IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, CAN SHE STILL BE ROUND?

Since you are such a great physicist then let's see how you are going to explain away these problems :

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

I'm no "physicist", just a long retired engineer, but I fail to see the problem? Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, and force/mass = acceleration, soWhere is the big deal?

PROBLEM NO. 2 :

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

In your rotating (hence non-inertial) reference frame there appeared to be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force. Because this force appears only because we are in this rotating reference frame is it often called a pseudo-force or a ficticious-force.
Both terms are used, but I prefer pseudo-force because the term ficticious-force seems to imply that it is not real, but if you were squashed against the outside of a centrifuge, you would know that it was certainly a real force!

This is what really is happening. When you let go of the ball, it has a velocity tangential to the merry-go-round.

What is really happening depends entirely on your frame of reference.
If you are on the merry-go-round the ball is initially stationary (relative to you in your rotating FOR). Initially the ball appears to accelerate away from you, but that does not continue because you are rotating away from the ball. To you, on the merry-go-round the ball appears to curve away.

Its inertia keeps it going in the direction it was going. That means it will quickly leave the merry-go-round. From an observer on the merry-go-round, the ball does fly away. If use a non-inertial frame of reference as our frame of reference, this phenomenon will occur as well as the Coriolis force.

Also think of it like this: a centripetal force is required to keep a ball spinning in a circle. If we take the case where the ball is at rest, it still needs the centripetal force holding it in. But the ball is at rest, what force is acting on it? The centrifugal force.

These two forces DO NOT EXIST. However, in order to use a rotating frame as the frame of reference, these two forces must exist.

So, these forces exist and don't exist in the same time! How could that be?

In the rotating reference frame of the merry-go-round, until the ball is released, the centrifugal force is there and very real, though labelled a pseudo-force because it is simply due to the non-inertial frame of reference you are in.

To the stationary observer the centripetal force is a real force supplying force needed to force the ball into circular motion.
Without that (or any other) force the ball would continue in a straight line, which is what is does when released.

Again, where is the big problem, though the terminology can be more confusing than the understanding whae really happens.

IN ADDITION :

Somebody once said that philosophy is the misuse of a terminology which was invented just for this purpose. [2 This statement is quoted here from W. Dubislav's Die Philosophie der Mathematik in der Gegenwart (Berlin: Junker and Dunnhaupt Verlag, 1932), p. 1.]

"Somebody once said . . . . " does not carry a lot of weight!

In the same vein, I would say that mathematics is the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose.

And neither does your saying something carry a lot of weight!

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses. (Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)

Yes, Newton had no understanding of why this happened.
Robert Hooke and others had done a tremendous amount of experimentation with falling weights and pendulum clocks at various latitudes and altitudes.

Isaac Newton did not have an apple fall on his head and out popped a fully blown "Theory of Universal Gravitation.

And what would Isaac Newton have thought of electrostatic attraction?
Their forms are identical and both act a distance, so what's the problem?

Do you think that Coulomb had any better idea as to why there is a force at a distance between electrostatic charges Newton had of why there is a force at a distance between masses.
I fail to see why
         Newton's Law of Gravitation, with it's force at a distance, causes conniptions in Flat Earthers
yet they will happily accept without a qualm
         Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Attraction, with it's force at a distance without a qualm!
Might it be something akin "confirmation bias" - can't give up a pet hypothesis because of inconvenient facts!

The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. ... What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does. (Richard P. Feynman, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)

Sure, we don't know "The Theory of Everything" but we do know a lot about how most things behave,
including gravitation, at least in our "local environment" - and I would extend to include the closer stars.

Mathematics was associated with a more refined type of error. Mathematical knowledge appeared to be certain, exact, and applicable to the real world; moreover it was obtained by mere thinking, without the need of observation. Consequently, it was thought to supply an ideal, from which everyday empirical knowledge fell short. It was supposed on the basis of mathematics, that thought is superior to sense, intuition to observation. If the world of sense does not fit mathematics, so much the worse for the world of sense. ... This form of philosophy begins with Pythagoras. (Bertrand Russell)

Pythagoras was correct in stating that "everything had a cause", but he certainly had far too little knowledge to ascertain the causes of everything and did get a lot of things wrong.

The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)

But here you seem to have things backwards - the Newton's laws were not derived from any "mathematical or algebraic theory", to explain numerous observed facts and the results of many experiments.
And these "Laws" have been verified in practice (things work) and by experiment (things measured).

Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation. (Richard P. Feynman)

Sure, but when we have simple equations that do describe observed behaviour, why throw everything into turmoil.

Newton's "Laws of Motion" and "Law of Universal Gravitation" have been demonstrated to be very accurate within a wide range of situations.
There are ranges (the very small, extreme velocities, extreme energies and/or mass and just possibly at extreme distances) where they start to become inaccurate,
You seem to be claiming that since we don't know everything, we should ignore what we do know.

So sorry fo such a long post, but your long post requires a long reply!

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2017, 02:26:01 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 09:53:52 AM

In addition : when we talk about linear inertia experiment, then you have to be aware that we used that example in order to analyze authenticity of something else : supposed rotation and orbital motion of the earth! That is why i often make reference to angular momentum (or centrifugal force) in the same context in which we talk about linear inertia experiment, and then misunderstandings occur, but i don't want to lose my energy to explain (or to point out) what lies behind these misunderstandings...so, it's not about my lack of knowledge of basic physics it's rather about your narrow-minded (and often illogical) way of reasoning.

No, it really is about your lack of knowledge of physics. That's all.

[Edit] Omissions in original.

Since you are such a great physicist then let's see how you are going to explain away these problems :

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

I don't claim to be a great physicist, but I do understand this much.

The problem is why you think m * v² / r equals G * m * M / r² when M is the mass of the earth, r is the radius of the earth, and v = tangential velocity of the earth at the equator?

That's simply incorrect. Those aren't equal. The left side of this "equation" is almost 300 times smaller than the right side. Do the math - if you can.

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

And we still get the acceleration v² / r is some 288 times smaller than G * M / r². Just because your test mass, m, is equal doesn't mean that different expressions that include it are equal.

PROBLEM NO. 2 :

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

This is what really is happening. When you let go of the ball, it has a velocity tangential to the merry-go-round. Its inertia keeps it going in the direction it was going. That means it will quickly leave the merry-go-round. From an observer on the merry-go-round, the ball does fly away. If use a non-inertial frame of reference as our frame of reference, this phenomenon will occur as well as the Coriolis force.

There's no significant force of gravity attracting the ball toward the center of the merry-go-round and nothing to constrain it to stay the same distance from the center of the merry-go round. If you substitute the rotating earth for the rotating merry-go-round, G * M_e / r_e² is huge compared to the negligible G * M_m / r_m², while v_e² / r_e is small compared to v_m² / r_m, where _e refers to earth and _m refers to the merry-go-round, for any realistic merry-go-round.

Also think of it like this: a centripetal force is required to keep a ball spinning in constrained to a circle. If we take the case where the ball is at rest, it still needs the centripetal force holding it in. But the ball is at rest, what force is acting on it? The centrifugal force.

