TRY TO DEBUNK THIS IF YOU CAN

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2017, 04:41:06 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2017, 05:01:03 AM

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

Really? Please document these "valid experimental proofs" that Rowbotham made.

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :

>>>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.<<<

First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

So this is a magical cannon that causes the ball to lose all the momentum it had before firing?  That is the only way there should be excessive displacement.  Or you and Rowbotham don't understand momentum.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:05:10 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 08, 2017, 04:41:06 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 08, 2017, 05:01:03 AM

2. Since i i am able to compare DIRECTLY Rowbotham's argumentation AGAINST the rotation of the earth with Galileo's argumentation FOR the rotation of the earth, i can tell you (on the basis of his own words/thesis which are pure experimentally unsustained mathematical conjectures) that Galileo was very dishonest person (rotten liar) and that Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!

Really? Please document these "valid experimental proofs" that Rowbotham made.

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :

>>>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.<<<

First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

So this is a magical cannon that causes the ball to lose all the momentum it had before firing?  That is the only way there should be excessive displacement.  Or you and Rowbotham don't understand momentum.

Read this short exchange of thoughts (between one heliocentrist and me) and try to learn one very important lesson :
If your myth of inertia contained a shred of truth, then this scenario (IN WHICH EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE IS TREATED AS A VACUUM) would also be true : Just imagine one small-slow airplane which max speed is not higher than 100 mi/h, now let's attach our small plane below the wing of B-52 which max. speed is 650 mi/h, now B-52 is taking off, reaching his max. speed and dropping our small-slow plane so that he could fly independently...THE QUESTION IS THIS : Which airplane should fly faster in accordance with HC utterly stupid myth of inertia??? THE ANSWER IS THIS : Our small plane should fly faster because his max. speed is the sum of the next factors :

1. Initial inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the spin of the earth before taking off
2. Inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the max. speed of B-52 before dropping small plane so that he could fly independently
3. It's own max. speed : 100 mi/h

However, max speed of B-52 is the sum of the next factors :
1. Initial inertia gained (AND PERMANENTLY RETAINED !!!) by the spin of the earth before taking off
2. It's own max. speed : 650 mi/h
--------------------------------------------
BALLTARD'S ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO THIS CHALLENGE :
>>>>>>>>>>The thrust is no longer greater than the drag and the airplane slows down....<<<<<<<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU'S (that's me ) RESPOND TO ABOVE STUPIDITY : So, you admit that air drag can counteract inertia, but you can't retain both premises :
1. Air drag has no impact on inertia (myth of inertia in which ball-earthers believe and how they promote it)
2. Air drag has an impact on inertia (when you have to find stupid excuse for why small plane can't retain (not even for the moment) it's inertia gained by the max. speed of B-52, but can PERMANENTLY retain inertia gained by the alleged spin of the earth...LOL...LOL...LOL...FACEPALM...FACEPALM...FACEPALM... You guys are so deluded that it's really beyond imagination...How somebody can be so intellectually dishonest towards himself it will always be mystery to me...THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is important to note that much of the resistance to what we call the Copernican Revolution derived from the fact that for some time it left many important questions unanswered - in particular, how the planets and stars moved and cohered without the celestial spheres. One central insight was the switch from Aristotle's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving, to the modern concept of INERTIA, in which a moving object keeps moving unless stopped by wind drag or something else. So, Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest. It is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant velocity. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics that are used to describe the motion of objects and how they are affected by applied forces.

AS YOU CAN SEE IF WE APPLIED MY EXAMPLE TO THE CONTEXT OF SPACE (AS IT IS DEPICTED BY MODERN SCIENTISTS BUT WHICH DOESN'T EXIST AS SUCH), THAT IS TO SAY TO THE CONTEXT OF VACUUM-ENVIRONMENT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THAT REALITY DOESN'T CORRESPOND WITH YOUR IMAGINARY LAWS OF PHYSICS (BECAUSE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE ISN'T VACUUM, AND HASN'T GOT SIMILAR PROPERTIES OF VACUUM. HOWEVER, IF YOU GIVE UP FROM TREATING EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE AS A VACUUM (IN THE CONTEXT OF INERTIA MYTH), THEN YOU HAVE TO FACE ONE ANOTHER SET OF PROBLEMS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS :

When we free our small-slow airplane from B-52, B-52 is going to leave behind our small airplane so RAPIDLY that it would seem as if our small airplane has jumped from B-52 with parachute....Air drag would do it, wouldn't it? So, our airplane would be RAPIDLY slowed down almost to the point of total immobility. In your HC fairytale such point of total immobility actually means continuation of movement due to the imaginary spin of the earth. If we jumped from an airplane without a parachute, our bodies would be eventually smashed after hitting the ground with great velocity, but before we hit the ground we are going to enjoy falling towards the earth and while we are falling down towards the earth we will feel air resistance caused by passing through the air which is placed below us, but we wont feel any east-west air drag. Exactly the same thing that would happen to our bodies (right after jumping from an airplane) would have happened (long time ago) to every single molecule of air. Every single molecule of air would be "glued" to the correspondent latitudinal point on the earth. What would that mean? Plain and simple : it would mean absolute absence of any wind anywhere within our atmosphere, there is no way around it.

