ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"

Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"

The author makes a fuss about the lack of substantial Easterly deflection in these experiments, and about the presence of a substantial Southerly deflection, asserting that this proves the earth to have no rotational motion. But, if the earth had no rotational motion, why is there such a substantial Southerly deflection of the falling objects?

Here's the theory behind the original experiments: an object suspended at rest is moving with the earth at whatever the rotational speed is at that point on the earth; a point some distance directly below the object is moving at a slightly lower speed, due to the smaller radius of it's circle; when the suspended object is released, it retains it's slightly greater rotational speed, and falls slightly ahead (to the East) of the point directly below it. If that doesn't make sense, look into the conservation of angular momentum, it's how ballet dancers spin faster by pulling their arms in close to their bodies.

The problem I see with this is that it only covers one component of the object's motion, and the lesser one at that. There is not much difference between the speed of two points 100 feet (or even 1000 feet) apart vertically on the earth's surface, so the horizontal, East/West difference between point of release and point of impact is going to be very small.

However, as we move away from the equator there is another influence on falling objects that becomes apparent: centripetal force. As the earth rotates, everything on it's surface is subject to an acceleration towards the axis of rotation proportional to it's distance from the axis. When an object is in free fall, this force is removed, so the falling object tends to move away from the axis of rotation (like a stone from a sling, but not as dramatic!). In the Northern hemisphere, where all these experiments were conducted, that tendency is to the South, hence all the falling bodies landing to the South of their release point.

While these experiments do not provide complete proof that earth is a globe, they do provide proof that the earth is at least rotating (which, of course, the author ignores completely). If these experiments were also conducted in the Southern hemisphere, and at various latitudes in both hemispheres, then the data collected could be used to prove (or, potentially, disprove) a spherical earth.

Over 100 views since posting, but no comments. Does anyone want to debate this point?

The easterly deflection can be explained by the following diagram that illustrates how an object at an altitude h travels at a velocity v₂ faster than the ground which travels at a velocity v₁.



And the southerly deflection can be attributed to the centrifugal force on objects on Earth. Each object on rotating Earth (except on poles) receives two kind of forces; the gravitational force towards the centre of the earth (Fg) and the centrifugal force away from the centre of the rotation (Fc). In the northern hemisphere (except the north pole), the resulting force (in red) is southerly.



This can only happen on a spinning round earth.

Thank you ENaG for confirming that the earth is round and spinning.

The easterly deflection can be explained by the following diagram that illustrates how an object at an altitude h travels at a velocity v₂ faster than the ground which travels at a velocity v₁.



And the southerly deflection can be attributed to the centrifugal force on objects on Earth. Each object on rotating Earth (except on poles) receives two kind of forces; the gravitational force towards the centre of the earth (Fg) and the centrifugal force away from the centre of the rotation (Fc). In the northern hemisphere (except the north pole), the resulting force (in red) is southerly.



This can only happen on a spinning round earth.

Thank you ENaG for confirming that the earth is round and spinning.

Well aren't you cheeky!

Yes, the arguments presented in ENaG are.....disappointing. It is my hope that FE'ers organize and offer a more convincing effort. We need to present a record of rigorous experimentation with results that challenge the RE paradigm. The present status of FE science is about 200 years antiquated, both in method and approach.

The effect of this is that there exists a lack of experimental support, hence FE arguments must necessarily become emotive: the needed self-consistent results do not exist yet.

Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"

The author makes a fuss about the lack of substantial Easterly deflection in these experiments, and about the presence of a substantial Southerly deflection, asserting that this proves the earth to have no rotational motion. But, if the earth had no rotational motion, why is there such a substantial Southerly deflection of the falling objects?

Here's the theory behind the original experiments: an object suspended at rest is moving with the earth at whatever the rotational speed is at that point on the earth; a point some distance directly below the object is moving at a slightly lower speed, due to the smaller radius of it's circle; when the suspended object is released, it retains it's slightly greater rotational speed, and falls slightly ahead (to the East) of the point directly below it. If that doesn't make sense, look into the conservation of angular momentum, it's how ballet dancers spin faster by pulling their arms in close to their bodies.

