INERTIA

  • 127 Replies
  • 7645 Views
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2018, 08:19:30 AM »
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.
I don't know which is worse, repeatedly making the same errors despite having them explained to you multiple times, or the delusion that you are even holding your own in the debate, to say nothing of winning it. 

You seem to think this is some kind of epic title fight when every post against you is a knockout punch, and for some reason, you can't even recognize you're wrong when it is explained to you patiently and repeatedly.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2018, 08:48:44 AM »
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.

Of course what i claim is expected. However, this is the end of the game, also. Feel free to admit that too. :)

"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

Macarios

  • 1881
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2018, 11:38:43 AM »
For those with a little intellectual honesty what i explained yesterday would quite suffice, i repeat :

Concorde had a take-off speed of 220 knots (250 mph) or 400 km/h...Now, imagine concorde is rolling in a counter direction of earth's spin somewhere along the Arctic circle (at 400 km/h) where the alleged speed of earth's rotation is about 700 km/h.
So, even before leaving the ground concorde cancels out more than 50 % of it's initial inertia (momentum). What does that mean? It means that at the very moment of taking off, concorde passengers should be able to notice (very perceptibly) rotational motion of the earth beneath them assuming that the pilot of concorde right after taking off, turns concorde to the left or to the right (it doesn't make any difference), so that their direction of flight is now perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation. Concorde passengers should be able to see VERY DISTINCTLY AND PERCEPTIBLY how the earth is turning below them from their left side to their right side (if concorde has turned to the right), or from their right to their left (if concorde has turned to the left).


However, JackBlack and Alpha2Omega are not convinced (at all)...Should we have expected unconditional capitulation from them? Of course not! So, we have to put my simple argument through it's paces...

Let's say that our guy is walking INSIDE the moving train in couter direction of train's motion, so that we can observe what is going to happen inside the closed system.

Now, we are going to imagine that our guy is walking along 100 m long base of the train, and that our guy is holding in his hand a little drone which is turned off.

So, our walker walks first 10 m at the speed of 10 km/h and then he turns on his little drone.

While he walked first 10 m he gave to his little drone INITIAL forward INERTIA (momentum) which is equal to the speed of his walk (10 km/h).

Now, while arriving at the point at 10 m distance our walker turns his little drone on.

Since our drone has his CONSERVED momentum we don't need to accelerate it at all (no forward propulsion at this point whatsoever), all his little drone has to do during this phase of our little experiment is to hang over the head of our walker and that is how our walker and his drone move forward. Our walker moves forward due to activity of his legs, and his little drone moves forward due to simple hovering (within absolute FOR). Why simple hovering is enough for his little drone to move forward (by simply hanging over his owner head)? Because his little drone has conserved momentum which his owner afforded for him while walking across the first 10 m of our 100 m long base of the moving train.

What happened during our first phase corresponds to concorde's 400km/h rolling in a counter direction of earth's alleged rotation.

Now, our walker is going to put his little drone in a forward motion by giving him an appropriate command (propelling him forward at let's say 10 km/h).

What is going to happen in this phase? The forward speed of his little drone has to be added to the speed of moving train. This phase corresponds to the point at which concorde is leaving the ground.

You get it now?

Now that you are equipped with my additional (more detailed) explanation which i've just provided for you i would expect easier digesting of my previous (somewhat incomplete) explanation :

Imagine someone walking 10 km/h on the roof of train which rolls 10 km/h on railroad (in counter direction of the direction in which our roof-walker walks).

Would it take LONGER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he walked on the roof of a stationary train, for a change?

No, it wouldn't, only the position within the absolute FOR will be different when our walker (on a stationary train) arrives at the other side of the train.

Would it take SHORTER for our walker to take the whole distance of 10 m long train if he flew 10 km/h above the roof of a moving train - in counter direction of train's motion?

Yes it would, unless his flight above the roof of a stationary train would be slowed down by a conserved initial momentum (myth), that is to say : if the speed of his proceeding 10 km/h forward (in counter direction of train's motion) would be obstructed (canceled out) exactly for the same amount of gained velocity (10 km/h) at which he would move forward (in counter direction of train's motion) if initial momentum was canceled out (instead of being magically conserved)!

So, there is only one thing that you have to explain away : how in the world our 400 km/h rolling concorde could keep it's ENTIRE initial momentum after rolling 400 km/h IN COUNTER DIRECTION of earth's alleged speed which were only 50 % greater than his own counter-directional speed???


Feel free to play dumb as long as you want... 8)

Concorde is "hanging on the air".
Thrust moves it forward against air drag, aerodynamic won't let it drift left or right.
After left or right turn it will keep following local meridian just like the air it leans on.