So, if what you believe in were true there would be :

no winds
no jet streams
no known effects of "coriolis force" (which is the consequence of the motion of the sun above the motionless earth - wind patterns match sun's path above the earth 100 %)
no ocean currents (because alleged "big G" is not strong enough to overcome centrifugal force in order to keep oceans from flying off into space!!! On the other hand if gravity ("big G") were strong enough to overcome centrifugal force so that oceans could stick to the earth then the flow of ocean currents wouldn't be possible, people wouldn't be able to walk or even breathing (we would be literally nailed/smashed to the surface of the earth right away), not to mention how it would be impossible for insects and birds to fly in an atmosphere which couldn't even exist in it's present form, in the first place...Is the Amount of Gravity (pressure or invisible force) over the Ocean the same "Amount of Gravity" over us humans here on earth? If it's "not" then why? If it is then why are we not "squashed" like a bug?)

Another thing that you have to deal with (which demands your ludicrous belief system) is a necessity to figure out and postulate one completely new definition of inertia because this is exactly what your inertia turns out to be :

An air is trapped by gravity, a plane is trapped by air, and as the earth turns an air turns with the earth, and as an air turns with the earth, an airplane (trapped by an air ) turns with the earth too, and voila, this is your inertia. Is it not?

This is not inertia, at all, this is old Aristotle's belief in projectile motion, in which a moving object must be acted upon directly to keep moving...

Your ludicrous inertia could hypothetically work in above described manner while airplanes fly eastbound or westbound, but what would happen if airplanes tried to fly towards north or towards south in a straight line?

Any attempt to fly towards north would produce enormous lateral deceleration force!
Any attempt to fly towards south would produce enormous lateral speedup force!

Nobody has ever felt or detected - by any means - such a force!

When we are talking about orbital paths of planets and moons and the sun, relative motion can be said to be valid (and this is completely discounting any aether). But what about when we are talking about motion within a medium such as air? There is obviously a difference the two mediums, space and the air, is there not? How would this affect the calculation of relative motion? Well, the "original motion" component would not be changed, true, but the drag effect sure would. And what would be the "carrying force" working to maintain the original motion?

Let's use my favorite airplane flight example to crunch this "original motion" factor. Yes, a plane could be said to be rotating at the 600 mph speed of O'Hare airport in Chicago when it departed. And then, as the plane left the surface of the ground, it separated from what was its obvious "engine" or "original motion carrying force" and was definitely running head on into major drag, the air. Contrasted with the example of a rocket having blasted off the earth and heading to the moon, the rocket will retain the original speed of the earth that it was on because the rocket is flying to the moon in a vacuum (for the sake of this argument anyway), and there is no drag to slow down its original motion.

But what keeps the airplane's "original motion" going? One can only postulate so many things: gravity or the air being the two obvious ones. But gravity only pulls downward and not laterally, and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry" the plane because it is a gas. (Remember, if it's a rotating-with-the-earth solid, the plane couldn't fly through it anyway...CATCH 22)

The natural effect of the plane not having an impetus to maintain its "original motion" is that the plane will obviously lose angular velocity to the earth's faster rotation below. And if it loses even a little, will it not lose it entirely? Of course. Whatever link there was between the two has been severed. The drag of the atmosphere will illustrate this every time.

What this all means is that if the "original motion" component of the plane is not maintained, then explaining its observed travel reality by resorting to "relative motion" (just like for outer space bodies where the original motion IS maintained) is fatally wounded. So therefore, to conclude that the difference in mediums does not affect the way relative motion would work is not logical, but that is the enemy's stance, as far as I can tell.

B-52 drops plane

Did you ever see a B-52 drop an X-15?

Watch what happens.

The X-15 is under no power and is clearly keeping up with the B-52 for a few hundred meters, then switches ignition to the ON position.

How is the X-15 doing this?

Answer = ?

@cikljamas
Posting the same exact post in multiple threads is generally considered spam. 

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :

There is not a single one. So far all you have provided is pure bullshit.

the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A

And what should it be if Earth is in motion? Have you done the math?

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

So you admit there is massive error in the experiment which would likely hide any of Earth's rotation?

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.

No, it wouldn't.
It would follow a parabola, it doesn't just magically stop moving sideways when it reaches peak height.

Once again, this experiment ignores the rotation and instead just misrepresents linear motion.

If you are just using linear motion, there would be no difference.
Go and jump on a plane, see if when you reach the peak of your jump you suddenly stop moving with the plane and stay stationary relative to Earth and fall straight down relative to Earth.
With a plane travelling at ~ 1000 km/hr or 277 m/s a fall time of just 0.1 s would result in you being thrown to the back of the plane at a speed of 277 m/s having you travel 27.7 m.

Yet in reality, when you jump on a plane, you land pretty much right where you started.
So are you going to claim planes in motion are really at rest?

First of all, Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!

Well, you got one part right, he certainly calculated wrong.
Using just the linear motion, the ball would land right inside the cannon.

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!

If that was the case then after the 28 seconds it would still be going up at considerable speed, not falling down and already hit the ground.

2. The ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward direction of flight (all the way to the point when gravitational pull regained/resumed it's influence to that ball after 14th seconds of the first half of it's vertical flight), and the ball was perfectly able to pass (in the same manner) through the air in it's downward path - coming back to the earth, also.

Gravity was always exerting a pull, slowing it down and then bringing it back to Earth.

3. Since the ball was able to penetrate air in it's upward and downward direction we can be sure that this same ball would be able to pass through any kind of a supposed air flow which could theoretically blow (due to the alleged lateral motion of the atmosphere - in relation to the flying ball - due to the alleged rotation of the earth)

So we can ignore any alleged slowing down due to being in the air, and like you seem to be so against, treat the air as if it was not there, pretending it is in space and noting the balls inertia.

