think it's a fallacy that snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect, as the bullet's fire speed starts from 830 meters a second, which is 49800 meter or 48 km a minute and 2988000 meters an hour or 2880 km/h. So that speed is much higher then supposed Earth velocity and the distance from sniper fires not more then couple of kilmoteres. I think sniper should focus more on his hands shaking rather then to "notorious Corolious effect".
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 06:04:25 AM by dim »

Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 06:15:10 AM »
The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

Exactly! For example, snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect when firing from long range, since the trajectory of the bullet is slightly altered from 100% straight flight path due to rotation of the Earth.

Oh well. I think it's a fallacy that snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect, as the bullet's fire speed starts from 830 meters a second, which is 49800 meter or 48 km a minute and 2988000 meters an hour or 2880 km/h. So that speed is much higher then supposed Earth velocity and the distance from sniper fires not more then couple of kilmoteres. I think sniper should focus more on his hands shaking rather then to "notorious Corolious effect".

For a bullet travelling at a mean velocity (to account for the drag caused by air resistance) of 750 m/s to travel a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) takes two seconds. During those two seconds, Earth's equator will rotate (1500/3.6 m/s)*2s = 833 meters.

So yes, the Coriolis effect has to be taken account for if you want to kill your targets from a long range.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 06:17:16 AM »
For a bullet travelling at a mean velocity (to account for the drag caused by air resistance) of 750 m/s to travel a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) takes two seconds. During those two seconds, Earth's equator will rotate (1500/3.6 m/s)*2s = 833 meters.

So yes, the Coriolis effect has to be taken account for if you want to kill your targets from a long range.

So you'd have to aim 833 meters away from your target? That would be quite difficult.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 06:20:37 AM »
For a bullet travelling at a mean velocity (to account for the drag caused by air resistance) of 750 m/s to travel a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) takes two seconds. During those two seconds, Earth's equator will rotate (1500/3.6 m/s)*2s = 833 meters.

So yes, the Coriolis effect has to be taken account for if you want to kill your targets from a long range.

So you'd have to aim 833 meters away from your target? That would be quite difficult.

Effective range of the Dragunov sniper rifle which i took as an example is 1.2km. But what your question has to do with the subject?

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2010, 06:25:18 AM »
I'm asking about what whatnot said. He was trying to refute your claim.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2010, 06:41:36 AM »
The rotation of the earth is accounted for, where necessary, in ballistics.

Exactly! For example, snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect when firing from long range, since the trajectory of the bullet is slightly altered from 100% straight flight path due to rotation of the Earth.

Oh well. I think it's a fallacy that snipers have to take into account the Coriolis effect, as the bullet's fire speed starts from 830 meters a second, which is 49800 meter or 48 km a minute and 2988000 meters an hour or 2880 km/h. So that speed is much higher then supposed Earth velocity and the distance from sniper fires not more then couple of kilmoteres. I think sniper should focus more on his hands shaking rather then to "notorious Corolious effect".

For a bullet travelling at a mean velocity (to account for the drag caused by air resistance) of 750 m/s to travel a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) takes two seconds. During those two seconds, Earth's equator will rotate (1500/3.6 m/s)*2s = 833 meters.

So yes, the Coriolis effect has to be taken account for if you want to kill your targets from a long range.

So, you're saying that in practice it is so, that when you fire onto the target that you see in the optical finder the bullet will be delivered 833 meters away from what you saw through the finder?

And also snipers should: find out witch direction he fires at, at which latitude he is, as well as wind's strenght, target's speed and self hands shaking. Too much stuff to do, nobody would fire perfect, unless we are on a stationary Earth.

My friend was a sniper in the army. I will ask him today what he was taught according the shape of the Earth.

?

dim

  • 404
  • More overpowered than Aristotel.
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2010, 06:47:42 AM »
I'm asking about what whatnot said. He was trying to refute your claim.

Oh, sorry. Didn't notice that at the beginning. :) thanks for support! (actually we expressed very same opinion later on his refutal)

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #21 on: July 28, 2010, 06:59:28 AM »
The ball you are trowing vertically is already traveling at 1500 km/h (assuming your example at the Equator) and the ball will be in the air for about a second, which is 1/86400 of a rotation of Earth, so for all practical purposes the stretch of land from which you threw the ball did not turn (it turned a total of about 0.004 degrees).