These two forces DO NOT EXIST. However, in order to use a rotating frame as the frame of reference, these two forces must exist.

So, these forces exist and don't exist in the same time! How could that be?

There's a semantic argument, in the context of relativity, whether gravity and centripetal acceleration produce "real forces" or not. In classical mechanics they can be treated as such. Don't get lost in the weeds before you have a grasp of the basics.

IN ADDITION :

<quotes attributed to various scientists expressing marvel at nature>

Yep. We'll never understand everything. The stuff you're complaining about is well understood, though.

Rather than looking up random concepts and relating them to each other incorrectly, can you try to actually learn physics in a more rigorous way? I don't know what the higher-education system is like where you live, but is there an equivalent to the community colleges we have in the USA? These institutions offer classes for high-school graduates who can't or don't want to attend traditional colleges, sometimes one course per semester, often available in evenings. They are often quite good. Another option may be to enroll in an internet course in physics offered by a competent institution.

You seem like a bright and inquisitive guy. You just need to apply some rigor to your investigations.

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

That is right. When you cancel out both "m"s you end up with accelerations, not forces. The acceleration due to gravity and the acceleration required to maintain a circular path.

Also note that you are only diving 2 of the 4 by mass.
To do it entirely you need to divide Fc by mass to get centripetal acceleration and Fg by mass to get gravitational acceleration.

But they are only equal for a circular orbit.
For other situations, like standing on the rotating Earth, they are not equal.

What is there to "explain away"?

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

No. Look from another position, you see the ball go on a straight line.
The person on the merry go round stop applying the force so the ball continued in a straight line under its own inertia.

Also think of it like this: a centripetal force is required to keep a ball spinning in a circle. If we take the case where the ball is at rest, it still needs the centripetal force holding it in. But the ball is at rest, what force is acting on it? The centrifugal force.

If you take the case of the ball at rest then it isn't moving and thus needs no force.

These two forces DO NOT EXIST. However, in order to use a rotating frame as the frame of reference, these two forces must exist.

No. They don't.
If you use an inertial reference frame then a force must exist to keep it moving in a circular path, that force is known as the centripetal force and is real. However it can be provided by many different things such as friction, gravity, electromagnetism and so on.

It is the centrifugal force that does not exist. It is an apparent force due to choosing a non-inertial reference frame.

So, these forces exist and don't exist in the same time! How could that be?

They don't.
One exists, the other only appears to when using a non-inertial reference frame.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the shape of Earth?
Why are you spouting such crap here?
Why don't you deal with the crap you have already posted and gotten refuted?
Why don't you try to pick a topic and stick with it.

As you seemed intent on discussing your cannon problem here, why not stick with that?
What effect would air resistance have on the cannon ball, for both the rotating and stationary Earth cases?

I'm not going to attempt a reply to your new wall of text, so I'll tackle just a little.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

Well, no it did not "detect the aether motion", see later.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

No! It is incorrect to claim that "It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun."
It measured less than "one-sixth" and probably less than "one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun".
And that is quite a different thing.

Yes, let's just read exactly what Michelson said and look at logically.

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2 = 2D × 10^-8.
The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

Since you are such a great physicist then let's see how you are going to explain away these problems :

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

I'm no "physicist", just a long retired engineer, but I fail to see the problem?

F_c (Centripetal force) = m.v²/r = G.m.M/r² = Fg (gravitational force)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, and force/mass = acceleration, so

F_c (Centripetal acceleration) = v²/r = G.M/r² = Fg (gravitational force)

Where is the big deal?

Acceleration is nothing if there is nothing to accelerate.
Gravity is also nothing if there is nothing to be pulled or pushed.

Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight. (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

 In his later years, Einstein was asked his thoughts about the huge numbers of short-lived heavy particles, kaons, pions, quarks, mesons, etc. found using high-energy accelerators and enormous amounts of time and money. These physicists thought they were finding important basic matter. They wanted to know what Einstein thought of their work. Einstein was a careful thinker and not given to theatrics so he was very serious when he replied, "I would just like to know what an electron is."

Both terms are used, but I prefer pseudo-force because the term ficticious-force seems to imply that it is not real, but if you were squashed against the outside of a centrifuge, you would know that it was certainly a real force!

There is the appearance of some force which drives us away from the center of rotation. We experience this force, and we can measure its strength, but it isn't really there.

Forces happen when some energy acts upon some mass. If I were to push you, you would move away from the direction of my hands in the direction of my motion when I pushed you. If I were to tie a rope around you and pull you, you would move toward me in the direction of my motion. We can see where both of these motions come from and calculate the existence of the forces that created them.

However, the only force that can push is electromagnetism. Like charged particles or magnets arranged with like poles facing will repel each other. Everything else is attractive. You aren't charged, and that is not the reason that you move away from the center of rotation.

Centrifugal force is the combination of inertia and your inability to pass through solid objects. Consider this: you are in a car. The car is moving forward. The car stops. You, not being attached to the car, continue to move forward toward the dashboard. (Fortunately you are wearing a seat belt.)

Now consider that you are in that same car, only instead of stopping, the car turns suddenly. You continue to move forward, as previously, but now instead of the dashboard, the door is in front of you, and you move toward the door. What you feel is "I am moving away from the turn," but what is really happening is that you are continuing to move forward and your frame of reference is turning around you.

Now, imagine you have a ball on a string, and you whip this around in a circle so that the ball is moving in a circle around your hand. If we could ask the ball what it felt, it would tell us that it experiences a force pulling it away from the center of its rotation. But if we let the string go, the ball does not hurl outward. It moves forward in a line tangential to the point at which we let go of the string. That is why we say that centrifugal force is fictional. It looks like a force outward, but really, it is a force tangential to the direction of motion of a bound object.

Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.

certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound

You seem to be claiming that since we don't know everything, we should ignore what we do know.

Look who ignore what we do know :

0. EYES WIDE SHUT - EYES WIDE SHUT - EYES WIDE SHUT (your honesty = 0):

What if the Earth frame (lab,ECEF) itself were the absolute frame??!!

Covariance is ignored… The so-called principle of relativity is actually covariance, a statement of where – in what ref frames - the laws of physics are valid! Covariance is an axiom of dynamics for a single observer. .

MMX misinterpretation: … the Michaelson - Moreley MMX experiment did, in fact, NOT detect the Earth's motion..

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

As for MMX itself, the common interpretation by Special Relativity theorists is that the experiment yielded a “null” result. Yes, if you are looking for fringe shifts in the interferometer that coincide with an Earth moving around the sun at 30km/sec, I guess one would be predisposed to conclude that the results of MMX were “null.”
But the truth is, in the technical sense of the term, the results of MMX were anything but “null.” Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift. It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2
= 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light;
hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less
than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement
is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably
less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”
(A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s [/b]– a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

He said, “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.” - Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact.But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.“Artifacts” are posited only because modern interpreters are bound to the Copernican Principle, by their own admission.