That means you have the following stats for the ball: (x is along Earth in the direction of motion, z is going up (and we will have them start at 0,0 for simplicity))
az=-g.
ax=0.
vz=vz0-gt
vx=vx0
dz=vz0*t-0.5*gt^2
dx=vx0*t

And the cannon:
axz=0
ax=0
vz=0
vx=vx0
dz=0
dx=vx0*t

Notice how the cannot and the ball have the same x position at all times?
Both are vx0*t?
That means the ball should land back in the cannon.

Of course, in reality Earth will rotate slightly effecting it, the ball will also be slowed down due to its motion through the air and the random turbulence will result in a more random path.

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

It's inertia. It was already moving with that lateral speed when it was inside the cannon.
It doesn't magically vanish the second it launches, nor does it magically vanish at the peak of its flight.

Read this short exchange of thoughts (between one heliocentrist and me) and try to learn one very important lesson :

I already have and refuted all your bullshit in it. You didn't seem to respond to that, almost like you know it is a load of bullshit.

Inertial FoR.

Throw a ball in a car going 100kph in a straight line, or 300kph, whatevs, just make sure you aren't the driver.

From your FoR the ball goes straight up and straight down, from an outside observer the ball has a horizontal velocity of 100kph.

What this all means is that ...

the cannonball lands at the cannon due to stuff beyond your comprehension. 

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:33:41 PM

What this all means is that ...

the cannonball lands at the cannon due to stuff beyond your comprehension.

What is beyond your comprehension is this :

Quote from: cikljamas on May 13, 2017, 04:40:56 AM

Yes. I saw it before.
It clearly shows it moving along, keeping its inertia, not landing where it launched like you claim it should.

Going to admit you were wrong?

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

Oh, i forgot the most crucial moment of this experiment : the length of ball's trajectory !!!
So, as i said many times : SHOOT THE BALL 20 m (or 200 m) IN THE AIR AND THEN SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Ever heard that air resistance on a light ball might be a lot more than on the heavier trolley?

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

What are you raving on about with "inertia moment"? If you mean "moment of inertia", that applies only if rotary motion is involved - which it is not here!

And NO, the moment of inertia of a ball is not  "I = r^2*m" except when all the mass is on the outside (eg a table tennis ball).

Oh, i forgot the most crucial moment of this experiment : the length of ball's trajectory !!!
So, as i said many times : SHOOT THE BALL 20 m (or 200 m) IN THE AIR AND THEN SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

So what? Why is 20 m or 200 m going to make a difference?
I really cannot see why you have the slightest problem with that video though - would you please calculate exactly what YOU think should happen!

Well, you can do that, but Rowbotham did that already and quite convincingly, so why bother.
The cannon ball never fell more than 2 feet from the cannon (if my memory is correct).
That is excellent aiming and proof that there is no horizontal air resistance.

Just remember the Rowbotham's cannon proves nothing about the earth's rotation.

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Yes, it falls very slightly to the left.
Don't you remember how your con-man's experiment didn't always land in the barrel? Instead it would some times fall in various other locations, some times up to 2 feet.

But there is an important distinction between this experiment and your con man's one.
In this one, the ball and the launcher are moving through the air sideways.
In your con man's one, the sideways motion was with the air.
What this means is the air will act to slow down the balls side wards motion.

But do you notice the most important part?
The inertia isn't just magically lost.
If what Row Boat claims is true, the ball should move upwards in a diagonal line and then drop straight down.
If what you claim is true, it should fire straight up, as according to you the atmosphere magically makes inertia not apply.

But neither of those happen.
Instead, it follows a parabola.

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

Not necessarily.
This is just one sample.
If he did it many times it is possible that it would land straight in or get ahead of the funnel due to turbulence in the air.

But don't you see?
It doesn't just magically launch straight up, it's inertia still exists.

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Moment of inertia is for rotational motion, not linear motion. Unless you are trying to spin the ball, that is irrelevant.
Also, that only works for an finitely small particle. For anything else, it is the sum of all the individual parts, e.g. sum of r^2*m for each point. For a ball it works out to be (2/5)*m*r^2.

Yes, if you used a larger but same mass (or lighter) ball, drag would be more significant, as drag is based upon the cross sectional area of the ball, and if it has a lighter mass, the effects of drag would be more significant.

The force from drag is:
F=0.5*rho*DV^2*CD*A
Where rho is the density of the medium, DV is the velocity difference (it doesn't matter if the object is moving, the fluid is moving, or a combination of both).

It is based upon a difference in the speed of the ball to the speed of the medium, and it acts in a direction aligned with that difference.
So if the ball is moving sideways through the medium (at a relative speed to that medium, the drag will act to slow it down in that sideways direction, resulting in it lagging behind.
But it if it moving vertically, with no difference in velocity in the sideways direction, there will be no drag force to slow the ball down.

That is one of the flaws of that simple experiment. To do it properly, you need to do it in a sealed chamber so the air is moving with the launcher and ball (laterally).

Oh, i forgot the most crucial moment of this experiment : the length of ball's trajectory !!!
So, as i said many times : SHOOT THE BALL 20 m (or 200 m) IN THE AIR AND THEN SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

There is no need. These simple experiments are all ready enough.
Regardless, as I said that would require having a 200 m tall chamber on moving tracks.
Even if we did it, you would then complain that it was going to slow or some other bullshit like that.
So if you want us to do it, provide the chamber and provide the tracks (and the mechanism for the chamber to go down the track.

