Okay, I'll read along and point out where this guy is wrong.
Consider one of their fellows in airplane and during its motion in air atmosphere he left the airplane with a parachute. According to the inertial law; the fellow and the airplane are supposed to move side-to-side with the same speed. He must feel proud to his superpower; the airplane is consuming propellers and he is not! In reality, and in the first moment, he will realize that the airplane is ahead of him and he is left behind in air because the inertial motion is terminated by the presence of air. Argue or not, it is well-known fact since the ancient civilizations. In the presence of air atmosphere, the law of inertia does not function. If you threw an object aloft several meters, it will come back to your hand; not because of the law of inertia but because the Earth is stationary.
So, a modern passenger jet flies around .8 mach, or 236.1 m/s. If inertia is destroyed in an atmosphere, than what about the passengers within the plane? Being inside an atmosphere, should they not be constantly battling this 240 m/s wind? And yet people are able to walk about in an airplane cabin. Why? Because the air is also going 240 m/s.
The skydiver is left behind the airplane because the airplane uses its engines to overcome the parasite drag caused by it's speed, but the diver has no such luck. Thus, the air is resistant to his motions and he slows down relative to the air. Similarly, if a waffle is thrown up into the air during a hurricane, the waffle will be taken away by the air and it will not, as the author implies, return to your hand.
To even our trouble; the modern fellows insisted that the air atmosphere is also rotating with the rigid Earth. Perhaps, they do not know that, the Earth’s speed varies with Earth’s latitude.
Since the rigid sphere has different speeds along its latitude; hence, the air molecules must have the local speed of the rigid Earth at any given latitude. What are the airspeed and pressure pattern that would be caused by the Earth’s rotation? The maximum airspeed and the maximum pressure (dynamic pressure) must be oriented at the Earth’s equator in which the Earth suffers its maximum rotational speed of 1669.8 km/hr. Conversely, the minimum air speed and the minimum pressure (dynamic pressure) must be oriented at the north and south poles since the rotational speed is zero.
This would be true if the air were also a rigid sphere and had to rotate with one speed. However air, being a fluid made of many particles, can travel at various speeds at various places. If this were not so, then wind could not exist unless uniform everywhere. Thus, air near the equator is traveling at the same speed as the Earth beneath it, just as air near the poles is traveling the same speed as the Earth beneath it. This does mean air near the equator is traveling faster. These effects can be seen because as air from the equator travels towards one of the poles it is deflected eastward--it has more velocity than the Earth. Similarly, air coming from the poles to the equator is deflected westward as it is not moving fast enough.
No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology.
On that note, your car doesn't really measure speed, either. It measures how many times per second your wheels rotate and multiplies that by the circumference of the wheels. Similarly, we know the Earth makes about 1 full rotation every day (a bit less than 24 hours, due to Earth's orbit around the sun, but that's a technicality). Thus, we can make the same calculation: circumference of the earth divided by the time to complete a full rotation.
But, here we shall measure the Earth’s speed with a well-known device – Pitot static tube.
This implies that the air is somehow known to be in a stationary reference frame. What sense does that make? I can mess up this experiment with a hand-held fan, showing that the Earth accelerates and decelerates spontaneously at the push of a button!
It is very obvious, that if the Earth were experiencing a daily rotation; the air flow at the surface of the Earth would have variable velocity (not the thermal), variable pressure (not the static), and variable density (not the normal).
I think this is implying the pitot tube is somehow immune to motion. By this same argument, an airplane can be shown to never accelerate because a pitot tube placed within the cabin will measure a constant value even though the air inside should be moving at varying speeds.
In reality, the strength of deflection is merely largest at the poles (north and south), and starts to slow at lower latitudes, then it becomes zero at the equator. In contrary, the fake speed of the rotating Earth is greatest at the equator (1669.8 km/hr), and it diminishes to zero at the poles. Scientifically, we should observe the opposite of the phenomenon – the deflection of moving object. That is, the magnitude or the strength of deflection is largest at the equator and zero at the poles.
Except deflection isn't defined by speed, but a change in speed. The speed difference between the equator and 10 degrees north (7 m/s) is much less than the speed difference between the north pole (90 degrees north) and 80 degrees north (80 m/s). Thus as an object moves south from a pole it is experiencing much greater deflection than it will as it gets closer to the equator.
In their arrangement, they wasted their money (printed books and lectures, etc.) in order to save two dead concepts in air; these are the law of inertia and the Earth’s rotation.
Okay, quick note here: Inertia being the ideal version of momentum. Inertia comes from Newton's First Law which says an object in motion will stay in motion
unless acted upon by an outside force. Wind resistance is an outside force. However, momentum covers this, because momentum is conserved. As our skydiver jumps from the plane and is slowed down by the air (an outside force) he transfers his kinetic energy into the air molecules, accelerating them. The momentum of the whole system is conserved. Okay, end sidenote.
Hypothetically, if the projectiles (in Atlantic Ocean) had the inertia of the rigid Earth before launching and retained the inertia during and after launching, it would hit the target precisely during the training operation, that was not the case at all
Was there air during these launches? Then there was an outside force acting upon the projectiles.
Sidenote: has this author ever heard of indenting paragraphs. This format is really hard to read! /sidenote
Launch a helicopter
(chopper aircraft) from North Pole (zero rotation and zero inertia) to Paris France, refuel it in air if necessary. Once the helicopter reaches about Paris, control it at fixed aloft position for two hours without any further motion. After two hours, the Earth should make 30 degrees of rotation beneath the helicopter. Since the helicopter started its trip with zero inertia; hence, it will not rotate with the rigid Earth, they have already admitted that pause.
Okay, a few problems. First, helicopters are succeptible to air currents, which as established above, can and do tend to follow the velocity of the Earth. Thus, as it heads south from the north pole, the wind would accelerate the helicopter until it is no longer lagging behind the rotation of the Earth.
Second, as the pilots are instructed to go to Paris, they will go to Paris even if that means turning east of south to reach it.
Third, when you reach Paris and stop, you have stopped your helicopter
relative to the Earth meaning you are now traveling the speed of the Earth at the latitude of Paris. There is no reason to think you should not continue on that speed, especially since the wind around you would carry you along with it.
This has gone on long enough. If this is the same guy as the 'Four seasons in a day' than he really needs to do some research about the models he's attempting to break. He is setting up a poor straw man and burning it with false conceptions of how physics works.