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX),
but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and
behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas
MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour
rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but
not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Conversely, geocentrism needs only one, the rotation, since if the star field is rotating around a fixed
Earth we would expect to see a near 100% ether drift against the Earth, which is precisely what the 1925
MGX showed. But since there is no revolution of the Earth in the geocentric system, this answers why the
1887 MMX did not produce anywhere near a 30km/sec ether drift. The facts speak for themselves. On a
purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain
both MMX and MGX!

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.

Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate. READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678902#msg1678902

CASE CLOSED!


1. Flying in a balloon exactly above the North Pole would allow us to observe 1000 miles wide "merry-go-round" which turns 120 miles per hour. So our camera attached to the basket of such hypothetical high-flying balloon would be able to show us relatively slow but quite perceptible motion below us, wouldn't it?

2. As i said in one another similar discussion to one other guy :

So, you want me to believe that when you take off (with a helicopter) and hover for an hour (or for many hours) above some spot on the ground, inertia is capable to carry you and your helicopter all around the globe so that you (and a helicopter) don't lose any amount of impetus (for hours)

Well, let's say that this is possible (although it's pure nonsense)...

Let me remind you what i described within my hypothetical experiment in one of the videos that i have posted in the opening post of this thread :

Let's say our helicopter is oriented NORTH - SOUTH ..If the earth spins below us every 4 minutes our directional gyro would indicate 1 degree of horizontal displacement of the helicopter with respect to the designated orientation point (drawn straight line) on the ground below us...

Now, you and Galileo claim this : it wont happen because although gyrocompass would indicate ALL THE TIME (no matter how long we hover in the air) that we are oriented NORTH - SOUTH, there will be no displacement because of INERTIA which is capable to carry halicopter in such a way that helicopter stay above the same spot (ABOVE THE SAME MERIDIAN - SAME LONGITUDINAL COORDINATE) from which you took off at the beginning of your experiment.

Well, if this is so then why don't you carry out such an experiment above the North Pole, or above the South Pole???

Since the speed of Earth's rotation is equal to ZERO there, then there is NO INERTIA there, also, so, if there is no INERTIA, then it would be easy there to demonstrate to us and to the whole world that the earth rotates because above the North Pole nothing would stop displacement of the helicopter in relation to designated orientation point (drawn straight line) below the helicopter, unless you figure out some other (completely new excuse)...

3. - ANYWHERE on our earth, if you are facing 90 degrees east, or 270 degrees west. - And fly IN A STRAIGHT LINE in an airplane/ auto pilot for 5 hours. The "N" on the pilots compass will always slowly point towards his back side of the airplane.

- On the other hand, if an airplane strictly follows any latitudinal line, "N" on the pilots GYROCOMPASS will always slowly point towards his front side of the airplane.

- BUT at the EQUATOR on a "ball earth" this pilot could fly auto pilot all the way around the world and stay facing (according to GYROCOMPASS) directly East or west the entire time.

Gyrocompass doesn't react if an airplane is pitching & rolling, only if airplane is jawing : ... So, if you are facing east or west at the equator and if the earth were really round your gyrocompass wouldn't indicate any directional change the entire time while you are travelling STRICTLY westbound od eastbound along the equator...

If the earth is a globe then there is one 40 000 km long line above/along which you can fly (according to GYROCOMPASS indications) PERFECTLY STRAIGHT (although NOT level) the entire time, which means that once you direct your airplane to fly DIRECTLY westbound or DIRECTLY eastbound you are going to fly in a PERFECTLY STRAIGHT line/path all the way until you come back at your starting point! While you are flying along the equator (around spherical earth) your gyrocompass won't drift, it won't drift even to the smallest degree because you ain't gonna change your direction of flight (jawing) to the smallest degree, also!

On a flat earth your direction of flight above the equator will alter all the time, in a same/similar manner as it happens along any other latitudinal line...

When you are flying around the supposed "ball-earth" (along the equator - and only along the equator!!!) you are literally moving in a STRAIGHT (in absolute terms) LINE (NO JAWING NEEDED BECAUSE NO JAWING IS GEOMETRICALLY POSSIBLE), that is why GYROCOMPASS (DIRECTIONAL GYRO / HEADING INDICATOR (aviation)) can't and won't drift (to the slightest degree) the entire time you are flying DIRECTLY above/along the equator (AROUND ANY SPHERICAL BODY)!!!
- However, while flying around the globe a jet aircraft needs to constantly adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth, that is why you can't fly LEVEL (in absolute terms) anywhere around the globular earth!

On the other hand, when you are following ANY latitudinal line on a FLAT EARTH (including the "equator") you can fly LEVEL (in absolute terms) because you don't have to adjust nose down to follow the curvature of the earth, but you can't fly in a STRAIGHT line because flying above ANY latitudinal line on a FLAT surface presumes constant drifting (JAWING) of an airplane!!!

MYTH OF INERTIA VS GYROCOMPASS :
Aviation wouldn't work on a globe (stationary or spinning) :

I would like to see any kind of sane-meaningful attempt (by anyone) of refutation of the above flat-earth truth!

4. How to verify veracity of my ZIGZAG argument :

Using gyrocompass (directional gyro - heading indicator) we can ensure fixed position (in absolute frame of reference a.k.a. inertial frame of reference) of our platform (observatory) on the earth, so that we can cancel out 24 hours rotational misleading environmental effect...

If the sun were significantly closer to the earth (than 93 million miles) we would see very large ZIGZAG (right-left-right) translation of our shadow!

If the sun were relatively far awy, but not so far away as they claim that it is, then we would see mediate amount of ZIGZAG (right-left-right) motion of our shadow!

If the sun were 93 000 000 miles away from the earth, then our shadow would barely make ZIGZAG motion - at least it wouldn't be noticable with our naked eyes, but something else would be very noticable EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES : Shadow would be practically FIXED - pointing in one single direction!!!

---WHAT WOULD WE SEE IN STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO?

The shadow of our stick would turn 360 degrees in 24 hours, because in stationary earth scenario the sun circles around us (WE ARE PLACED WITHIN THE CIRCULAR PATH OF THE SUN), while in a spinning earth scenario we are spinning around earth's axis and the sun is stationary and very, very, very far away from us...

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO : THE SUN IS MAKING CLOSED LOOP IN THE SKY
STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO : THE SUN IS MAKING SINUSOIDAL CURVE AROUND THE OBSERVER ON THE EARTH

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO 2 :

5. Galileo didn't claim that earth's atmosphere and the earth constitute one close system, so without that supposition Galileo claims are plainly wrong.

On the other hand, see what would happen if the earth and it's atmosphere constituted one close system :

We shall not recall the  objection  of the good fellows ("objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface"), because we have a modern one. That is, objects on a rotating Earth should not fly off. Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.  The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure  in the  atmosphere. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth. The Newtonian fellows accept that, the  air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth.  Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge  dynamic pressure.