If what Row Boat claims is true, it doesn't matter how high you launch it, it should follow a diagonal path up and then fall straight down. It doesn't. So clearly Row Boat is wrong.
If what you claim is true, then inertia doesn't apply in the atmosphere and the ball should launch straight up. (that was how you calculated how far it would move).
It clearly wasn't based upon air resistance or drag as it makes no mention of relative velocities, which wouldn't effect the lateral motion of the ball as the ball is moving laterally with the air.

So even these small scale experiments are enough to show that you are wrong.

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 10, 2017, 08:57:44 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:33:41 PM

What this all means is that ...

the cannonball lands at the cannon due to stuff beyond your comprehension.

What is beyond your comprehension is this :

Quote from: JackBlack on May 13, 2017, 04:48:40 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 13, 2017, 04:40:56 AM

Yes. I saw it before.
It clearly shows it moving along, keeping its inertia, not landing where it launched like you claim it should.

Going to admit you were wrong?

It seems that i have to slow down the motion of the ball :



Don't you notice that the ball falls at the left side of a pretty wide funnel...

Had this con demonstrator used narrower funnel the ball would have fallen behind the funnel instead of inside the funnel, isn't that obvious to you (and to everyone else)?

Let alone using larger ball (or larger and lighter ball or larger and heavier ball) so that the air resistance exerted on the ball would be larger (larger and lighter ball) or that the inertia moment would be larger (larger and heavier ball) since I = r^2*m

Oh, i forgot the most crucial moment of this experiment : the length of ball's trajectory !!!
So, as i said many times : SHOOT THE BALL 20 m (or 200 m) IN THE AIR AND THEN SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!

Just about everything is beyond your comprehension cikljamas.  The ball (probably a pingpong ball, and therefore has little weight to push through air very easily) is still moving as it lands in the funnel.  Inertia.

Perhaps you should try slowing it down more.

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

THE QUESTION : With the air, ball, cannon, and ground all moving the same speed on a globe, with windless conditions, what physical mechanism would stop the ball from moving in the same direction as the air, cannon, and ground during it's vertical travel once fired?

THE QUESTION : With the air, ball, cannon, and ground all moving the same speed on a globe, with windless conditions, what physical mechanism would stop the ball from moving in the same direction as the air, cannon, and ground during it's vertical travel once fired?

None. And it would move with the air, cannon, an ground. Shooting it perfectly vertical could get hard tho.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:05:10 PM

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

THE QUESTION : With the air, ball, cannon, and ground all moving the same speed on a globe, with windless conditions, what physical mechanism would stop the ball from moving in the same direction as the air, cannon, and ground during it's vertical travel once fired?

We can simplify my argument like this :

Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how our balloon keeps it's fixed position in absolute space (within spinning earth scenario), that is to say : the earth rotates (bellow the fixed position of the balloon) towards east, and the balloon stays above fixed point in absolute space - due to westward wind which counteracts eastward motion of the earth with respect to some fixed point in space with which our balloon is perfectly aligned.

As the earth turns and our balloon is being carried away (towards west) by westward wind which blows 300 km/h and counteracts inertia impact on the balloon due to earth's rotation which alleged speed is also 300 km/h (along 80 degr. N latitude), OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA, AND EVENTUALLY OUR BALLOON WILL LOSE ALL OF IT'S INITIAL EASTWARD MOMENTUM.

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but noone has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO 1 :
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO 2 :

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

For that to work, for the wind to "all of a sudden" stop, then you have to assume that the inertia of the air particles is immediately restored to their previous inertia (as opposed to continuing to move westward), something which...

...is not possible because the air is a gas.

Really jamas, why did you need to post this twice?

We can simplify my argument like this :
Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.
Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

Is this just a coincidence or are you claiming that is what the wind will do?

Now, suppose that the wind all of a sudden stops.

What is going to happen with our balloon within spinning earth scenario?

It is quite simple, as you no longer have this wind, the atmosphere is moving with Earth. Yes, it wouldn't happen instantly, but this is your magic scenario, not reality.

What this means is that the balloon will now have a velocity relative to the air, and thus due to air resistance it will begin to move.
It would act the same as a balloon on a hypothetical stationary Earth subjected to a 300 km/hr wind.

We can assume two solutions :

1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
2. The balloon is going to experience INSTANT blow of 250 km/h fast EASTWARD wind due to the rotation of earth's atmosphere.

1st solution is not possible because the air is a gas.
2nd solution is theoretically possible, but noone has ever experienced or noticed such a strange phenomena.

And you left out the third option.
However a key issue with number 2 is that no one has ever experienced a 300 km/hr wind die instantly.
So the very basis of your situation is fictional, and never observed in reality, so why would you expect the result to be?


I wont bother with your video spam.

Now how about you go back and address the massive flaws in your argument?
Either defend it or admit you were wrong.

Tell us what should make the cannonball fall behind?
Tell us what magically strips it of its inertia?

Michael Dunlavey says :
Everybody makes mistakes. I have. It's OK. The trick here is to keep in mind the two reference frames.

I accept your premise that the surface is rotating to the east at 300, but there is a strong wind going west at 300. So - in the earth's frame the balloon is traveling west at 300, and - in the absolute frame the wind speed subtracts from the earth's speed so the balloon is stationary.

Now you say:
OUR BALLOON IS LOSING THE LAST BIT OF IT'S INITIAL INERTIA.
Can you accept that momentum = mass times velocity ?