If the train goes at constant speed, windows are closed, and drone is observed inside the train,
simple turning the drone on will make it lean on the air in the train, and simple start moving together with the car.
To make it follow the walker it is not enough to just let it hang in the air.
Drone has to add forward thrust (lean forward to add horizontal component to lifting propellers).

Walker on the train roof has air moving relative to the ground, not the train.
Contrary to that, air is moving with the Earth, not the surrounding Space.

Now you understand why Concorde follows meridian just as does the air it leans on.
Your argument is based on the air movement that doesn't happen that way.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 11:40:46 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

sokarul

  • 16554
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2018, 12:20:35 PM »
If the train is accelerating then it is no longer an inertial frame of reference and can't be compared to one.

Edit: the runners of course accelerate too.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

Anyways what you claim is expected. A force acts on the train and not the runner. Nothing new.

Of course what i claim is expected. However, this is the end of the game, also. Feel free to admit that too. :)
If you use inertial FOR then thier times will be the same regardless of the train's velocity.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2018, 12:25:21 PM »
Alpha2Omega (George Foreman), JackBlack (Joe Frazier), it is very interesting to fight you guys, not only that, i am honored to fight you, however i have to remind you that Cikljamas (Muhammad Ali) sooner or later always wins, not because i am stronger (smarter) than you, but because the truth is on my side.
There you go with your delusions again.
It has been repeatedly shown that the truth is not on your side.

Regardless, even when the truth is on someones side, they can still make absolutely horrible arguments and lose a debate.
So far every "irrifutable" argument you have presented has been refuted.

It is also clear that the truth has not always been on your side. Previously you claimed Earth was flat, but have since recanted and claimed it is round.
Now you are still claiming it is geocentric; I wonder how long it will be until you admit it is not.

Introduction :
Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment
And here you go off on an irrelavent tangent.
How about you deal with the claims made in the OP before moving on to other experiments handing your ass to you?

M-M didn't prove Earth was stationary. It proved that either Earth was stationary, relative to an aether or the aether model was wrong.
It was consistent with ballistic theory and is consistent with relativity.
Sagnac proved that Earth was moving w.r.t. the aether if it exists, and showed balistic theory was wrong.
Stellar abberation, the basis of Airy's failure (which was just a complete failure incapable of showing anything), showed Earth was moving relative to an aether if it exists.

These results combined showed that there is no aether, or at least none in the sense it was used.
Light does not propogate through a medium travelling at some speed relative to this medium. Nor is light ballistic travelling at some speed relative to the source.
Instead light was seen to behave in a rather unusual way, having he same speed regardless of what it was measured against, as long as what it was measured against was an inertial reference frame.
So far, the only theory I know of that reconciles all these results is relativity.

Now deal with the OP, either admitting you were wrong or defending your claims before moving onto other ways to show you are wrong.

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).
And that is quite irrelavent.
As you don't need to be in constant contact with the surface to continue along with the train.
Your swimmers were a wonderful example of that. Notice how they were touching the water which was moving?
Similarly, if you are in a train you are touching the air that is moving.

So, if we transformed our walker into a runner, and carried out the same kind of an experiment, should we expect a different result?
As was explained before: NO!!
There would be no diffference at all.
Regardless of what speed you go (relative to the train or the air inside the train), regardless of what method you use, as long as you do it the same for forwards and backwards, there is no difference.

You seem to act like when people run, their feet leave the ground and they they stay frozen in the air until their foot touches the ground at which point they continue moving.
In reality, they don't stop moving. Even when their feet are off the ground, they continue to move.

Stop ignoring this. Stop pretending their speed is magically changing.

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 was already refuted. Why do you repeat the same crap.
The base of the train will not slip below his feet any additional amount in either direction.

As a simple example, lets say our runner is going at 1 m/s and is in the air for 1 s each "step".
Lets also say the train is travelling at 1 m/s.

This means when the running is running backwards, their speed relative to an outside observer is 0 m/s. (1-1). When they are running forwards, their speed relative to an outside observer is 2 m/s.
This means that when running backwards they have cancelled out their initial momentum, but when running forwards, they have twice as much.
So while running backwards, they go into the air and are just moving up and down w.r.t. the outside observer, and the train passes below for 1 s at 1 m/s.
This means relative to the train they are moving 1 m backwards.
When running forwards, they go into the air and are now moving 2 m/s forwards.
In this time the train moves forward 1 m, but they move forward 2.
This means relative to the train they have moved 1 m forwards.

There is no difference between forwards and backwards.

With flying, again there is no difference because it flies relative to the air which moves the same as the train.

So, all we have to do now is to modify our experiment in a proper manner.
No, first you need to understand simple physics rather than continually making claims which fly directly in their face.

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.
And now you go changing it yet again, trying to make it an accelerating FOR.

2. Initial inertia will be totally (and even imperceptibly) overcame!
What initial inertia?

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)
No it won't.
They are still running at 20 km/hr relative to the train and will still take 3 minutes.