The problem I see with this is that it only covers one component of the object's motion, and the lesser one at that. There is not much difference between the speed of two points 100 feet (or even 1000 feet) apart vertically on the earth's surface, so the horizontal, East/West difference between point of release and point of impact is going to be very small.

However, as we move away from the equator there is another influence on falling objects that becomes apparent: centripetal force. As the earth rotates, everything on it's surface is subject to an acceleration towards the axis of rotation proportional to it's distance from the axis. When an object is in free fall, this force is removed, so the falling object tends to move away from the axis of rotation (like a stone from a sling, but not as dramatic!). In the Northern hemisphere, where all these experiments were conducted, that tendency is to the South, hence all the falling bodies landing to the South of their release point.

While these experiments do not provide complete proof that earth is a globe, they do provide proof that the earth is at least rotating (which, of course, the author ignores completely). If these experiments were also conducted in the Southern hemisphere, and at various latitudes in both hemispheres, then the data collected could be used to prove (or, potentially, disprove) a spherical earth.

This sounds like the easily debunked Foucault pendulum experiment. The movements were caused by an expansion and contraction of materials due to changing surface temperature.  This effect always occurs even in thermostats, where two dissimilar metals side by side contract and expand to trigger cooling or heating.

In addition, if objects within the influence of the earth's rotation and gravity occasionally lag behind without ground contact, then an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation.  Also, a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 

Know the incredibly long air time... 

Know that you want to acknowledge that air travels around the planet with the earth at the exact same speed, then deny all of that for this object...

You state that these experiments demonstrate how objects fall behind from the motion of the earth.  However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights. An object at 1000 feet does not eclipse an object at 30,000 feet.  There should be a more dramatic effect... period...

Once again, you cannot accept how things unattached to the earth lag behind from rotation and then deny the existence of flights which stay aloft for hours with no speed gains.

Air turbulence and wind current variation just as well cause alterations in position of falling objects on a FE.

Quote from: Scintific Method on May 08, 2013, 06:26:08 PM

Earth Not A Globe, Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"

The author makes a fuss about the lack of substantial Easterly deflection in these experiments, and about the presence of a substantial Southerly deflection, asserting that this proves the earth to have no rotational motion. But, if the earth had no rotational motion, why is there such a substantial Southerly deflection of the falling objects?

Here's the theory behind the original experiments: an object suspended at rest is moving with the earth at whatever the rotational speed is at that point on the earth; a point some distance directly below the object is moving at a slightly lower speed, due to the smaller radius of it's circle; when the suspended object is released, it retains it's slightly greater rotational speed, and falls slightly ahead (to the East) of the point directly below it. If that doesn't make sense, look into the conservation of angular momentum, it's how ballet dancers spin faster by pulling their arms in close to their bodies.

The problem I see with this is that it only covers one component of the object's motion, and the lesser one at that. There is not much difference between the speed of two points 100 feet (or even 1000 feet) apart vertically on the earth's surface, so the horizontal, East/West difference between point of release and point of impact is going to be very small.

However, as we move away from the equator there is another influence on falling objects that becomes apparent: centripetal force. As the earth rotates, everything on it's surface is subject to an acceleration towards the axis of rotation proportional to it's distance from the axis. When an object is in free fall, this force is removed, so the falling object tends to move away from the axis of rotation (like a stone from a sling, but not as dramatic!). In the Northern hemisphere, where all these experiments were conducted, that tendency is to the South, hence all the falling bodies landing to the South of their release point.

While these experiments do not provide complete proof that earth is a globe, they do provide proof that the earth is at least rotating (which, of course, the author ignores completely). If these experiments were also conducted in the Southern hemisphere, and at various latitudes in both hemispheres, then the data collected could be used to prove (or, potentially, disprove) a spherical earth.

This sounds like the easily debunked Foucault pendulum experiment. The movements were caused by an expansion and contraction of materials due to changing surface temperature.  This effect always occurs even in thermostats, where two dissimilar metals side by side contract and expand to trigger cooling or heating.

In addition, if objects within the influence of the earth's rotation and gravity occasionally lag behind without ground contact, then an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation.  Also, a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 

Know the incredibly long air time... 

Know that you want to acknowledge that air travels around the planet with the earth at the exact same speed, then deny all of that for this object...