That means momentum is relative to the frame of reference.
- in the earth's frame the momentum is mass times 300 westward (losing/gaining nothing)
- in the absolute frame the momentum is zero. (losing/gaining nothing)

Now the wind stops. That means
- in the earth's frame the air suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0.
- in the absolute frame the air suddenly goes from 0 to 300 eastward.
Either way, the balloon does what the air does, more or less immediately, because it is suspended in the air. It weighs no more or less than the air volume it takes up. When the air stops the balloon stops with it, and that can be a jolt.

So it does both of your solutions. - in the earth's frame the balloon's speed (and momentum) goes from west 300 to 0 - in the absolute frame the the balloon's speed (and momentum) goes from 0 to 300 east Either way, it's a 300 kmh eastward kick in the pants. The problem is thinking inertia (momentum) is an absolute quantity. It's not. It's frame-relative.?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU SAYS :
>>>So it does both of your solutions. - in the earth's frame the balloon's speed (and momentum) goes from west 300 to 0 - in the absolute frame the the balloon's speed (and momentum) goes from 0 to 300 east Either way, it's a 300 km/h eastward kick in the pants.<<<

No, it doesn't, since the first solution is this :
1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
So, if momentum goes from west 300 to 0 it doesn't match hypothetical situation in which the balloon's speed is instantly restored.

First solution is exclusively theoretical concept (which is not possible to happen in reality) which solely purpose is to emphasize how this HC inertia excuse is ridiculous.

Second solution is theoretically possible, but it could never be noticed by anyone because earth is perfectly at rest from the first moment of creation.

I (personally) provided a whole bunch of original arguments in favor of earth's motionless. This argument is just one additional corroboration of this absolute proof (the earth is perfectly at rest)!!!

Michael, you are clever guy, you shouldn't defend such a stupid concept at any cost, unless you are professional NASA shill which i believe you are not.

You are fighting losing battle, and i think you are perfectly aware of that.

I admitted that southern summer path of the sun is not in favor of flat earth theory.

So, look up to me (follow my example) and find courage to admit that the earth is at rest, since that is the fact. There is no point to fighting losing battles, is there?
----------------------------------------------
EDIT :
>>>Now the wind stops. That means - in the earth's frame the air suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0.<<<

No it wouldn't mean that in the SPINNING earth's frame of reference.
It means that only within STATIONARY earth's frame of reference.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dunlavey 9 minutes agoHighlighted reply
+odiupicku: Well, we're not going to agree on this.
I'm not a NASA person (though I worked with them on Apollo and space shuttle, plus various missiles).
No, NASA people are not shills. NASA is one of numerous space agencies around the world over the last half-century, and they are completely happy to explain everything they are doing, patiently, without the name-calling and insults that count for argument among many flat-earthers.
It's all self-consistent, while the flat-earth model is riddled with inconsistencies. Again, I'll be happy to explain any one or more of them.
You say otherwise, and that only means we're saying different things.

Anyway, forget "initial inertia". The balloon and air have frame-relative momentum at any point in time. You can pick whichever frame you like, but just stick with one.
Cheers, Mike?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU SAYS :
Once again :

You said :

>>>Now the wind stops. That means - in the earth's frame the air suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0.<<<

I responded :
No it wouldn't mean that in the SPINNING earth's frame of reference.
It means that only within STATIONARY earth's frame of reference.?

Explanation :

It wouldn't mean that (in the SPINNING earth frame of reference) because as soon as the wind stops rotating atmosphere would INSTANTLY exert it's force on everything which has lost it's initial inertia while being carried away towards west (in an opposite direction of earth's spin). It could be the balloon, an aircraft, drop of rain, anything...

That is why only within STATIONARY earth frame of reference wind stoppage would cause the air to suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0 since within STATIONARY earth there isn't "LOST INITIAL INERTIA" of anything that should be restored one way or another...

What is it that you don't understand in this simple concept?

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 14, 2017, 07:27:58 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:05:10 PM

THE QUESTION : Having in mind above three enumerated information i would like to hear from any HC maniac what kind of physical mechanism could provide/caused 4,6 miles long ALLEGED lateral displacement of the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight???

THE QUESTION : With the air, ball, cannon, and ground all moving the same speed on a globe, with windless conditions, what physical mechanism would stop the ball from moving in the same direction as the air, cannon, and ground during it's vertical travel once fired?

We can simplify my argument like this :

Imagine the balloon which is hovering somewhere above 80 degr. N latitude.

Now, the wind which blows towards the west (in an opposite direction of earth's alleged rotation) starts to carry the balloon 300 km/h westward.

This is how ......

Hold on, let me direct your attention to the part in bold.  The atmosphere on a globe is not 'holding still' while the ground and ball move through it at 300kmh at that latitude.  It's moving with it. 

Once again, with the air, ball, and ground all moving the same speed and direction, what will cause the ball to come to a stop and land to the west of where it was launched straight up?

The very basics of the very basics or human logic and natural mindset for natural science should take precedence over the clear fictional stories told about Earth.

It does not matter how many times the brainwashed masses are being duped by the few. It matters that the brainwashed masses just learn to channel their minds right back to the observable logical sense about what they actually observe against what they are told, that cannot be observed in any realistic sense.....just ONCE.
Just one time is all that's required.