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!!!
Plenty of people already have.
It shows that you cannot determine if Earth is in motion by such a simple experiment.
I have also moved along a moving train, and moving planes, even running. Guess what? No magic change in speed when moving backwards.
When I ran in the plane (which was travelling much faster than I could run), I didn't magically fly backwards like your claims would indicate.

In fact, it is a very simple experiment to do.
Get in a moving vehicle, basically any will do, and get to a high speed (like cruising down the highway). Then while travelling at a constant speed, gently throw something forwards such that its speed would be much slower than the car. See if it magically flies backwards.
Guess what? It doesn't.
This refutes your nonsense.

You seem to have no understanding of inertia.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2018, 01:17:02 PM »
Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Nice description of M-M, but it showed no aether wind, and I don't see the relevance to your problem.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment yet. What follows 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.

Quote
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 :

If the train is accelerating, it's a different situation. Please stick to the original argument until it's settled.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2018, 02:50:36 PM »
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!!!
Plenty of people already have.
It shows that you cannot determine if Earth is in motion by such a simple experiment.
I have also moved along a moving train, and moving planes, even running. Guess what? No magic change in speed when moving backwards.
When I ran in the plane (which was travelling much faster than I could run), I didn't magically fly backwards like your claims would indicate.

You ran in the plane?
And people in white haven't taken you into custody?

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth
round the sun. This had to be overcome so the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening of the apparatus was proposed, and
eventually the paradoxical Relativity Theory was invented by Einstein to overcome this problem. However, there
are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they
support geocentricity-

(a) The Michelson-Gale experiment (Reference – Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5) – This detected
the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth!
Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the
Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth’s rotation (or the aether’s rotation around the earth!) to within
2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

(b) “Airey’s failure” (Reference – Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35) – Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted
to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth’s “speed around the sun”. Airey filled a
telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not
have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle
so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary
earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it
was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference – Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) – Sagnac rotated
a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table
between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the
target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this
completely destroys Einstein’s theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason
that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with
similar apparatus.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.

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 – 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.
What Einstein meant to say by these words was this : IF AETHER EXISTS, THEN RELATIVITY IS WRONG!
IN THIS CASE (AETHER EXISTS) EVEN IF THE RESULT OF MMX HAD BEEN LITERALLY "NULL" RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE EARTH IS AT REST, BECAUSE :

1. EXISTENCE OF AETHER + 2. NULL RESULT = 3. THE EARTH IS AT REST

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!

Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...

Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, *this was an extremely important discovery.* The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.

The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.

It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.

 If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

I hope that makes sense.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2018, 02:51:07 PM »
The only defense (that remained to these days) against geocentric implications of MMX experiment is that all interferometer experiments have yielded a "NULL" result ("no aether" whatsoever)!!!
Now, all you have to do is to check out whether this guy is telling the truth or not (Pay attention to what a guy is saying at 10 min in the video) : Lunacy - part 3 :
*1.* "NATURE", PAGE 590, AUG.1986 VOL. 322 : https://www.nature.com/articles/322590b0.pdf
*2.* The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations." This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...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. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)...Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.

Over many years, he developed increasingly sensitive apparatus, using them at higher altitudes and in open structures, making clear and positive detection of the ether. His experiments yielded systematic periodic effects which pointed to a similar identifiable axis of cosmic ether-drift, though of a variable magnitude, depending upon the season, time of day, density of materials shielding or surrounding the apparatus, and altitude at which the experiment was undertaken. He argued that basement locations, or interferometers shielded with opaque wood or metal housings, yielded the most tiny and insignificant effects, while those undertaken at higher altitudes and in less dense structures yielded more readily observable effects. The Michelson-Morley experiment, by comparison, was undertaken in the basement of a stone building closer to sea-level. Even so, it produced a slight positive result which was in agreement with Miller's results. Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is
independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

There are several newspaper accounts indicating a certain tension between Albert Einstein and Dayton Miller, since the early 1920s at least. In June of 1921, Einstein wrote to the physicist Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." (Clark 1971, p.328)

Speaking before scientists at the University of Berlin, Einstein said the ether drift experiments at Cleveland showed zero results, while on Mount Wilson they showed positive results. Therefore, altitude influences results. In addition, temperature differences have provided a source of error.

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)

Miller's work on ether drift was clearly undertaken with more precision, care and diligence than any other researcher who took up the question, including Michelson, and yet, his work has basically been written out of the history of science. When alive, Miller responded concisely to his critics, and demonstrated the ether-drift phenomenon with increasing precision over the years. Michelson and a few others of the period took Miller's work seriously, but Einstein and his followers appeared to view Miller only as a threat, something to be "explained away" as expeditiously as possible. Einstein in fact was catapulted into the public eye following the end of World War II. Nuclear physics was then viewed as heroic, and Einstein fast became a cultural icon whose work could not be criticized. Into this situation came the Shankland team, with the apparent mission to nail the lid down on Miller's coffin. In this effort, they nearly succeeded.

