You debunked nothing.
Your example is not merely a giant motor, it is a small motor in a giant room.
And that has the spinning component housed in something else.
Compare this to Earth:
Earth has a radius of 6471 km (roughly), and the atmosphere is roughly 100 km thick (before it starts getting quite thin). But we don't need the entire atmosphere, we just need the altitude planes fly at.
That is roughly 35 000 ft or 10 km.
That is roughly 0.0015 times the radius.
So for a valid comparison, forget the motor, forget the vast majority of the room (although it will effect it and I will discuss that in a second):
You have a spinning axle, lets say it is 10 cm wide, so a radius of 5 cm.
Are you saying this spinning wont effect the air that is 5*0.0015 cm = 75 micron further out?
If so, I would like some evidence of that.
As for the rest of the room, Earth is in space, a fairly friction-less environment. That means there is nothing trying to stop the air from moving with Earth.
Meanwhile your motor is in a room full of air. This room will exert friction on the air stopping it from moving with the motor.
So no, you have debunked nothing, and again, you already have your diagram unless you want to try claiming that wind can't blow things.
Wrong, the earth makes 1 revolution per 24 hours where this motor make 12,000 revolutions be minute or 17,280,000 revolutions per day.
So you have to scale up your result of 75 micron and the new value will become to 1296 meters.
Like I said
The heliocentric theory is debunked.
Wrong, I never gave the rotational speed of the motor, so I don't need to scale up anything.
Regardless, we should be focusing on the linear speed, as that is what causes the friction.
The linear speed of Earth (at the equator) is roughly 40 000 km/day, or 460 m/s.
For a motor spinning at 12000 rpm or 200 revolutions per second, with a shaft of 10 cm, or 0.1 m diameter, that is 0.1*pi*200 or roughly 63 m/s.
So if anything we need to scale it down. So our new value will become closer to 10 micron.
And none of that focused on the bigger issue:
Earth is surrounded by space, so no friction.
The shaft is surrounded by air which is in contact with the motor housing and the room. As such, there will be lots of friction slowing the air around the shaft.
So no, you debunked nothing.
This directional force must remain constant in direction and would then have to explain how to calculate it accurately.
Why would it need to remain constant?
In all the physics classes I took, we never even talked about this imaginary force.
That is because it is a real force, often called drag or air resistance, sometimes combined with thrust, lift and weight (such as during a crosswind landing) as well as the friction between the tires and the ground (once it has actually landed).
OK, let me put it to you this way, you have two identical motor in two identical boxes, with identical air conditions in space, zero gravity.
But that isn't the case.
You have one massive "motor" without any housing, in space with a thin layer of air around it, and another tiny motor in a room full of air near its motor housing.
So they are going to be significantly different.
But the only thing is that the Michelson-Morley Experiment did tell us that the earth was stationary with the help of the Sagnac experiment.
Why do you keep repeating the same lies?
In the aether model, MM showed that Earth is stationary relative to the aether, and Sagnac showed Earth is moving realtive to the aether.
These experiments didn't show Earth to be stationary, they showed the aether to be non-existent.
In the ballistic model, Sagnac is impossible.
Thus the only known alternative left is relativity, where MM backed up that the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame, and Sagnac showed that Earth was not in an inertial reference frame, but was rotating.
You may try to discredit the idea, but you will be nothing more than the scientist that believed in the Piltdown Man?
You believe in a lie
No, that would be you, except you are far worse than those scientists. You are completely lying about what the evidence shows.
But our airplane did, it changed direction and for an instance it had to deal with stresses that would break it apart.
No. The stresses are not great enough to break it apart. If that was the case it would tear itself apart in a slight breeze. In fact, it merely flying through the air would be enough to tear it apart.
In the early century, the scientific community believed that if you went up on a hot air balloon, that the earth would spin under you.
There was one scientist, before the right brother I believe that did such an experiment, I remember seeing actual video footage on YouTube. He believed that if he was in the sky for 4 hours, he would land in the USA. After 4 hours he only went a couple of miles.
After this faller, there were only two possibilities, either the earth was not spinning or there was some magical force that kept him glued to the ground.
This is where you got this idea, from a failed experiment that you had somehow had to explain.
This is all bull and either you know it and are lading about it, or you are just as smart as those scientist that believe in Piltdown Man.
Yes, I suspect this is all bull and you are just making shit up like you normally do to avoid dealing with the arguments presented.
Again, do you accept that wind can blow things around?
It is not distances from all over the place, but from a fixed location. It will be like a spider web. You can then find the outer boundaries and determine it's shape.
No it can't.
Just measuring distances from one location gives you very little information about the overall shape.
Just considering 3 points:
You have point 1, in the centre.
Point 2 is 10 m from point 1.
Point 3 is 9 m from point 1.
What is the shape, as accurately as possible.
Is it basically a straight line?
It is an obtuse triangle?
What if I introduce a 4th point, which is 11 m from point 1?
Are all 4 points in the same plane?
You have no idea.
You need to measure additional distances to be able to determine the shape.