One time for each person to switch into personal logical thinking mode and actually go looking for the simplicity that is staring people in the face and grasping it against the mounds of ridiculous stories that supposedly scupper that simplicity.
Stories that are filled with totally nonsensical equations and made up mumbo jumbo that is designed to amaze and baffle in equal measures; enough to render the potential logical thinking person into illogical thought processes.

You people know...and I mean KNOW, that this Earth is not spinning along with an atmosphere that carries anything and everything around it, whilst keeping it all nicely adhered to it and also carrying anything along in equal unison, that manages to leave the solid ground and take to the atmosphere.

Your logical senses tell you that this is totally pathetic and is a complete and utter piss take of your senses and intelligence.
Accepting it among the many other basic and very clear evidences against this fictional globe is more of an ignorance and a weakness or fear of mass peer pressure to most, rather than a refusal to use logic.


Basically most people possess a mind to want the truth and will only protect a lie because it's easier to do as long as they do not spend too much time questioning any of it because it gives them a sense of being able to go along with a sort of, plausible deniability.


 

Michael Dunlavey says :

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU SAYS :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dunlavey 9 minutes agoHighlighted reply

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODIUPICKU SAYS :

  Why don't you reply to my comments anymore on youtube? 

You even quoted me once in one of your videos (a quote that destroyed your argument even). 

what shall anyway prove this mind play anyway?

if we say that the earth the earth with the atmosphere spins and a balloon in the atmosphere spins also with it.

now we let the atmosphere "stop" instantly.

what happen to the balloon depends on how do you handle the inertia of both (atmosphere and balloon)

-if you account for both the inertia the atmosphere would not stop instantly it would slow down and i assume in a slow rate because of the big mass of the whole atmosphere and the balloon would be slowed down with the atmosphere.

-if you do not account for the inertia of the atmosphere it could stop instantly and if you account for the inertia of the balloon it would try to move in the same direction as before and it would have a big impact on the balloon almost as it would fly against a wall.

-if you not account for both inertia both would stop instantly and there would be no effect on the balloon.

but all three cases could not happen in reality.

the question is now what do you want to prove with this mind play?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 10, 2017, 03:33:41 PM

B-52 drops plane

Did you ever see a B-52 drop an X-15?

Watch what happens.

The X-15 is under no power and is clearly keeping up with the B-52 for a few hundred meters, then switches ignition to the ON position.

How is the X-15 doing this?

Answer = Trading altitude for airspeed.

The very basics of the very basics or human logic and natural mindset for natural science should take precedence over the clear fictional stories told about Earth.

Absolutely! So why do you cling to the fiction that the earth is flat despite clear evidence to the contrary and nothing that clearly says it is?

It does not matter how many times the brainwashed masses are being duped by the few. It matters that the brainwashed masses just learn to channel their minds right back to the observable logical sense about what they actually observe against what they are told, that cannot be observed in any realistic sense.....just ONCE.

Not all that many have been brainwashed, really. It's too easy to tell the earth is spherical despite being told otherwise by a few.

Just one time is all that's required.

So what's keeping you from realizing what's as plain as day and night and as simple as sunrise and sunset... the earth is a rotating sphere?

One time for each person to switch into personal logical thinking mode and actually go looking for the simplicity that is staring people in the face and grasping it against the mounds of ridiculous stories that supposedly scupper that simplicity.

Why you don't follow this advice is baffling. You could start any time you wanted.
 

Stories that are filled with totally nonsensical equations and made up mumbo jumbo that is designed to amaze and baffle in equal measures; enough to render the potential logical thinking person into illogical thought processes.

Why so harsh on sandokhan? That was an excellent description of what he posts, but I thought he was your bud.

You people know...and I mean KNOW, that this Earth is not spinning along with an atmosphere that carries anything and everything around it, whilst keeping it all nicely adhered to it and also carrying anything along in equal unison, that manages to leave the solid ground and take to the atmosphere.

Why would I know that? What you describe earth as not doing is almost exactly what it is doing.

Your logical senses tell you that this is totally pathetic and is a complete and utter piss take of your senses and intelligence.
Accepting it among the many other basic and very clear evidences against this fictional globe is more of an ignorance and a weakness or fear of mass peer pressure to most, rather than a refusal to use logic.

Basically most people possess a mind to want the truth and will only protect a lie because it's easier to do as long as they do not spend too much time questioning any of it because it gives them a sense of being able to go along with a sort of, plausible deniability.

Speaking of taking leave of your senses, how's the data collection in your backyard scale model of the dome proceeding? You said it was all done and tested several weeks ago. Does it show how well your idea that the sun is a reflection off the dome, causing day and night works? With all those cameras in there, surely you can show some results.

The very basics of the very basics or human logic and natural mindset for natural science should take precedence over the clear fictional stories told about Earth.

It does not matter how many times the brainwashed masses are being duped by the few. It matters that the brainwashed masses just learn to channel their minds right back to the observable logical sense about what they actually observe against what they are told, that cannot be observed in any realistic sense.....just ONCE.
Just one time is all that's required.

One time for each person to switch into personal logical thinking mode and actually go looking for the simplicity that is staring people in the face and grasping it against the mounds of ridiculous stories that supposedly scupper that simplicity.
Stories that are filled with totally nonsensical equations and made up mumbo jumbo that is designed to amaze and baffle in equal measures; enough to render the potential logical thinking person into illogical thought processes.

You people know...and I mean KNOW, that this Earth is not spinning along with an atmosphere that carries anything and everything around it, whilst keeping it all nicely adhered to it and also carrying anything along in equal unison, that manages to leave the solid ground and take to the atmosphere.