*3. Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer Experiment*

The original experiment of Michelson and Morley was performed in 1887 in order to confirm the theory that says earth exists in an unseen sea of pre-matter called the aether, and that the daily rotation of the earth around itself and the constant travel of the earth around Sol, our sun, would expose any instrument on the earth's surface to what was called an "aether wind". The concept is that the aether, conceived as the medium that allows light waves to travel from one point in the cosmos to another, would influence the measurement of the length of a path of light, depending on whether the path is in line with the expected "wind" or is oriented perpendicular to it.

The experiment did not find the expected result but rather than looking for a reason the aether wind might not be measurable in this way, the idea of there being an aether in the first place was questioned. Einstein then declared that an aether was "not necessary", and since Einstein's theories gained widespread acceptance, any further investigation into the subject of the aether was relegated to the fringes of science.

Many attempts have been made to explain why the physical configuration of the measuring apparatus of Michelson and Morley was improper for showing the aether wind, but no one has repeated the experiment in a different setting, such as in a satellite orbiting the earth.

Now recently Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video that was uploaded on YouTube:

"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2018, 02:55:58 PM »
Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment 

Nice description of M-M, but it showed no aether wind, and I don't see the relevance to your problem.

Have you attempted the simple dropped-ball-in-a-moving-train experiment yet. What follows 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.

Quote
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 :

If the train is accelerating, it's a different situation. Please stick to the original argument until it's settled.


The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sokarul

  • 16554
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2018, 04:02:53 PM »
See my post above.

If you use inertial FOR then their times will be the same regardless of the train's velocity.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2018, 06:02:42 PM »
The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

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.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2018, 01:40:25 AM »
You ran in the plane?
And people in white haven't taken you into custody?
Why would people in white take me away?
Do you have any rational response, or just pathetic crap like this?

Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment – that failed to detect any movement of the earth
round the sun.
That is a very dishonest way of presenting it.
Most know about it, it was of the experiments which showed the aether does not exist and that light propagates without a medium with the same speed in any inertial reference frame.
While yes it did fail to detect the movement of Earth relative to the aether, it didn't detect no motion of Earth. i.e. it did not show Earth is stationary.
The 2 are fundamentally different.


However, there are three other experiments that have been deliberately ignored by universities because they
support geocentricity
No they aren't.
The FEers pretend they are, so they can pretend there is some grand conspiracy.
In reality, these experiments (or their basis) when taken together show the aether is BS.
I already addressed them in my previous post, but of course, you ignored them.

All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity.
They are not evidence for geocentricity. They are evidence that Earth rotates and that relativity is correct, that is the speed of light is constant in any inertial reference frame.
They do not show Earth is stationary.

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.”
And far more precise measurements have been carried out which still detect no motion even at much smaller velocities.

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:
You have already spouted all this shit before and had it refuted repeatedly.
It did not measure any motion of Earth w.r.t. the aether.
It placed a lower limit on it.

Now quit with the irrelevant BS and stick to the failure that is your OP.
Before moving on with other garbage, either admit your OP is wrong or defend it.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
No, it wont.
The actual results refute your argument.
It doesn't matter if they are running or walking. It takes the same time going forwards or backwards.

*

rabinoz

  • 24270
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2018, 02:20:40 AM »
The only defense (that remained to these days) against geocentric implications of MMX experiment is that all interferometer experiments have yielded a "NULL" result ("no aether" whatsoever)!!!
Now, all you have to do is to check out whether this guy is telling the truth or not (Pay attention to what a guy is saying at 10 min in the video) : Lunacy - part 3 :
*1.* "NATURE", PAGE 590, AUG.1986 VOL. 322 : https://www.nature.com/articles/322590b0.pdf
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you even read the material you reference?
At 11:00 in that video we have a reference to this note in Nature E. W. Silvertooth, “Special Relativity,” Nature, vol. J22 (August 1986): p.590.
         
Now at 11:28 in the video we have: “Results: The Field Exists, . . . . . . They said, ‘huh the field is there’ and not only is it there, but it measured precisely the way Michelson and Morley had predicted one hundred years earlier.”
No, the note in Nature does not say that! It actually says: “If present findings are sustained, it may not be necessary to extend the Michelson-Morley into outer space in order to obtain positive, as opposed to null, results in interferometric tests in linear motion”.
Talk about reading words that aren't there.

Quote from: E. W. Silvertooth
]Initial indications are that the beam modulation pattern is attributable to the Earth's motion through space at cosmic speeds commensurate with those found from the isotropy assumption of the 3K cosmic background radiation.
Far from supporting your stationary earth hypothesis Silvertooth claims that the earth is moving at "cosmic speeds".