In a real atmosphere, the measured air-pressure at the surface of the rigid Earth is 1013.25 mbar (1  atm), at standard condition of temperature. It is the highest pressure  value measured in the altitude height for standard conditions.  The pressure pattern of air atmosphere reveals that, the pressure drops from 1 atm to lower values as we ascend to higher altitudes, reaching zero at the interface with space.  In addition, the abundant of hydrogen is higher at the outer  layer  than at the surface of  the Earth.   Moreover, the concentration of oxygen is higher at the seal level than at the outer layers.  These conclude that, the Earth had never rotated since the first day of life.

I'm not going to respond to your entire wall of text, just to one basic misunderstanding that undermines anything else you had to say.  You claim "less than one-fourth = a lower bound" but that's the opposite of what it means.  Less than something is an upper bound.  You have less than a billion dollars.  Is a billion dollars a lower bound?  No, it's an upper bound, it's somewhere above your actual wealth.  You are less than eight feet tall.  Is eight feet a lower bound?  No, it's an upper bound, it's somewhere above your actual height.  If you can't understand what an upper bound is, the rest of your wall of text is unlikely to be worth reading either.

I do not have time to tackle the rest at present, but!

Quote from: rabinoz on May 14, 2017, 07:38:16 PM

Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.

certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound

No, Michelson never says that "one-fourth = a lower bound".

He quite unambiguously says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

The only logical interpretation of
"certainly less than one-fourth" is exactly what he says, less than one-fourth.

I'm not going to respond to your entire wall of text, just to one basic misunderstanding that undermines anything else you had to say.  You claim "less than one-fourth = a lower bound" but that's the opposite of what it means.  Less than something is an upper bound.  You have less than a billion dollars.  Is a billion dollars a lower bound?  No, it's an upper bound, it's somewhere above your actual wealth.  You are less than eight feet tall.  Is eight feet a lower bound?  No, it's an upper bound, it's somewhere above your actual height.  If you can't understand what an upper bound is, the rest of your wall of text is unlikely to be worth reading either.

You don't know what you are talking about! In the context of MMX the true meaning of this sentence : "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.... is this :

1. less than one-sixth of Earth's orbital velocity = the difference between supposed orbital velocity of the earth and the relative veolcity of the earth is GREATER than expected before carrying out MMX experiment!

2. less than one-fourth of Earth's orbital velocity = the difference between supposed orbital velocity of the earth and the relative velocity of the earth is LESSER than expected before carrying out MMX experiment!

I do not have time to tackle the rest at present, but!

Quote from: cikljamas on May 15, 2017, 05:07:10 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 14, 2017, 07:38:16 PM

Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.

certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound

No, Michelson never says that "one-fourth = a lower bound".

He quite unambiguously says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

The only logical interpretation of
"certainly less than one-fourth" is exactly what he says, less than one-fourth.

Why try to twist Michelson's words to mean something he clearly did no say?

Certainly less than one-fourth means that relative velocity of the earth can't be greater than one-fourth of the supposed (30km/s) orbital velocity of the earth!!!

Quote from: rabinoz on May 14, 2017, 07:38:16 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

Since you are such a great physicist then let's see how you are going to explain away these problems :

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, both forces are not forces (any longer) since the force demands mass!

I'm no "physicist", just a long retired engineer, but I fail to see the problem?

F_c (Centripetal force) = m.v²/r = G.m.M/r² = Fg (gravitational force)

Now, when we cancel out little "m" on both sides, and force/mass = acceleration, so

F_c (Centripetal acceleration) = v²/r = G.M/r² = Fg (gravitational force)

Where is the big deal?

Acceleration is nothing if there is nothing to accelerate.
Gravity is also nothing if there is nothing to be pulled or pushed.

So? If you divide mass out of force measurements you get accelerations. All matter has mass, so what's your point?

Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight. (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

2 X 2 = 4 is not an identity. It's an equality. They're not the same.

<more stuff>

Acceleration is nothing if there is nothing to accelerate.
Gravity is also nothing if there is nothing to be pulled or pushed.

Who gives a shit?
You have something, that little mass.
Just because you divided by the mass to figure out the acceleration doesn't mean the mass doesn't exist anymore.

Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all.

Debatable.
It all depends on exactly how you define it.
I would say 2+2=4, or 2+1+1, or 1+1+1+1.
Times is a way to simplify these, such that a*b=SUM(a)for i=1..b

In some cases the identity really goes out the window.

For example e^ik.
In this case the identity is that d(e^ik)/dk=ie^ik.
That is the identity relationship. Notice how it has nothing at all to do with cos(k)+i*sin(k).

But yes, in some ways, it doesn't provide anything new, it just repeats the same thing.

Regardless, WHO CARES? WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE???

There is the appearance of some force which drives us away from the center of rotation. We experience this force, and we can measure its strength, but it isn't really there.

Not quite.
In reality, you are continuing to move in a straight line. You don't actually feel any centrifugal force.
Instead, what you can sometimes feel is the centripetal force required to keep you moving in the circle.
That is the force you can measure.
For example, when a sensor is pressed against the wall of a rotating drum, or when a sensor is attached between a string and an object that is circling around.

The force you feel is the centripetal force, not the centrifugal force.
If you break the wall or string such that you are no longer locked to the rotation you feel no force and instead just observe relative motion.

Centrifugal force is the combination of inertia and your inability to pass through solid objects.

No. The centrifugal "force" is merely your inertia resulting in an apparent acceleration due to you not rotating with the system.

If we could ask the ball what it felt, it would tell us that it experiences a force pulling it away from the center of its rotation.

No, it doesn't.
It feels a force pulling it towards the centre of rotation which results in it accelerating towards it.
Just like when the car turns you feel the door (or whatever) pushing you into the turn.

When something pushes you, do you feel a force pushing you away from what is pushing you, or do you feel a force pushing you into it?

certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound

No. Not a lower bound.
Less than 1/4. Do you know what is less than 1/4?
0.
This is the UPPER bound.
The velocity of Earth relative to the aether is CERTAINLY less than 1/4 of 30 km/s, or 7.5 km/s.
It is likely less than 1/6th of 30 km/s, or 5 km/s.

Do you understand what LESS THAN means?
It means this is an upper bound.

He is saying the velocity of Earth relative to the aether is certainly less than 7.5 km/s and probably less than 5 km/s.
And 0 km/s is LESS THAN 7.5 km/s and less than 5 km/s.

His experiment detected no motion.
Perhaps a better way of writing it would be:
The observed linear velocity of the aether relative to Earth was 0 ± 7.5 km/s.

0 is included.

More modern experiments have continued to obtain this result. The LINEAR motion of the aether relative to Earth has always been 0 km/s in any interference experiment.
Some have gotten the accuracy down to 1 part in 10^-17.
However, other experiments (akin to Airy's failure) have detected a motion of some 30 km/s.

Other experiments have detected a rotational motion. However, unless the linear motion tests were carried out at the centre of rotation, this rotation would produce a linear motion component.

This is a blatant contradiction. The reason for this contradiction is because the aether model does not accurately reflect reality, because the aether doesn't exist.

