Alright. Read posts #16 and #26 (on the first page of this thread) AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES (for you) to understand that there is no way around this : your myth of inertia is not applicable in the earth's atmosphere because of air resistance.
I have read it. I have pointed out that it is bullshit.
Air resistance doesn't magically cancel inertia. It acts as an additional force acting on relative velocities to try to reduce that relative velocity to 0.
It doesn't make absolute velocity (which doesn't exist) to 0, just the relative velocity of the object and the medium it is moving through (the air).
The same can be seen when wind blows things away. The air is moving at one speed. The object is moving at a different speed. Thus air resistance acts to move the object to try to make it move at the same speed as the air.
The same happens with water and waves.
So no, there is no problem with inertia and air resistance.
However, you have to cling to it to the bitter end
No. We accept it because it is true, because that is what all the evidence shows, because there is no reason at all to doubt it.
You need to try and find any excuse you can to discard it, because with it, Row Boat's experiments amount to pure garbage which show nothing at all, and the pathetic claims you make amount to pure garbage which show nothing at all.
You need to try and discard it so you can pretend Earth is flat. But that wont work on rational people. They will see through your bullshit and realise that Inertia explains it.
You are the one trying to make up a myth about inertia (that it magically no longer applies in an atmosphere) not us.
I can only repeat this : shoot it 20 m in the air and then see what is going to happen... But wait : why wouldn't you be so generous and shoot that ball 200 m in the air and then see what is going to happen? Yes, your reason advises you well : "don't do that, because in this matter size (length of ball's trajectory) does matter"!!!
Because there is absolutely no point.
No matter what we do, you will find some excuse to ignore it.
The only person that will stand a chance at convincing you (as these videos didn't) is you, so you need to do the experiment to convince yourself.
Yes, the length of the balls trajectory will matter to some extent, especially when done like in those videos.
To accurately model the situation you want, you need to have the ball and launcher in a vessel moving along a track at a very steady speed with no jolts or the like.
So how about this, you buy us the vessel, the launcher and track, and we can do it for you.
The videos provided are already enough to show your claim is wrong.
The laws of motion and countless experiments of the past do as well.
You don't have the ball magically lose its inertia and end up landing right where it was launched.
All the air does is try to make the ball match its motion.
Supposed earth's rotation would produce enormous centrifugal (repelling) force
No. It wouldn't.
I have covered this as well.
At the equator, where the apparent centrifugal force is greatest, you get a force of roughly 0.03 m/s^2. That is pretty much nothing.
so since gravitational pull is not strong enough to overcome such hypothetical centrifugal force in order to keep oceans from flying off into space
But it is.
The centrifugal force is 0.03 m/s^2. Gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.
Last time I checked, 9.8 m/s^2 was greater than 0.03 m/s^2.
Around
300 times greater.
So no, gravity is quite capable of overcoming the centrifugal force.
It just doesn't completely overcome it which results in an equatorial bulge of a few tens of km (which again, is nothing compared to the size of Earth).
On the other hand if gravity were strong enough to cancel out and overpower such a strong hypothetical centrifugal force
You mean such a pathetically weak centrifugal force produced by rotation at the incredibly slow speed of 15 degrees an hour. If you want an accurate comparison, then note that F=omega^2*r=omega*v=v^2/r.
What this means is that if you change the radius by scaling it by a factor of k^2, you need to scale the rotation rate by a factor of 1/k or the velocity by a factor of k.
e.g:
F=(omega/k)^2*r*k^2=omega^2*r
F=(omega/k)*k*v=omega*v
F=(v*k)^2/(r*k^2)=v*r.
So to scale Earth down and see the "enormous" centrifugal force you can get a merry go round, with a radius of say 6.3781 m (so k^2=0.000001, so k=0.001), then you need the rotational velocity to increase from 15 degrees an hour to 15000 degrees an hour, so just over 41 revolutions an hour. That is 250 degrees a minute, so one revolution in 1.44 minutes. Alternatively, you can express it in terms of tangential velocity, where you go from the 1600 km/hr down to 1.6 km/hr or 0.444 m/s.
That is still incredibly slow.
Typical merry go rounds are much large, and spin much faster, completing a revolution in a few seconds or tens of seconds.
Yet what force is required to stay on? Not much, you can still stand pretty much straight upright on them.
So no, this "enormous" centrifugal forces is absolutely pathetic.
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...
No. It wouldn't.
The force required to overcome this force is completely pathetic.
For a 100 kg person, the force would amount to 3 N, that is equivalent to 300 g.
Are you saying you wouldn't even be able to breathe if someone put a 300 g weight on your chest?
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?)
That depends on what you mean by "ammount".
The acceleration is the same, the force is not.
The force is equal to GMm/r^2.
Notice that it depends on the mass of the object.
So a 1 tonne object will have a lot more force than a 1 kg object.
This is because gravity acts akin to the centrifugal force, being an acceleration.
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
Again, we don't. The current definition works fine.
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?
No. It isn't. I already told you that.
Our inertia is the same as everyone else's.
It can be expressed simply as F=ma.
So, when i said this :
I have already dealt with this bullshit.
Because of everything i said above, you are forced to cling to the clasical interpretation of inertia and use it as such in order to explain away alleged 4,6 miles impossibly long lateral motion of the ball.
No. We aren't forced to do anything.
We accept the real definition of inertia. As there is no force acting to remove its lateral motion, it will keep on moving.
But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because
Again, we can.
air resistence which would obstruct the ball
Which only works on relative motion.
As the air is moving sideways along with Earth and the ball, air resistance will only act on the vertical component.
It only ever acts on relative velocities. It doesn't magically stop it regardless of how the air is moving. If that was the case, wind would be incapable of blowing things. Are you saying wind isn't real?
How about you stop repeating the same refuted crap and actually deal with the objections?
Newton's first law certainly does not hold--a body not acted on by any force will not stay at rest but will fly off at a tangent. One can salvage this part of the law by adding a centrifugal force in any calculation of balanced forces. But if such forces are not balanced, if they cause motion in the rotating frame, then a modified form of Newton's laws must be used...
That is because the law is for inertial frames of reference, not accelerating or rotating ones.
In an inertial frame of reference, that tangent is the body continuing to move at the same velocity.
The force which keeps us going along with Earth is gravity which can easily provide the necessary centripetal force required.
In any rotational system, the larger is the radius r, the greater is the angular velocity V
No. v is the tangential velocity, which increases for a larger radius at a fixed angular velocity and that increases the force required to maintain the circular path.