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2018, 02:35:37 AM »
The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.

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.

In seems that i have to remind you to this excerpt from one of ours previous discussions (since you really like (insist on) dropping balls experiments) :

1. I've got Galileos's book (which was translated very recently to serbian language from an old version of italian language) "The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) :

https://imgur.com/a/HDFbU

... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth (many of which originates - all the way back - from Aristoteles) with Galileo's mathematical conjectures (and DISHONESTY that bursts all over his book) which veracity Galileo wasn't capable to corroborate with honestly and carefully performed experiments (if any experiment at all that he himself had carried out)!!!

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

3. In the days of modern cockpit instruments : artificial horizons, directional gyros (gyrocompass and turning indicators), etc..., those old arguments against or for the rotation of the earth are absolutely obsolete, but still valid...

---- Mr Rowbotham says :

>>>It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical. It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal; so also upon a moving earth it would be diagonal. And as a matter of necessity, that which follows in one case would follow in every other case, if, in each, the conditions were the same. Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; BUT DURING ITS FALL TOWARDS H, THE SHIP WILL HAVE PASSED ON TO THE POSITION S, LEAVING THE BALL AT H, A GIVEN DISTANCE BEHIND IT.

The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; BUT DURING THE TIME OF ITS FALL FROM D TO B, THE CARRIAGE WILL HAVE ADVANCED TO S, LEAVING THE BALL BEHIND AT B, AS IN THE CASE OF THE SHIP IN THE LAST EXPERIMENT.
<<<

READ MORE : http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm

---- Although Galileo new about this very kind of an argument (he even cited Aristoteles on this very kind of an argument) he had never tried to experimentally test one, not only that, he had never even referred to someone else's attempt of carrying out such an experiment!!! - On the other hand Galileo spent a lot of time to talk about one another kind of an experiment which Rowbotham described with these words, at the very beginning of the chapter that i linked above :

>>>IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.<<<

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?

4. Galileo demonstrated some flaws in the full geocentric model, and left us a legacy of observational astronomy, but he did not prove that Earth rotates on its axis or revolves around the Sun, nor did he even answer the arguments against those positions that had been well-known for 2000 years.

The train doesn't have to accelerate at all. You can disregard first part of an experiment (slow, imperceptible acceleration of the train from 0 km/h to 5 km/h). The first part of our experiment is only an introduction, a preparation for the second part of our experiment which is a crucial part. Our runner No 2 can gain his full speed (20 km/h) even after first 10 m of his race, or even before he even entered the starting line in the moving train or/and our train can move 5 km/h from the very first moment of our experiment. The final result will be the same (and even much more in favor of my argument), so that you can forget your funny excuse right away.
No, it wont.
The actual results refute your argument.
It doesn't matter if they are running or walking. It takes the same time going forwards or backwards.
What results?
It does matter very much!!!

Rabinoz, enjoy the paradox that could not have been greater :



https://imgur.com/a/DizrU




« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 02:54:57 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

rabinoz

  • 24270
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2018, 02:44:06 AM »

Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?

When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
How can you hope to debate this sort of thing when you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about?
Quote from: Physics Classroom
Inertia and Mass
Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Objects tend to "keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.
Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.
Please read Physics Classroom, Newton's Laws - Lesson 1 - Newton's First Law of Motion, Inertia and Mass.
Carry on till you have some idea what is meant by Inertia, Forces, Momentum, Conservation of Momentum,  etc.

Then you might not come up with so many silly ideas.

*

cikljamas

  • 1887
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #75 on: February 03, 2018, 02:57:41 AM »
Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?
When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?

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

>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A. This experiment has been many times tried, and several times the ball fell back upon the mouth of the cannon; but the greatest deviation was less than 2 feet, and the average time of absence was 28 seconds; from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49. The ball, thrown by the powder in the direction A, C, and acted on at the same moment by the earth's motion in the direction A, B, would take the direction A, D; meanwhile the earth and the cannon would have reached the position B, opposite to D. On the ball beginning to descend, and during the time of its descent, the gun would have passed on to the position S, and the ball would have dropped at B, a consider-able distance behind the point S. As the average time of the ball's absence in the atmosphere was 28 seconds--14 going upwards, and 14 in falling--we have only to multiply the time by the supposed velocity of the earth, and we find that instead of the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun, it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet, or more than a mile and a half! Such a result is utterly destructive of the idea of the earth's possible rotation.<<<

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

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

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

Gravitational pull is weak enough that it's strength allows us to easily fire heavy cannon bullets vertically in the air so that they can stay aloft for many, many seconds before they fall back to the earth!!!