You state that these experiments demonstrate how objects fall behind from the motion of the earth.  However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights. An object at 1000 feet does not eclipse an object at 30,000 feet.  There should be a more dramatic effect... period...

Once again, you cannot accept how things unattached to the earth lag behind from rotation and then deny the existence of flights which stay aloft for hours with no speed gains.

Air turbulence and wind current variation just as well cause alterations in position of falling objects on a FE.

You contradict yourself here. You claim that air moves around the Earth in concert with its rotation, and then acknowledge air turbulence and wind current variation. You HAVE all the necessary information to construct a convincing argument, you just need to put the pieces together properly.

I said he wants to acknowledge... I did not say I want to acknowledge... 

In RE the air moves around at 1000 mph with the earth's rotation... However, his experiment contradicts this principle... Free moving air should also lag behind the earth's rotation causing great erosive winds.

I was just stating FE possesses air currents as well, which cause things dropped from that height to alter direction.

...
an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation. 
...
a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 
...
However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights.

These are incorrect assumptions. Imagine that you are in a plane that is travelling at a cruising speed of 500 mph. All objects inside the plane - you, your seat, other passengers, the air you breathe, etc - are travelling at the same speed as the plane. You don't find it easier to walk to the back of the plane or to the front. If you throw a ball upward while in the plane, your ball will fall back to your palm and not hundreds of yards behind you. When you break wind on the plane, your fart doesn't fly backward at 500 mph. Your fart is actually travelling at the same speed as you, as the plane. This is how you should imagine being on a rotating earth. All objects on Earth travel at the same speed as the earth. There is no 1,000 mph wind in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation because the air is travelling at the same speed as you. When the air is produced for the first time such as when plants produce oxygen, it is produced by an object that travels at the same speed as the Earth's rotation so the newly produced air travels at the same speed as the object that produces it (see the fart analogy above).

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 09:59:22 AM

...
an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation. 
...
a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 
...
However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights.

These are incorrect assumptions. Imagine that you are in a plane that is travelling at a cruising speed of 500 mph. All objects inside the plane - you, your seat, other passengers, the air you breathe, etc - are travelling at the same speed as the plane. You don't find it easier to walk to the back of the plane or to the front. If you throw a ball upward while in the plane, your ball will fall back to your palm and not hundreds of yards behind you. When you break wind on the plane, your fart doesn't fly backward at 500 mph. Your fart is actually travelling at the same speed as you, as the plane. This is how you should imagine being on a rotating earth. All objects on Earth travel at the same speed as the earth. There is no 1,000 mph wind in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation because the air is travelling at the same speed as you. When the air is produced for the first time such as when plants produce oxygen, it is produced by an object that travels at the same speed as the Earth's rotation so the newly produced air travels at the same speed as the object that produces it (see the fart analogy above).

First of all, of course someone travels at the same speed as a plane when inside of it.  Your feet possess contact with the inner plane's surfaces.

However, an airplane presents an entirely different scenario.  The plane does not have contact with the ground... Nothing holds it to the earth... 

Do not mention how the air in which the plane travels possesses relativistic movement and carries the plane along with the rotation.

Do not say the air just listens to the reigns of gravity. 

This concept never possesses the potential to occur with the air particle physics of science.  A big contradiction appears if one denies this.  Just read below...

Air can never rotate with the earth 100%, it contains so much energy that the particles bounce around in every direction randomly.  They just do not stand in formation and move with the surface of the earth during rotation.  Not even after millions of years does this ever occur.

Air particles do not behave like solid matter (soil) or liquid (water).  Only soil stands still, water barely.

Air particle movements come wild and random, moving in all conceivable directions, not even having inter connective forces....  No still days would exist with a rotating earth... period....

You treat air as a substance which at a molecular level moves uniformly.  Unfortunately, air expands, diffuses, mixes readily with other gases, and moves in all directions.  It bounces like tiny balls at great speeds...  It can never be tamed.

Do not blame me, tis the physics of air particles...

First of all, of course someone travels at the same speed as a plane when inside of it.  Your feet possess contact with the inner plane's surfaces.