If you could throw your ball on a perfectly vertical direction, and there was no wind at all, and the ball lasted a few minutes in the air, you would have a plausible experiment, but since those conditions are impossible you would be incapable of determining whether your results came from a round Earth rotating, or a flat Earth rotating, or the wind, or the air resistance, or a cannon that was not perfectly vertical.

And the part of Rowbotham's book you quoted is pure garbage, so much so that you have a hard time even understanding if he really believes that cannon balls move in a straight line and then suddenly collapse.

Well, in Rowbotham's experiment the ball up in the air for about 24 seconds. So from the moment ball beings it's descent there is much time for Earth's rotation. 1500km/h = 0,41km in a second. Let's multiply on 12 - there's a big amount.
And in his experiment he claims that all conditions were perfect for this. Anyway, if you read this chapter of ENaG entirely and focused you will find a letter of English Prime Minister to his Warchief. The letter was about firing balls at different locations of Earth, and all artilerrymen show that no changes happen in different locations. So?
I am sorry to have to be the one to break the news, but your comprehension of both physics and mathematics is terrible.

The cannon ball does not suddenly lose the 1500 km/h horizontal speed it already had just because it is in the air. Newtons laws tell you that when the ball passes from the cannon to the air it will only change the horizontal speed if there is a force that causes the change. In this case there is no horizontal force.

You are multiplying 0.41 km/s by 12 just because the numbers are there, not because you understand the applicable physics and applicable mathematics for the problem. You will have to take a course on physics, at least a high school level course, to understand any answer you might get for your misconception.

As for the story of the English Prime Minister, the cannon ball that has 1500 km/h horizontal speed at the Equator, still has it after leaving the cannon. The same happens with the 1000 km/h in Europe or the 0 km/h on the North Pole, so no wonder, the artillerymen did not find a change, unless, maybe, the cannon is the Big Betha.

Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2010, 07:26:56 AM »
For a bullet travelling at a mean velocity (to account for the drag caused by air resistance) of 750 m/s to travel a distance of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) takes two seconds. During those two seconds, Earth's equator will rotate (1500/3.6 m/s)*2s = 833 meters.

So yes, the Coriolis effect has to be taken account for if you want to kill your targets from a long range.

So you'd have to aim 833 meters away from your target? That would be quite difficult.

No, not exactly. For a bullet fired from the equator to the north direction, for example, the bullet will also travel along with the rotating Earth's surface at a starting velocity of 416 m/s (1500 km/h). The total composite mean velocity of the bullet in relation to the Earth-centered inertial frame is thus sqrt[(416 m/s)² + (750 m/s)²] = approx. 858 m/s. Just to show that the bullet indeed does travel along the rotating Earth, but...

The Coriolis effect comes from the fact that after being fired the bullet doesn't experience any centripetal acceleration due to Earth's rotation, but the sniper and the target do. After firing the shot, the bullet takes a straight flight path (ignoring vertical motion for the sake of point) in the Earth-centered frame, but the sniper and the target have curved paths because they rotate along the Earths rotating surface. Thus, the flight path of the bullet deviates from the expected "straight path" from sniper to target, but this is only because the sniper and the target observe the path of the bullet from a rotating frame of reference. An animated gif from Wikipedia demonstrates this pretty well:


(this animation is only a 213kb file - please don't delete!)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 07:29:40 AM by whatnot »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2010, 08:05:06 AM »
About Foucault Pendulum - as i noted before this is merely mathematical pendulum, that is works how it works bacause of very precise and tough technology of this composition. I bet nobody can create and operate this pendulum without very special knowledge.

Actually, an unpowered Foucault Pendulum is quite simple and is often done as high school physics projects.  All you need is a heavy weight suspended from a few meters (the higher the better).

That's my opinion.

And you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.
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.

Re: Looks like a proof for FE. What do you say?
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2010, 08:38:45 PM »
Sorry kids, the Earth rotates.. And the so called experiment was considered from what I have heard as being a failure.. Anyways, the FE theory can simply be debunked with magnets, or throwing a ball straight into the air.. If FE were correct the ball would never return, or I could send a magnet shooting into the sky. hence space flight, or even flight itself would be made easier if their form of "gravity" was electromagnetism ;) Shit, that would save on fuel costs!

However, I agree that this thread is nothing more than pseudoscience, and still doesn't even remotely establish RE from FE.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?