Look who ignore what we do know :

You.
You are ignoring what we know about the various aether drift experiments which show beyond any reasonable doubt that the aether model is inconsistent with reality and thus FALSE.

What if the Earth frame (lab,ECEF) itself were the absolute frame??!!

What if there is no absolute frame?

It did detect the aether motion[/color]…as did other tests.

STOP LYING.
It detected NO MOTION.
But rather than assert that the velocity was 0, they admitted that there experiment has a limit of detection.
They would need a relative velocity of 7.5 km/s to be able to detect it.
So all we can say from that experiment is that any aether which exists must be travelling less than 7.5 km/s relative to Earth.

As I said above, more recent experiments have shrunk the anisotropy of the speed of light to 1 part in 10^17. So unless you are very close to the pole, that won't make up the rotational component.

Meanwhile other experiments DID detect motion relative to the aether, including that from Earth's orbital motion. As such, the aether cannot exist.

Null means zero, but MMX did not register a zero ether drift.

No. That was exactly what it measured, 0.

It measured one-sixth to one-tenth of the 30km/sec that the Earth was supposedly moving around the sun. Here are Michelson’s own words:
“The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."

Yes. Look at his words.
What does he say?
Does he say "we measured one-sixth to one-tenth"?
No. He said it was certainly less than 1/20th and probably less than 1/40th.

That is not saying he measured between one-sixth to one-tenth.
That is saying he measured nothing and these are the lower bounds.

If you wish to disagree, find me the quote which states explicitly that the measured drift was between one sixth to one tenth, or some other numbers with both a LOWER and UPPER bound, instead of an UPPER bound of CERTAINTY and an UPPER bound of PROBABILITY.

Where are you even getting the 1/10th from?

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec.

Again, STOP LYING.
As with the MMX experiment, no aether drift was detected.
If you have one (a linear motion one) which detected an aether drift, PROVIDE IT.
Show how it clearly states one was detected rather than saying it was LESS THAN something.
0 is less than 1/10th (or anything when dealing with magnitude).

So Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX

There was no fractional aether drift. Any aether drift which did occur was BELOW THE LIMIT OF DETECTION.
i.e. NO DRIFT WAS DETECTED.

scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed

And they haven't. Instead all linear motion tests have failed to detect any aether drift. Modern ones are down to one part in 10^17.
That is a speed on the order of nm/s.

Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period.

Yes, because it was now detecting rotation.
Again, this is merely another problem for the aether model.
Not for the relativity model.
So it isn't a problem for the HC camp.

But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

No. Heliocentrism with aether must have both.
Geocentric with aether must also be able to detect both, linear and rotational motion, for all points except the centre of rotation.
Instead, only rotation is observed, no linear motion, EVER.
This shows the aether model is WRONG.

On a purely scientific basis, there is absolutely no reason why a motionless Earth cannot be used to explain both MMX and MGX!

Yes, using just these 2 experiments, it can. But using more modern ones with the error down to one part in 10^17, and other experiments such as the experiment Airy's failure was based upon, it can't.
No aether based model can be used to explain it.

CASE CLOSED!

Yes, just like before, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!

I had already refuted all that BS.

1. Flying in a balloon exactly above the North Pole would allow us to observe 1000 miles wide "merry-go-round" which turns 120 miles per hour. So our camera attached to the basket of such hypothetical high-flying balloon would be able to show us relatively slow but quite perceptible motion below us, wouldn't it?

NO.
The balloon would start with that angular momentum. What do you suggest to use to strip it of it?
Would what you use to strip it of its angular momentum also work to give it angular momentum in a FE model? YES.
So no, you wouldn't be able to use a balloon to tell.

However you could use Foucault's Pendulum, which has been down and shown the rotation.

inertia is capable to carry you and your helicopter all around the globe so that you (and a helicopter) don't lose any amount of impetus (for hours)

Not inertia alone.
Inertia keeps you moving in a straight line.
Gravity and lift and maintaining altitude and position is what keeps you in the same spot above Earth.

Let me remind you what i described within my hypothetical experiment in one of the videos that i have posted in the opening post of this thread :

Where you showed complete ignorance of such gyros.

Since the speed of Earth's rotation is equal to ZERO there

No. It isn't. It is the same as everywhere else, 15 degrees an hour.

nothing would stop displacement of the helicopter

What would be there to CAUSE the displacement in the first place?

3. - ANYWHERE on our earth, if you are facing 90 degrees east, or 270 degrees west. - And fly IN A STRAIGHT LINE in an airplane/ auto pilot for 5 hours. The "N" on the pilots compass will always slowly point towards his back side of the airplane.

And the same happens on a FE.

- On the other hand, if an airplane strictly follows any latitudinal line, "N" on the pilots GYROCOMPASS will always slowly point towards his front side of the airplane.

Why?

only if airplane is jawing

Do you mean Yawing?
If so, wrong. The gyro will react regardless.
It has a self erecting mechanism and thus will react to right itself.

I would like to see any kind of sane-meaningful attempt (by anyone) of refutation of the above flat-earth truth!

It has already been provided.
I would like to see you try to make a sane-rational attempt at backing up your insane claims.

4. How to verify veracity of my ZIGZAG argument :

Your zig-zag BS has already been refuted.
However, it does work against the FE.

If the sun were significantly closer to the earth (than 93 million miles) we would see very large ZIGZAG (right-left-right) translation of our shadow!

Yes, regardless of if Earth was flat or round.
We don't.
This shows that the sun is not close.
You are't even using the right direction.

A nice simple example, on the equator at the equinox, in the FE model, the sun would appear NE, instead of due EAST.
The sun would then go directly above this point and then set NW instead of due WEST.
Notice how this FE model doesn't match reality.

We can do the same for the Artic circle.
On your FE, the distance between the north pole and the Arctic circle (r) is 23.43703*10000 km/90=2604.114444 km.
Meanwhile, the sun is circling over the equator, at a radius (R) of 10 000 km from the pole.
So at mid day (12pm), the sun would be directly south.
Compensating for the rotation (either of Earth or the sun above the north pole), that would put sunrise due east.
However, that isn't factoring in this zig zag component.
we can find the actual bearing by using tan(theta)=o/a, where theta is the angle from due east to the sun, and thus the angle at the sun. o is therefore r, and a is R.
Thus theta=atan(2604/10000)=14.6 degrees.

So if the sun really was circling above the equator, on a FE, at the Arctic circle, the sun would appear 14.6 degrees north of due East at 6am. But it doesn't. Instead it is pretty much due east.

If you grant an error of 1 degree, such that the sun is actually 1 degree north of due east, we can figure out what R has to be, noting that again, tan(theta)=r/R, and thus R=r/tan(theta). This gives us 149 000 km, well off any flat Earth.

So your zig-zag argument does have some merit, but not what you think it does.
It doesn't disprove a RE with a distant sun. It disproves a FE with the sun circling over the equator.

Good job disproving FE.