However, an airplane presents an entirely different scenario.  The plane does not have contact with the ground... Nothing holds it to the earth... 

Do not mention how the air in which the plane travels possesses relativistic movement and carries the plane along with the rotation.

Do not say the air just listens to the reigns of gravity. 

This concept never possesses the potential to occur with the air particle physics of science.  A big contradiction appears if one denies this.  Just read below...

Air can never rotate with the earth 100%, it contains so much energy that the particles bounce around in every direction randomly.  They just do not stand in formation and move with the surface of the earth during rotation.  Not even after millions of years does this ever occur.

Air particles do not behave like solid matter (soil) or liquid (water).  Only soil stands still, water barely.

Air particle movements come wild and random, moving in all conceivable directions, not even having inter connective forces....  No still days would exist with a rotating earth... period....

You treat air as a substance which at a molecular level moves uniformly.  Unfortunately, air expands, diffuses, mixes readily with other gases, and moves in all directions.  It bounces like tiny balls at great speeds...  It can never be tamed.

Do not blame me, tis the physics of air particles...

The things that you describe can only occur on Earth can also occur on a cruising plane although maybe at smaller scale.

the air moves wildly in the plane as well.

If you take a bag of potato chips and leave them closed inside of the plane, the bag expands dramatically... Air bounces energetically in every direction, hence, its low density.  This scenario happens on a plane as well.

Without this tendency, the oxygen from the on-board air filtration systems fails to circulate throughout the entire plane.

The kinetic energy of a molecule holds a great deal of energy...  Check this out.

 He answered the question about speed of air molecules...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524162753AAa2nDs

use the formula:

V = sqrt(3*R*T/M), where R is Boltzmann's constant (8.31 J/mol-K), T is temperature in Kelvin (use 293K for room temperature, and M is the mass of one mole of oxygen in kilograms (.032 kg).

The answer is about 478 meters per second, which you can convert to about 1720 km/hr.

Air molecules move faster than the planet in RE theory, and in every single conceivable direction... The great energy of the atmosphere prohibits them from even being held by the forces of gravity, and stops the idea that they speed up with the earth in a predictable direction...

Once again, since we have calm. windless days, no rotation occurs.  Air particles levitate in the air, practically free from gravity.  Relativistic motion fails to apply to their case.

JJ, in all your raving, I only found one relevant point:

...a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle.

Yep, if you launch a cannon ball on a perfect vertical, it will fall back to earth somewhere away from the cannon.

JJ, in all your raving, I only found one relevant point:

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 09:59:22 AM

...a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle.

Yep, if you launch a cannon ball on a perfect vertical, it will fall back to earth somewhere away from the cannon.

You're right it will fall back slightly away from the cannon as the ball would have to travel a slightly further horizontal distance than the cannon while in altitude.

JJ, in all your raving, I only found one relevant point:

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 09:59:22 AM

...a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle.

Yep, if you launch a cannon ball on a perfect vertical, it will fall back to earth somewhere away from the cannon.

But in Rowbotham's experiment, it fell straight down on the cannon again.  Thus, no rotation exists.

But in Rowbotham's experiment, it fell straight down on the cannon again.  Thus, no rotation exists.

It's not clear how many times he did the experiments and the average deviation of all experiments. But he admitted it didn't always fall back on the mouth of the canon itself

A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.

It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.  Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.  Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

No, it not falling in the same spot every time just makes it an unreliable experiment.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on October 01, 2013, 04:01:51 PM

It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.  Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

No, it not falling in the same spot every time just makes it an unreliable experiment.

This, cherry picking the results that support your claims, and having a very poor understanding of physics, render most of Rowbotham's work unreliable.

It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.

Using the same logic, I can say that it falling 8 inches from the gun once is enough to prove the Earth's rotation.

Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

How far do you expect a cannon ball shot vertically to fall in a rotating earth? At latitude 45N, even if the cannon ball goes up instantly to 100 meters, stays in that altitude for 28 seconds and then falls instantly, the expected point of contact is just around 20 cm or 8 inches from the gun. Which is exactly what Rowbotham had concluded at the end, that the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun.

It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.  Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

Look at how a cannonball falls back to its moving muzzle

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ballistic Cart

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Horizontal velocity remains constant