Your logical senses tell you that this is totally pathetic and is a complete and utter piss take of your senses and intelligence.
Accepting it among the many other basic and very clear evidences against this fictional globe is more of an ignorance and a weakness or fear of mass peer pressure to most, rather than a refusal to use logic.


Basically most people possess a mind to want the truth and will only protect a lie because it's easier to do as long as they do not spend too much time questioning any of it because it gives them a sense of being able to go along with a sort of, plausible deniability.

Your post mainly focuses on people, like me who have been duped into believing in the spherical earth. You offer no evidence rather you just keep repeating the same thing again and again.

Funnily enough I think you are the one who has been duped into believing in the flat earth. The difference between us is that I have irrefutable evidence that the earth is a sphere.

The interesting question is why do you choose to believe in what you do when there is no positive evidence to support it.

Why don't you try and support you claim using positive evidence rather than basing your argument exclusively on " that round earthers have all been fooled"  plus your incredulity of the concept of a round earth.....neither of these are valid lines of arguments, so let's have some positives from you to support your claim.

And there you go completely ignoring everything I said.

You seem to be quoting an entire conversation, showing you have no idea what you are talking abut at all.

No, it doesn't, since the first solution is this :
1. The balloon is going to INSTANTLY restore it's initial inertia.
So, if momentum goes from west 300 to 0 it doesn't match hypothetical situation in which the balloon's speed is instantly restored.

No, that does match the situation.
If its velocity goes from 300 km/hr west to 0, its initial speed relative to Earth (0) has been instantly restored. That is in the Earth centred reference frame.
In the absolute reference frame its speed goes from 0 to 300 km/hr, thus its initial speed (300 km/hr, going along with Earth) has been restored.

First solution is exclusively theoretical concept (which is not possible to happen in reality) which solely purpose is to emphasize how this HC inertia excuse is ridiculous.

Yes, it isn't possible in reality because of the magic wind you have.
All it does is show your example is pure garbage. It doesn't show inertia to be ridiculous, nor does it show HC to be ridiculous.

Second solution is theoretically possible, but it could never be noticed by anyone because earth is perfectly at rest from the first moment of creation.

No. It was never at rest. That is just a baseless delusional claim, and there is no reason to think it was created either.
Do you have anything rational or just religious crap?

I (personally) provided a whole bunch of original arguments in favor of earth's motionless. This argument is just one additional corroboration of this absolute proof (the earth is perfectly at rest)!!!

No, this example is just another pile of pure bullshit that has been easily refuted, just like all the other crap you (and presumably this person) has posted.

Michael, you are clever guy, you shouldn't defend such a stupid concept at any cost, unless you are professional NASA shill which i believe you are not.

A flat stationary Earth is the stupid concept. All evidence points to it being round and moving.

EDIT :
>>>Now the wind stops. That means - in the earth's frame the air suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0.<<<

No it wouldn't mean that in the SPINNING earth's frame of reference.
It means that only within STATIONARY earth's frame of reference.?

Unless by spinning you mean one where Earth spins, in which case it goes to match the speed of Earth, it does mean that.
The speed of the wind relative to Earth's surface goes to 0.

>>>Now the wind stops. That means - in the earth's frame the air suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0.<<<
I responded :
No it wouldn't mean that in the SPINNING earth's frame of reference.
It means that only within STATIONARY earth's frame of reference.?

And you were wrong then, just like you are now.

It wouldn't mean that (in the SPINNING earth frame of reference) because as soon as the wind stops rotating atmosphere would INSTANTLY exert it's force on everything which has lost it's initial inertia while being carried away towards west (in an opposite direction of earth's spin). It could be the balloon, an aircraft, drop of rain, anything...

Your point?
The wind stops which means the air is now moving with Earth.
Yes, it does it instantly, because you have the wind magically stop instantly. That isn't how it works in reality.

That is why only within STATIONARY earth frame of reference wind stoppage would cause the air to suddenly goes from 300 westward to 0 since within STATIONARY earth there isn't "LOST INITIAL INERTIA" of anything that should be restored one way or another...

Instead you have the inertia of the balloon travelling west at 300 km/hr which needs to be magically stripped.

The only difference between the 2 frames is the point of reference. You have the exact same situation.
Regardless of which frame you use, regardless of if Earth is spinning or stationary, you have a balloon which is effectively subjected to a 300 km/hr wind, as it is either stationary in an absolute reference frame with the atmosphere spinning with Earth at 300 km/hr, or it is moving 300 km/hr west through air that is now stationary.

You have the same problem either way.

What is it that you don't understand in this simple concept?

That is a good question. I understand it quite well. Why don't you understand it?

Again, go back to the original problem. WHAT STOPS THE CANNONBALL MOVING WITH EARTH TO LAND BACK IN THE CANNON?

The very basics of the very basics or human logic and natural mindset for natural science should take precedence over the clear fictional stories told about Earth.

Yes, and that means discarding all this religious and FE nonsense, which either has no backing at all, or goes directly against the evidence.

It matters that the brainwashed masses just learn to channel their minds right back to the observable logical sense about what they actually observe against what they are told, that cannot be observed in any realistic sense.....just ONCE.
Just one time is all that's required.

And that is what we have been trying, but you FEers repeatedly refuse to do so. Instead you choose to dwell in your ignorance and pretend Earth is flat, ignoring observations and questions that would destroy that.