If the sun were 93 000 000 miles away from the earth, then our shadow would barely make ZIGZAG motion - at least it wouldn't be noticable with our naked eyes, but something else would be very noticable EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES : Shadow would be practically FIXED - pointing in one single direction!!!

Yes, that is what would happen on a FLAT EARTH with a distant sun.
For a RE, the tilt will effect it. So you would need to do it on the equinox, and preferably with a plate aligned with the equator, with a transparent drum for the shadow to be cast upon.

---WHAT WOULD WE SEE IN STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO?

In the stationary Earth example, you would see exactly the same as in the rotating Earth scenario.
That is because the 2 are mathematically equivalent.

The shadow of our stick would turn 360 degrees in 24 hours

Yes, but only at a constant rate if you are at the centre.

SPINNING EARTH SCENARIO : THE SUN IS MAKING CLOSED LOOP IN THE SKY

Yes, but note the alignment of this loop.

STATIONARY EARTH SCENARIO : THE SUN IS MAKING SINUSOIDAL CURVE AROUND THE OBSERVER ON THE EARTH

No. It would be making a closed loop, in this case an ellipse instead of a circle.
It would also never set.

if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.

PURE BULLSHIT.
Gravity more than provides the tiny force required to keep us going along with Earth.

1. less than one-sixth of Earth's orbital velocity = the difference between supposed orbital velocity of the earth and the relative veolcity of the earth is GREATER than expected before carrying out MMX experiment!

2. less than one-fourth of Earth's orbital velocity = the difference between supposed orbital velocity of the earth and the relative velocity of the earth is LESSER than expected before carrying out MMX experiment!

No.
Both are of the form LESS THAN X.
As such, both are UPPER BOUNDS.

Certainly less than one-fourth means that relative velocity of the earth can't be greater than the supposed (30km/s) orbital velocity of the earth!!!

Yes, the velocity of Earth relative to the non-existent aether.
This doesn't mean it MUST BE GREATER THAN 1/4.
Do you understand the difference between GREATER THAN and LESS THAN?

Quote from: rabinoz on May 15, 2017, 05:47:42 AM

I do not have time to tackle the rest at present, but!

Quote from: cikljamas on May 15, 2017, 05:07:10 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 14, 2017, 07:38:16 PM

Yes, Michelson says "the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part."
Then he says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

Michelson only gives an upper bound to the velocity, never a lower bound, in other words the MMX doesn't give evidence for any movement through any supposed luminiferius ether.

certainly less than one-fourth = a lower bound

No, Michelson never says that "one-fourth = a lower bound".

He quite unambiguously says "the relative velocity of the Earth and the the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth”.

The only logical interpretation of
"certainly less than one-fourth" is exactly what he says, less than one-fourth.

Why try to twist Michelson's words to mean something he clearly did not say?

Certainly less than one-fourth means that relative velocity of the earth can't be greater than the supposed (30km/s) orbital velocity of the earth!!!

Can't you understand simple English?
When Michelson says
Surely he can mean nothing other than 
         "the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity,"
And
         "the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is . . . . .. . . certainly less than one-fourth the Earth’s orbital velocity”.

Still, par for the course, when you screw up all the your other explanations, even your famous  Zig-zag  "Untimate Proof".
At least you are consistent. All your so-called proofs against the heliocentric globe are nothing more than "straw man arguments".

Even your  wonderful zig-zag fallacy  assumes that the sun is only a few thousand km away and not 150,000,000 km.
If you argue against the heliocentric globe you must use the proper globe model, not your twisted version of it.

First of all, is there someone who could explain to me why i couldn't open this page last few days?

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

I don't claim to be a great physicist, but I do understand this much.

The problem is why you think m * v² / r equals G * m * M / r² when M is the mass of the earth, r is the radius of the earth, and v = tangential velocity of the earth at the equator?

Good question! Because gravity is doing for us (allegedly) what centripetal force should do on a hypothetical giant merry-go-round (which would be as big as the ball-earth allegedly is) in order to keep us on the surface of the earth by overcoming centrifugal force of the earth (angular momentum).

But, it seems to me that i stumbled upon a very strange phenomena here (maybe i am missing something here, though) - see below :

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

PROBLEM NO. 2 :

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

This is what really is happening. When you let go of the ball, it has a velocity tangential to the merry-go-round. Its inertia keeps it going in the direction it was going. That means it will quickly leave the merry-go-round. From an observer on the merry-go-round, the ball does fly away. If use a non-inertial frame of reference as our frame of reference, this phenomenon will occur as well as the Coriolis force.

There's no significant force of gravity attracting the ball toward the center of the merry-go-round and nothing to constrain it to stay the same distance from the center of the merry-go round. If you substitute the rotating earth for the rotating merry-go-round, G * M_e / r_e² is huge compared to the negligible G * M_m / r_m², while v_e² / r_e is small compared to v_m² / r_m, where _e refers to earth and _m refers to the merry-go-round, for any realistic merry-go-round.

Le (angular momentum of the earth) = 1660 km/h (Ve) * 6400 km (Re) = 10 624 000 (we omitted little "m" on this side and on the other side of equation as follows...)

Fc (centripetal force of the earth) = Ve^2/Re = 1660^2/6400 = 430,5 (we have left out little "m" on this side of equation as well, as i announced above)

THE QUESTION : How come such a small number for Fc (centripetal force of the earth) can be used for equilibrating  such a big number for Le (angular momentum of the earth)?

Lm (angular momentum of one small merry-go-round) = 50 km/h * 0,01 km (or 10 m) = 0,5

Fc (centripetal force of one small merry-go-round) = 50^2/0,01 = 250 000

THE QUESTION : How come such a big number for Fc (centripetal force of one small merry-go-round) can be used for balancing such a small number for Lm (angular momentum of one small merry-go-round)?

Now, the gravity of the earth is so big so to be able to cancel out so big angular momentum of the earth, and gravity of one small merry-go-round is so small in order to overcome so small angular momentum of one small merry-go-round.

However : Official theory of gravity is a bullshit, as it is explained in this video :

First of all, is there someone who could explain to me why i couldn't open this page last few days?

Probably someone intentionally sabotaged the account with the hosting service. It took a while for the admin(s) to sort it out. This happened a few months ago, too.

You should thank John Davis and whoever else helps keep this place running rather than just asking for explanations when it doesn't. It's a lot of work.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2017, 07:58:02 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

PROBLEM NO. 1 :

Fc (Centripetal force) = m*v^2/r = G*m*M/r^2 = Fg (force of gravity)

I don't claim to be a great physicist, but I do understand this much.

The problem is why you think m * v² / r equals G * m * M / r² when M is the mass of the earth, r is the radius of the earth, and v = tangential velocity of the earth at the equator?

Good question! Because gravity is doing for us (allegedly) what centripetal force should do on a hypothetical giant merry-go-round (which would be as big as the ball-earth allegedly is) in order to keep us on the surface of the earth by overcoming centrifugal force of the earth (angular momentum).

They're unrelated in magnitude and act in opposite directions. If the centripetal acceleration were greater than acceleration of gravity, the earth would fly apart, but it's not so it doesn't.