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

While flying upward the ball is freed (so to say) from the influence of the weak gravitational pull to the much greater extent than it is the case during it's downward trajectory. This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth because the air hasn't got the property of pushing laterally the ball in the direction of alleged rotational motion of earth's atmosphere, and the gravitational force is not strong enough to bind the ball to the certain point on the earth during it's entire vertical flight (especially during the first half of it's vertical flight).

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

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

Because of everything i said above, you are forced to cling to the classical interpretation of inertia and use it as such in order to explain away alleged 4,6 miles impossibly long lateral motion of the ball.

But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).

« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 03:03:59 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #76 on: February 03, 2018, 03:45:57 AM »
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:



g = 32ft/s2

TE = 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.


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

While flying upward the ball is freed (so to say) from the influence of the weak gravitational pull to the much greater extent than it is the case during it's downward trajectory. This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth because the air hasn't got the property of pushing laterally the ball in the direction of alleged rotational motion of earth's atmosphere, and the gravitational force is not strong enough to bind the ball to the certain point on the earth during it's entire vertical flight (especially during the first half of it's vertical flight).

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

Exactly.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 03:56:43 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #77 on: February 03, 2018, 06:08:53 AM »
Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.


"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.


"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8


"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.


"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)


Two famous experiments especially designed to detect the 30 km/s orbital speed.

Hoek Experiment

Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450

"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.

To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."



Mascart Experiment

E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214

"Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work

Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving."

*

sokarul

  • 16554
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #78 on: February 03, 2018, 08:57:09 AM »
Foucault pendulum.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #79 on: February 03, 2018, 09:35:12 AM »
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.

On the other hand, dropping some object like a ball or a book on a moving conveyance would show quite easily that your premise is wrong, is simpler, easily repeatable, and much less likely to disturb other passengers.

As I recall, you live in Europe, so the first issue should be less of a problem. In addition, you could try dropping an object in a conveyance of pretty much any size. In the quarter second it takes a dropped object to fall 30 cm, a car traveling at 100 km/hr will travel almost 7 meters. According to your assertion, if you held something against the roof of a car traveling at 100 km/hr and let it fall, it should hit the rear window instead of dropping straight down. Surely you know that doesn't happen, don't you?

Quote
---- Mr Rowbotham says :

>>>It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical. It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal

He might have said that, but that doesn't mean it is true. Mr. Rowbotham made money peddling BS to anyone who would pay him. There is no evidence that he actually tried this, and it's obvious he just made it up.

There's no need for a ship with a tall mast, either. Nowadays it's common and easy to travel at 100 km/h and more, making his prediction easy to test.

Don't believe everything Rowbotham says. Test it yourself.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #80 on: February 03, 2018, 12:35:32 PM »
But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).
Why would air obstruct and slow down the ball?  The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #81 on: February 03, 2018, 12:43:13 PM »
The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.

But it cannot be.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.

No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.


http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html

Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #82 on: February 03, 2018, 01:18:58 PM »
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.
This is obvious as you need to expend no effort to keep moving with the train.
It is obvious as if you drop something on the train it doesn't magically fly to the back of the train, that if you jump on a train you don't magically fly back.

So yes it is obvious, that you are wrong.
But you don't seem to believe us.
I have tried some of these tests myself, but you don't accept that.
So perhaps you should go and try them and film them for all of us to see?

In seems that i have to remind you to this excerpt from one of ours previous discussions (since you really like (insist on) dropping balls experiments) :
... so that i can compare Rowbotham's argument against the motion of the earth
His arguments are pure crap as has been explained to you multiple times, yet you continue to bring up the same refuted crap.

Rowbotham was very honest and sincere person who corroborated his argumentation with absolutely valid experimental proofs!!!
Then why do his "experiments" completely defy all known observations?

He spouts a bunch of ignorant crap about moving systems, which he never bothers to verify (as doing so would show that he is wrong), shows that theses things don't happen for Earth and then falsely concludes that Earth isn't moving.

those old arguments against or for the rotation of the earth are absolutely obsolete, but still valid...
They may be valid, but as these arguments against the rotation of Earth are based upon false premises which have been disproven, they are not sound. They do not show Earth to be stationary.

It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal
No it wont. It will follow a parabolic path relative to Earth, following the motion of the ship, such that in the reference frame of the ship, it will be straight down.
Again, this has been verified numerous times. It occurs numerous times each day with people dropping objects in a moving train or car and having them fall down rather than fly to the back of the train/car.

As such, your con-man RowBoat is blatantly lying to everyone.

Now put the ship in motion
And in the reference frame of the ship, you will have the same result.

but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction
No it wont. It will take a parabolic path as has been observed numerous times.
The only force acting to stop its horizontal motion is atmospheric drag. It will continue its horizontal motion with the ship.

and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction
You don't even need to go on a ship to see this is bullshit.
All you have to do is throw something in a diagonally upwards direction, or watch a game of golf.
How often do you see the objects following arcing paths? ALWAYS!!
How often do you see them follow a diagonal path up to a peak? NEVER!!!
How often do you seem them magically stop moving forwards and drop straight down? NEVER!!!!

