INERTIA

The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

Quote from: sandokhan on February 03, 2018, 03:45:57 AM

The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

http://image.ibb.co/hHrJtm/formula3a.jpg

g = 32ft/s²

T_E = period of rotation = 86,400 s

λ = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)

This is the best case scenario for the RE, taking into account the Coriolis force (which at the time of the publishing of Earth is not a Globe was not yet fully investigated and accounted for).

If the speed is taken into account:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf


One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.

-------

Not only that.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).

Why?

Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).

JackBlack could say : "So what?"

Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?

Although our moving object is in motion within local FOR, this very motion - in counter direction of earth's rotation - is the very reason (which makes all the difference) why such discharged ball won't have any impetus in this case (shooting the ball upwards), while shooting the ball from the cannon which is attached to the non-moving (local FOR) frame to which is attached our stationary cannon (situated at 52 degrees N) assumes 1000 km/h initial inertia (impetus) of our APPARENTLY stationary cannon, hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.

How HC believers are going to explain that? All that they can call upon is "air drag", however, Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that last remaining bit of HC hopes since we now know that higher layers of atmpshere can't keep the pace with the rigid earth.

Quote from: JackBlack on February 03, 2018, 01:18:58 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 03, 2018, 02:35:37 AM

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

You started out so well, then crashed and burned.
It is already more than obvious that all three times will be the same, that the motion of the train wont magically make it harder for you to walk to the front or back.

The motion of the train wont make it harder or easier for you to WALK to the front or back of the train, but when our walker becomes our runner then we are going to see the differences in the final results of his running (not walking) race comparing his results after running in counter direction of train's motion vs running in the same direction of train's motion.

PRE-INTRODUCTION
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-on-a-train-running-at-100km-per-hour-and-at-the-same-time-you-ran-forward-through-the-carriages-would-you-be-moving-faster-than-the-train-What-would-your-speed-be-if-you-then-chose-to-run-backwards-on-the-train

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/adding_vels.html

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Detecting the aether wind was the next challenge Michelson set himself after his triumph
in measuring the speed of light so accurately.  Naturally, something that allows solid
bodies to pass through it freely is a little hard to get a grip on.  But Michelson realized
that, just as the speed of sound is relative to the air, so the speed of light must be relative
to the aether.  This must mean, if you could measure the speed of light accurately enough,
you could measure the speed of light travelling upwind, and compare it with the speed of
light travelling downwind, and the difference of the two measurements should be twice
the windspeed.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t that easy.  All the recent accurate measurements
had used light travelling to a distant mirror and coming back, so if there was an aether
wind along the direction between the mirrors, it would have opposite effects on the two
parts of the measurement, leaving a very small overall effect.  There was no technically
feasible way to do a one-way determination of the speed of light. 
At this point, Michelson had a very clever idea for detecting the aether wind.  As he
explained to his children (according to his daughter), it was based on the following
puzzle:

Suppose we have a river of width w (say, 100 feet), and two swimmers who both swim at
the same speed v feet per second (say, 5 feet per second).  The river is flowing at a steady
rate, say 3 feet per second.  The swimmers race in the following way: they both start at
the same point on one bank.  One swims directly across the river to the closest point on
the opposite bank, then turns around and swims back.  The other stays on one side of the
river, swimming upstream a distance (measured along the bank) exactly equal to the
width of the river, then swims back to the start.  Who wins? 
Let’s consider first the swimmer going upstream and back.  Going 100 feet upstream, the
speed relative to the bank is only 2 feet per second, so that takes 50 seconds.  Coming
back, the speed is 8 feet per second, so it takes 12.5 seconds, for a total time of 62.5
seconds.

The swimmer going across the flow is trickier.  It won’t do simply to aim directly for the
opposite bank-the flow will carry the swimmer downstream.  To succeed in going
directly across, the swimmer must actually aim upstream at the correct angle (of course, a
real swimmer would do this automatically).  Thus, the swimmer is going at 5 feet per
second, at an angle, relative to the river, and being carried downstream at a rate of 3 feet
per second.  If the angle is correctly chosen so that the net movement is directly across, in
one second the swimmer must have moved four feet across:  the distances covered in one
second will form a 3,4,5 triangle.  So, at a crossing rate of 4 feet per second, the swimmer
gets across in 25 seconds, and back in the same time, for a total time of 50 seconds.  The
cross-stream swimmer wins.  This turns out to true whatever their swimming speed.  (Of
course, the race is only possible if they can swim faster than the current!)

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

Now, we have to be smart and inventive as Michelson was.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:

A quick reminder :

Property of walking is constant contact with the surface (base of the train).
Property of running is NOT constant contact with the surface (base of the train).

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result? Would it take less amount of time for our walker to take the whole distance of 100 m long train if he ran 10 km/h inside the moving train - in counter direction of train's motion (assuming that he had already canceled out initial inertia before he crossed the starting line in front part of the train)?

Yes. Why? Because significant part (maybe 50 %) of his journey he will spend in the air due to the property of running. Spending 50 % of it's journey in the air (and with already canceled out initial inertia) he will allow the rigid base of the train to slip/slide below his feet to a certain extent.

This is why the speed of our runner with respect to the base of the train will be increased to a certain extent, also.

So, running is something in between flying and walking, and it would have to have some effect regarding the final result of our experiment.

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

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.

First we have a runner No 1 who runs 20 km/h through let's say 1000 m long interior of the stationary train.