But, it seems to me that i stumbled upon a very strange phenomena here (maybe i am missing something here, though) - see below :

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2017, 07:58:02 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on May 14, 2017, 04:49:08 PM

PROBLEM NO. 2 :

Imagine you are on a rapidly rotating merry-go-round. You then let go of a ball and watch it fly. Surprisingly, the ball flies away from the center of the merry-go-round. Therefore there must be a force pushing the ball outward, the centrifugal force.

This is what really is happening. When you let go of the ball, it has a velocity tangential to the merry-go-round. Its inertia keeps it going in the direction it was going. That means it will quickly leave the merry-go-round. From an observer on the merry-go-round, the ball does fly away. If use a non-inertial frame of reference as our frame of reference, this phenomenon will occur as well as the Coriolis force.

There's no significant force of gravity attracting the ball toward the center of the merry-go-round and nothing to constrain it to stay the same distance from the center of the merry-go round. If you substitute the rotating earth for the rotating merry-go-round, G * M_e / r_e² is huge compared to the negligible G * M_m / r_m², while v_e² / r_e is small compared to v_m² / r_m, where _e refers to earth and _m refers to the merry-go-round, for any realistic merry-go-round.

Le (angular momentum of the earth) = 1660 km/h (Ve) * 6400 km (Re) = 10 624 000 (we omitted little "m" on this side and on the other side of equation as follows...)

Angular momentum is moment of inertia times rotation rate (radians per unit time), L = I Ω.

Moment of inertia of a solid sphere (a good enough approximation for the earth) is I_sphere = 2/5 m r².

I_earth = 2/5 m_earth r_earth²
 = 2/5 * 5.98x10²⁴kg * (6400 km)² [your value for r_earth; close enough]
 = 9.797632x10³⁷ kg m².

Ω_earth = 2 pi / (86400 sec) [assuming 24 hr / rotation; close enough]
 = 7.272x10^-5 / sec

So,

L_earth = I_earth Ω_earth
 = 9.798x10³⁷ kg m² * 7.272x10^-5 / sec
 = 7.125x10⁺³³ kg m² / sec

Note: you can't ignore the mass of the earth if you want to calculate its moment of inertia, which is necessary to calculate its angular momentum.

Fc (centripetal force of the earth) = Ve^2/Re = 1660^2/6400 = 430,5 (we have left out little "m" on this side of equation as well, as i announced above)

Force with mass divided out is acceleration. You are simply calculating the centripetal acceleration due to earth's rotation, not centripetal force. If you wanted to compare forces, you need the mass of the object being accelerated; you don't need the mass to compare accelerations.

Ac_earth = V_earth² / r_earth
 = (1660 km/sec)² / (6400 km)
 = 2,755,600 km²/sec² / (6400 km)
 = 430.6 km / sec²

THE QUESTION : How come such a small number for Fc (centripetal force of the earth) can be used for equilibrating  such a big number for Le (angular momentum of the earth)?

It can't. These values are unrelated to each other.

If you keep track of the units when making calculations you would see that the dimensions of angular momentum (mass length² / time) are different from centripetal acceleration (length / time²). Since the units are different the results cannot be compared to each other.

Please take a physics course before wasting your (and our) time! You would learn this in any physics course worth the name.

Lm (angular momentum of one small merry-go-round) = 50 km/h * 0,01 km (or 10 m) = 0,5

Fc (centripetal force of one small merry-go-round) = 50^2/0,01 = 250 000

THE QUESTION : How come such a big number for Fc (centripetal force of one small merry-go-round) can be used for balancing such a small number for Lm (angular momentum of one small merry-go-round)?

It can't. They're unrelated. Even if you calculated angular momentum correctly.

Now, the gravity of the earth is so big so to be able to cancel out so big angular momentum of the earth

It doesn't. These terms are also unrelated.

and gravity of one small merry-go-round is so small in order to overcome so small angular momentum of one small merry-go-round.

Where did you purport to calculate the gravity of the merry-go-round? It doesn't matter, though, since that statement is meaningless.

However : Official theory of gravity is a bullshit, as it is explained in this video :
<link to yet another probably worthless video>

Can you summarize what that video claims to be showing, and please tell us how long it is?

[Protip] Keep track of the units. They matter. In all of the above, you're just comparing numbers with no notion of what they mean.

First of all, is there someone who could explain to me why i couldn't open this page last few days?

Good question.
Some issue with the back end.
No one could open it.

Perhaps it was hacked. Perhaps they were late paying their bills, perhaps the hosting company took precautions, disabling all their sites, in order to ensure it couldn't host the ransomware crap.

Good question! Because gravity is doing for us (allegedly) what centripetal force should do on a hypothetical giant merry-go-round (which would be as big as the ball-earth allegedly is) in order to keep us on the surface of the earth by overcoming centrifugal force of the earth (angular momentum).

Gravity is doing far more than that.
The acceleration due to gravity at the surface of Earth is roughly 9.8 m/s^2.
The centripetal force required is roughly 0.03 m/s^2.

So no, they aren't equal.
If they were equal, you would feel weightless.

But, it seems to me that i stumbled upon a very strange phenomena here (maybe i am missing something here, though)

Well at least you are admitting it now.

Le (angular momentum of the earth) = 1660 km/h (Ve) * 6400 km (Re)

No. This is not the angular momentum of Earth.
This is not a formula for anything at all.
The angular momentum requires mass.
Ignoring the missing mass part, that would only be the angular momentum for a finite point on the surface of Earth, not Earth itself.

THE QUESTION : How come such a small number for Fc (centripetal force of the earth) can be used for equilibrating  such a big number for Le (angular momentum of the earth)?

It doesn't.
They measure fundamentally different things.
Try sticking units in.
For angular momentum, as it is m*v*r this has units of kg*m/s*m=kg*m^2/s
For centripetal force, as it is m*v^2/r, it has units of kg*(m/s)^2/m=kg*m/s^2.
They are fundamentally different things with fundamentally different units and thus cannot be compared.

Stop pretending they should be comparable.

Because the radius is so large, it will have a very large angular momentum, but it will have a much smaller centripetal acceleration.

Now, the gravity of the earth is so big so to be able to cancel out so big angular momentum of the earth, and gravity of one small merry-go-round is so small in order to overcome so small angular momentum of one small merry-go-round.

Again, gravity doesn't need to overcome the angular momentum.
Gravity needs to be able to provide the centripetal acceleration. (these are the 2 values with different units)
Because of the massive size (and mass) of Earth, and the tiny centripetal acceleration required to maintain a circular path for such a large object, gravity is easily able to provide the centripetal acceleration.
Because of the tiny size (and mass) of the merry go round, with its much faster rotation and thus a much greater centripetal force required, the gravity of the merry go round is not able to provide the centripetal acceleration.