Again, your conman Row Boat is blatantly lying.
You repeating his bullshit after it has already been refuted means you are now blatantly lying.

Simple experiments show him to be full of shit, so why do you repeat these lies?

Do you see (on the basis of this simple example) how easy is to expose Galileo's unbelievable DISHONESTY?
You mean to expose conman Row Boats dishonesty as we just have?

What results?
The results of objects in motion moving relative to another object in motion.
People can just as easily walk/run/hop to the front of a moving train as they can to the back of one.
There is no magic difference in speed.

It does matter very much!!!
Yes, and that is why you blatantly lying about it does matter very much.


And that is just more bullshit.
Relativity does not need an aether.

When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?
Good question, when will you?

There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest, but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact :
So far all you have been able to prove is that you and your conman are either complete morons incapable of even basic reasoning and observation; or dishonestly liars without a shred of decency, honesty or integrity.

from which it is concluded that the earth on which the gun was placed did not move from its position during the 28 seconds the ball was in the atmosphere. Had there been motion in the direction from west to east, and at the rate of 600 miles per hour (the supposed velocity in the latitude of England), the result would have been as shown in fig. 49.
No it wouldn't.
The cannon doesn't magically fire the ball directly upwards.
The ball retains its horizontal velocity and continues to move with Earth.
Again, this is just another example of the dishonesty of you and conman rowboat.

You have been provided with videos which show it to be pure bullshit.

Now, i would like to point out a few important details in relation to this experiment :
You mean that it is a load of crap?
Or do you mean you will spout more crap about it to further show your dishonesty?

1. When the ball was discharged upwards, gravitational pull ceased to make any significant influence (for all intents and purposes) to the ball during it's 28 seconds long vertical flight!
No it doesn't.
If it did, it wouldn't be a 28 second long flight. It would continue its flight going upwards at a constant velocity until gravity became significant and began to slow it down before pulling it to Earth.

The fact that the ball slows down and falls back to Earth shows gravity is having a significant influence.

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

This condition (being freed from the full strength of the gravitational pull during the first half of it's vertical (upward) flight) would allow the ball to lag behind the rigid earth
No it wont (at least not the way you are presenting it, in reality, it follows an elliptical sub-orbital trajectory), as it is still maintaining its horizontal trajectory.


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???
INERTIA!!
I would like an answer from the dishonest scum that repeatedly lies about reality:
WHAT MAGICALLY MAKES IT STOP MOVING LATERALLY?

Because of everything i said above, you are forced to cling to the classical interpretation of inertia and use it as such in order to explain away alleged 4,6 miles impossibly long lateral motion of the ball.
You mean we are forced to cling to reality, while you are forced to reject it.

But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball
Nope.
Firstly, they are 2 different factors.
We don't need the atmosphere to have inertia.
The ball being able to penetrate the atmosphere doesn't magically mean inertia doesn't apply.
Regardless, the same result (ignoring wind) would be expected with and without air resistance.


Oh goody, you even provide a video showing that you are full of shit.
Of course, you lie about it and pretend it doesn't.

When the cart is in motion:
Notice how the ball doesn't go straight up as your conman Row Boat claims it would?
Notice how it doesn't follow a diagonal path?
Notice how it doesn't drop vertically down after reaching the peak.

This shows that all your prior claims (which are merely parroting your glorious leader's (conman Rowboat) claims.

So good job showing that both you and RowBoat lack any integrity or honesty.

Re: INERTIA
« Reply #83 on: February 03, 2018, 01:46:55 PM »
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/reh10/lectures/ia-dyn-handout14.pdf
Notice how this doesn't match (at least not directly)?
You have provided a formula with no justification at all.

Let's try the formula they have:
x = −(4ωV^3/3g^2)*cos(λ)

First, what do all these mean?
Well x is the lateral displacement.
ω is the angular velocity of Earth.
V is the vertical velocity.
g is the gravitational acceleration on Earth (assumed to not change significantly during the motion of the ball)
λ is the latitude.

Now rather than try to work out V for the ball, we will use the relation:
t=2V/g (where t is the time in the air)
to get V=gt/2
And thus:
x = −(4ω(gt/2)^3/3g^2)*cos(λ)
x = −(4ωg^3t^3/(8*3g^2))*cos(λ)
x = −(ωgt^3/6)*cos(λ)

This now appears to match fairly well with your formula.
You have just substituted ω=2*pi/T

δ = 5.2 ft (far larger than the recorded 8 inches)
So now all you need to show is that the gun was in fact perfectly level, and that the measurement was accurate.
What is 8 inches a measure of?
It clearly isn't the separation between the centres, as that would have stuck the gun.
So this appears to be more dishonesty on his part.