It is going to take 3 minutes for him to cross the entire distance of 1000 m.

Now, our runner No 2 runs also 20 km/h (at least during the first 10th (100 m) of the whole distance) across the interior of slowly moving train in a counter direction of train's motion.

He can even start to run while the train is stationary, and as soon as he starts to run we are going to put in motion his train (very sensitively - gradually) so that our runner will hardly notice at all (at any point of his race) that the train is moving.

Acceleration of his train should be carefully dosing so that the train achieves the speed of 5 km/h in the moment when our racer reaches his full speed (let's say somewhere at about 1/10th (100 m) of the whole distance).

So, with such gradual acceleration and with the speed which is 4 times slower than the speed of our runner (in counter direction) we have provided for our experiment two very important conditions :

1. Air drag will be so negligible that we could discount it entirely!
2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival (it would take less than 3 min for him to take the whole distance) of our runner NO 2 at the finish line (the backside of our moving train) due to the property of running (see above)!

Care to carry out such an experiment in reality and see for yourself if (even by conducting such a simple experiment) we could very easily determine (only if we wanted to) whether the earth is in motion or not!!!

EDIT : FOR BOTH RUNNERS (IN THE STATIONARY TRAIN, AND IN THE MOVING TRAIN) OUR EXPERIMENT BEGINS (WE START TO MEASURE THE TIME) AFTER OUR RUNNERS PASS THE MARK WHICH DESIGNATES END OF THE FIRST 100 m OF THE WHOLE 1000 m LENGTH, THAT IS TO SAY : AFTER SLOW, IMPERCEPTIBLE ACCELERATION OF THE TRAIN ENDS.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 03, 2018, 09:35:12 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 03, 2018, 02:35:37 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 02, 2018, 06:02:42 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 02, 2018, 01:17:02 PM

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment yet. What [you keep insisting] says no, you haven't. Please do so before continuing with this "thought experiment". The simple physical experiment suggested would clearly show you that your premise is wrong, and, thus, any thought experiment that assumes it is correct is meaningless.

Please, just try dropping something (a ball, a book, a beanbag, anything like that) on a somewhat rapidly moving, but not accelerating, train. If you are right, it will land on the floor several meters behind the point on the floor directly below where it was dropped.

Why this doesn't happen has already been explained many times. You obviously don't believe it won't happen, but that should be easy enough to check for yourself. Please do.

Please, just try running certain distance in the moving (5km/h) train in a counter direction and then do the same (try running across the same length within the stationary train) and compare results. And then you can even try running the same distance in the moving (5 km/h) train in the same distance of train's motion and compare all (three) measured times. Any rational person don't even need to carry out such an experiment because (solely on the basis of our thought experiment) it is already more than obvious that all three measured times would be quite different.

Unfortunately, there's no passenger train service within a couple hundred miles of where I live. Even more important, your proposed experiment has too many variables that are hard to control in practice. For instance, you're suggesting timing three separate relatively short runs, but have no way to ensure that your pace was the same all three times. Accurate and repeatable timing could also be an issue.

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?

https://imgur.com/a/JjbYY

odiupicku5 days ago
Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion? Thanks in advance!?

Urban explorer
Urban explorer22 hours ago
Yes I did notice this! it also took far more energy/effort to go against the train, Also a lot harder to try not fall going against it. No problem, Thanks for stopping by my channel!?

Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

* This looks dangerous. Don't try it unless you really know what you're doing!

Quote from: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 04:56:22 AM

Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?

https://imgur.com/a/JjbYY

odiupicku5 days ago
Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion? Thanks in advance!?

Urban explorer
Urban explorer22 hours ago
Yes I did notice this! it also took far more energy/effort to go against the train, Also a lot harder to try not fall going against it. No problem, Thanks for stopping by my channel!?

Trains are non inertial FOR. 

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 10, 2018, 08:47:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 04:56:22 AM

Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?

What? If he's running toward the rear or the train ("counter direction of train's motion") the wind (due to the train's motion) will make it easier for him to run faster. If he's running toward the front of the train, he will be running into the wind, which will tend to slow him down.

623 meters? Isn't that awesome? What else do we need in order to prove that the earth is stationary?

How about some actual proof?

odiupicku5 days ago
Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion? Thanks in advance!?

Urban explorer
Urban explorer22 hours ago
Yes I did notice this! it also took far more energy/effort to go against the train, Also a lot harder to try not fall going against it. No problem, Thanks for stopping by my channel!?

I see you yet again need to resort to moving outside the train, where the air is moving relative to the train which makes a comparison to Earth far more challenging.
Assuming there is no wind (relative to Earth) and the train is moving with significant speed, standing still on the train will make it feel like you have wind pushing you back.

How about you go back to dropping an object inside a train and seeing where it lands?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on February 10, 2018, 08:47:44 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on February 10, 2018, 04:56:22 AM

Have you maybe noticed how it took you less time to get across one single car (waggon) when you ran in counter direction of train's motion vs when running in the same direction of train's motion?

He was running on top of a moving train.* Running into the wind is more difficult than running with the wind at your back, so he runs faster in the direction opposite the direction the train is moving. Why would this be surprising?

Then why would it also take him far more energy/effort to go against the train if the wind at his back was the reason for crossing same length (of one single car) faster when moving in counter direction of train's motion?

Moving objects really are not an area of strength for you.

Inertia = mass so inertia can't be lost anyway. Would appreciate if you would correct the terminology which would help me understand the question