You people know...and I mean KNOW, that this Earth is not spinning along with an atmosphere that carries anything and everything around it, whilst keeping it all nicely adhered to it and also carrying anything along in equal unison, that manages to leave the solid ground and take to the atmosphere.

No, we KNOW that it is spinning.
We know that the atmosphere, for the most part, is moving with Earth, exactly as you would expect it to.
We also know that this atmosphere will drag things in the air along with it, just like wind can move a leaf.

Your logical senses tell you that this is totally pathetic and is a complete and utter piss take of your senses and intelligence.

No. My logical senses, along with experiments, show that this is the case.

Accepting it among the many other basic and very clear evidences against this fictional globe is more of an ignorance and a weakness or fear of mass peer pressure to most, rather than a refusal to use logic.

Except no one has been able to provide a single piece of evidence against the globe, while plenty has been provided against the delusional nonsense of a stationary and/or flat Earth.

Basically most people possess a mind to want the truth and will only protect a lie because it's easier to do as long as they do not spend too much time questioning any of it because it gives them a sense of being able to go along with a sort of, plausible deniability.

And some people (like you and other FEers) are paranoid and delusional and thus don't want to accept that what those in charge have said is true.
So when people provide a complete stupid alternative, like a FE, you just gobble up the mountains of bullshit along with it and accept it without question and then reject everything backing up reality without question.

Let's put it this way :

STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

The consequence /  the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

Let's put it this way :

STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).

The consequence /  the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :

Atmosphere = quick flowing river

The wind = boat propeller

The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)

The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east

The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west

After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.

While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.

As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.

The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

Again you assume a complete loss of inertia of the air and water once "the wind stops", which will not happen. You also throw out a lot of other physics to get this to work.

But what if the universe is rotating around the Earth? That's the same thing as saying the Earth is rotating, so I don't see a conflict here between geocentrism and heliocentrism.

STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO :
Atmosphere = the canal with perfectly still water
The wind = boat propeller
The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference and with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space, also).
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, there will be no need for restoration of anything (non-pre-existing initial inertia).
The consequence /  the effect = the boat will simply rest at the calm water of the canal with no kind of perturbation/disturbance/commotion.

No, it wont. I can even tell you that from personal experience.
Cutting the engine to a boat wont magically make it stop.
Instead it will drift until the water slows it down and stops it.

So what will actually happen:
While the boat is running with the props running, the water resistance is trying to slow the boat down, exerting a force on it, while the props are trying to move the boat forward, exerting a force on it.
While it is cruising at 30 knots, these forces are balanced and the boat moves at constant speed.

You turn off the prop and the boat will continue moving at the same speed as before, however now the water resistance will not be countered by the props.
This will cause the boat to slow down and eventually match the speed of the water.

The boat has inertia, it has momentum. This will require the water to exert a force to slow the boat down to stop it, and that force will be based upon the velocity difference.

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO :
Atmosphere = quick flowing river
The wind = boat propeller
The balloon = passenger in a boat (or a boat or a passenger in a boat & a boat)
The river flows 30 knots per hour towards east
The boat sails 30 knots per hour towards west
After one hour the boat is 30 nm westward from it's starting position (within earth's frame of reference), although with respect to the frame of reference of absolute space the boat didn't move at all.
While boat propeller runs, it's work counteracts inertial impact of river's flow (towards east) on a boat, that is to say : boat propeller's work cancels out boat's initial inertia (due to the river's flow) and the boat stays at the same spatial position all the time.
As soon as we turn off the engine which propels the propeller of the boat, the river's flow is going to restore initial inertia of the boat.
The consequence / the effect = As soon the wind stops (as soon the boat propeller ceases to spin) the strength of river's flow is going to exert it's force on the boat in eastward direction, and almost instantly restore boat's lost initial inertia by abruptly putting the boat in eastward motion.

Again, completely wrong, which again can be observed quite easily.

What will actually happen (I assume up mean the boat is travelling at 30 knots relative to the water):
While the boat is running with the props running, the water resistance is trying to stop the boat moving relative to it, exerting a force on it, while the props are trying to move the boat upstream, exerting a force on it.
While it is cruising at 30 knots, relative to the water and thus stationary relative to the bank, these forces are balanced and the boat moves at constant speed relative to the water and remains stationary relative to the bank.

You turn off the prop and the boat will continue moving at the same speed as before (moving relative to the water or stationary relative to Earth), however now the water resistance will not be countered by the props.
This will cause the boat to slow down relative to the water and eventually match the speed of the water.

The boat has inertia, in this case in stead of having momentum it needs to pick up momentum. This will require the water to exert a force to speed the boat up, and that force will be based upon the velocity difference.


Water and wind doesn't just magically move things with it. It causes a force which is based upon the difference in velocity.

Notice that without an external reference frame (e.g. the bank of the river), both situations are identical. You have a boat moving relative to the water, with the props countering the water resistance trying to stop the boats motion relative to the water. You cut the engine, the props stop and now the force is unbalanced and thus the boat accelerates, either to a stop (I know, it can be confusing, but it is effectively a negative acceleration) or to a speed of 30 knots, either way, to the velocity of the water.

Stop acting like inertia only works one way or that water or air can magically move things, accelerating them instantly.

And of course, once again you completely ignore what has been said and instead just repeat the same refuted bullshit in a slightly different way.

But what if the universe is rotating around the Earth? That's the same thing as saying the Earth is rotating, so I don't see a conflict here between geocentrism and heliocentrism.

He is objecting to Earth's spin, so he would also object to a geocentric Earth with Earth spinning.