However : Official theory of gravity is a bullshit, as it is explained in this video :

No, it isn't, as I (and others) have already pointed out.
I won't bother with the whole video, but a key thing about your claims:
BS #1 - No, it is a conclusion based upon all the evidence which shows Earth to be round and what its radius is.
BS #2 - No. It is a conclusion based upon gravity following an inverse square law with some constant of proportionality (which we now call G).
It is not based upon the density of Earth. It was used to calculate the density of Earth.

G could be found just using the lead balls with no requirement for Earth.

If you think it presents a decent argument, then provide the argument in text form here.

Cikljamas, I have a question for you. 

How many RPM (revolutions per minute) does the globe Earth supposedly rotate?

First of all, is there someone who could explain to me why i couldn't open this page last few days?

The whole site was down for a couple of days.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on May 14, 2017, 07:58:02 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The problem is why you think m * v² / r equals G * m * M / r² when M is the mass of the earth, r is the radius of the earth, and v = tangential velocity of the earth at the equator?

Good question! Because gravity is doing for us (allegedly) what centripetal force should do on a hypothetical giant merry-go-round

Only you are alleging such a thing, so the rest of what you say is quite irrelevant!

(which would be as big as the ball-earth allegedly is) in order to keep us on the surface of the earth by overcoming centrifugal force of the earth (angular momentum).

Other than if the earth were to rotate slower, they would both decrease.

The "centrifugal force of the earth" at any point depends only on the tangential velocity at that point and the radius of rotation of that point, so it varies from zero at the poles to a maximum at the equator.
Or on the angular velocity (ω in rad/s) and the radius of rotation of that point - same thing.

On the other hand
the "angular momentum" (L in kg.m²/s) of the earth is a single value dependent on the "Moment of Inertia"(I in kg.m²) of the earth about its polar axis and its angular velocity (ω in rad/s).

However : Official theory of gravity is a bullshit, as it is explained in this video :

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Big "G" is a hoax, odiupicku, AKA cikljamas or ??Brian Mullin??

<<  who are you afraid of, with so any aliases  >>[/i]

No, you have it all backwards, like all your other ideas, as JackBlack explains, that video is total crap!

Mind you if I were an engineer like Brian Mullin claims he is/was I'd be ashamed to admit I posted such pure unscientific crap!
Oops, I am (or was) an Engineer

How about this one from the other thread, do you have an answer yet?

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?

How about this one from the other thread, do you have an answer yet?

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 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 :

Quote from: 29silhouette on May 17, 2017, 08:28:09 PM

How about this one from the other thread, do you have an answer yet?

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 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 :

that is how you argue?
make up a unrealistic idea and play in your head what will happen and than say that as that is never happen use it as an argument for the flat earth idea.

that shows me that you do not have one real evidence that you can show us.

As you have just posted the same crap twice, I will just quote where I refuted it:

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

Quote from: cikljamas on June 01, 2017, 03:37:38 AM

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?

Quote from: cikljamas on June 01, 2017, 03:37:38 AM

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.

Quote from: cikljamas on June 01, 2017, 03:37:38 AM

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?

As you have just posted the same crap twice, I will just quote where I refuted it:
tralala...

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?

ciklmajas, unleash the power of the missing orbital Sagnac effects upon these unfortunate RE folks...

They won't know what hit them.


Here is who you are dealing with.

yosemite sam wrote:

So there is a perfect shape, but at the same time shape doesn't matter?

The swastika is the perfect shape for an acoustic turbine.

Does this guy know how to read English? The acoustic turbine needs the swastika in order to function.

The density of the sound waves increases irrespective of the shape of the cavity resonator.

Cymatics is a different subject matter than the shape needed for an acoustic turbine.

Yet yosemite sam confused/mixed up the two.


Here is another RE who hasn't got a clue as to how physics really works.

We have been over this. He didn't break the first law, he just had a poorly controlled experiment where the spinning ball was launched differently to the non-spinning one and it had different air resistance acting upon it.

DePalma graduated MIT/Harvard.

His paper was published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

The experiments were even carried out in vacuum.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.


More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:

A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.

He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.






He is not a doctor in this context.
He is a doctor of economics, not any science.
His effect is almost pure speculation and you have provided sources where the data refutes it.
Why do you feel the need to repeat the same refuted bullshit again and again?

No, jackblack.

Dr. Maurice Allais received his PhD in engineering physics. After the experiment that bears his name, he was virtually shut out from any conferences/research grants. So he turned to economics, where he received the Nobel prize.

Pure speculation you say.

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.



Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.

No weight lost from a gyroscope.



Too bad sand is so much of a coward he blocked me. Otherwise he could see how he is wrong.

sokarul, you have yet to graduate to the upper forums: you shouldn't be allowed to post here.


Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/articles/334-kozyrev-aether-time-and-torsion


THE ASPDEN EFFECT

Another example of latent forces existing in a system is found in the Aspden effect, discovered by Dr. Harold Aspden of Cambridge University. This experiment involved a gyroscope whose central wheel was fashioned from a powerful magnet.

The normal amount of energy that would be required to rotate the gyroscope to a certain maximum speed was 1000 joules. Like a glass of water being stirred up with a spoon, the rotation of the gyroscope would cause the aetheric energy inside its central wheel to begin spiraling, and this churning movement would continue inside the object even once Dr. Aspden brought the gyroscope to a stop.

Surprisingly, for up to 60 seconds after Aspden’s gyroscope stopped rotating, it would take ten times less energy to return it to the same velocity as it had attained the first time – only 100 joules.

This is another reproducible effect that has simply been ignored by the mainstream, because it “violates the laws of physics.”

Again pajama boy, you spam the same crap twice.
This time I will just link to the refutation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70566.msg1915381#msg1915381

ciklmajas, unleash the power of the missing orbital Sagnac effects upon these unfortunate RE folks...

If you want to do that, how about you fuck off and make your own thread on it and get humilated in there.
You have been shown to be full of shit regarding this numerous times already.

They won't know what hit them.

No, we will, The same mountain or refuted bullshit you have used time and time again.

Here is another RE who hasn't got a clue as to how physics really works.

We have been over this. He didn't break the first law, he just had a poorly controlled experiment where the spinning ball was launched differently to the non-spinning one and it had different air resistance acting upon it.

No, it is the FEer in this conversation that doesn't have a clue, while the REer realises these flaws in the experiment and thus isn't surprised by it.
He has refuted your bullshit on this flawed experiment several times.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle.

No, they weren't.
They were catapulted side by side with unequal momentum and unequal projection angle.

He likely didn't adequately control for the spinning mechanism to not effect the launch and failed to hold his arm straight as he launched it.

please note that it works just as well in a vacuum.

Which is just another of your baseless claims.

Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers.

No it hasn't.

I wont bother with the rest of your spam which has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Here is another RE who hasn't got a clue as to how physics really works.

And you think Cikljamas does?  Zigzag.... no comprehension of geometry or even scale.

Again pajama boy, you spam the same crap twice.
This time I will just link to the refutation:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70566.msg1915381#msg1915381

Refute this :

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, spamming the same crap twice, and again, completely ignoring the objections raised.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70566.msg1915408#msg1915408