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:
No, the Coriolis force is the sole reason this deflection happens.
As I showed above, the formula is the same.

One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
Nope, as that goes against all known, reproducible evidence.

Exactly.
No, not exactly. Pure BS. It almost couldn't be further from the truth.

Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...
i.e. irrelevant BS without substance to further try and avoid the failings of the OP.

Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light
That is all you need to read to realise the experiment wont help you.

His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving."
Nope. Just another indication that aether is BS.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.
No. Air doesn't magically become a superfluid after the first few several hundred meters.
It is still air, it still has drag. As such, it will still be pulled by Earth.
If it wasn't there would be massive winds causing massive drag causing the air to start rotating with Earth.

No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.
Nope. There is, you just ignore it and try to use science you are ignorant of to pretend there isn't.

*

rabinoz

  • 24270
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #84 on: February 03, 2018, 07:06:47 PM »
The air is moving the same horizontal speed and direction as the ball while the ball is traveling up and down.

But it cannot be.

You can only invoke friction for the first few several hundreds of meters.
But:
  • There is no friction outside the earth to stop the atmosphere rotating, apart from very sparse solar wind etc.
  • Those first few hundred metres are in contact with the next few hundred metres, etc, etc.
  • There are vertical wind systems caused by the differences in temperature across the latitudes.
    See: GG3069 Climate and Weather Systems, Lecture 7: Tropical Weather and Climate
  • Then there are the local thermal effects leading to thunderstorms. These commonly reach 30,000 to 40,000 feet, but!
    Quote from: Jonathan Belles
    Supercell Thunderstorm Towers Nearly 70,000 Feet, About Twice the Cruising Altitude of Commercial Planes

    A severe thunderstorm on the Mexican side of the Texas Big Bend grew to an estimated height of 68,000 feet on Monday evening, according to the National Weather Service (NWS) in San Antonio, Texas.

    This is about twice the height of the typical cruising altitude of a large commercial jetliner, which is generally above 30,000 feet. For reference, the maximum cruising altitude of a Boeing 737-800 aircraft is 41,000 feet, according to airliners.net. The tops of this storm also reached a height of more than twice that of the summit of Mount Everest (29,029 feet).

    From: Supercell Thunderstorm Towers Nearly 70,000 Feet, About Twice the Cruising Altitude of Commercial Planes

Quote from: sandokhan
No explanation is available from modern science on how the atmosphere rotates along with the Earth beyond these few hundreds of meters.
Hogwash!

Quote from: sandokhan
The Climate System, EESC 2100 Spring 2007,  Atmospheric Forces, Balances, and Weather Systems
I suggest that you read all of it, not just pick out the little bit that suits you.

Quote from: sandokhan
Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.
See above!

Turbulence from global thermal effects, local thunderstorms and less local severe weather systems provides plenty of turbulence to very high altitudes.

And there is nothing outside to slow it down!

*

rabinoz

  • 24270
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #85 on: February 03, 2018, 07:16:43 PM »
Because of conserved initial inertia which the drone gained while walker walked first 10 m (or better to say : which initial inertia due to train's motion in counter direction has been canceled out as far as the drone is concerned), remember?
When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
When are you going to learn how to pull your head out of your ass?
I asked you a civil question, When are you going to learn what "inertia" is?
Because you obviously do not know, so all you can do is respond with a sickeningly rude reply!

So answer the question!

Quote from: cikljamas
But, as we all know, you can't apply law of inertia within earth's atmosphere because of air resistance which would obstruct the ball (by slowing it down during 28 seconds long vertical flight) to return anywhere close to the starting point (in the vicinity of the cannon from which mouth it was fired vertically in the air at the beginning of Rowbotham's experiment).
1) What is the "law of inertia"? Please quote it!

2) There is no "air resistance" obstructing the horizontal motion of the cannon ball.

So you and Rowbotham are totally incorrect as is usually the case.

PS As always you are confusing inertia and momentum and one so totally ignorant of physics shown not be debating physics.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #86 on: February 03, 2018, 10:08:21 PM »
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).

That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the magnitude of the force.

Friction can only be invoked for a few hundred meters. After the boundary layer, NO FRICTIONAL FORCES ARE INVOLVED.

None that can explain how all of the layers of the atmosphere rotate along at the very same speed as the first layer.

Remember, the frictional force is inversely proportional to the altitude: after the few hundreds of meters, it cannot be invoked anymore.

This is a fact of science.


What is needed is a NEW FORCE: A LATERAL GRAVITATIONAL FORCE WHICH IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE ALTITUDE, in order to explain the rotation of the atmosphere. This is called the restoring forces paradox.


Thermal effects cannot be brought into the discussion.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Here is the barometer pressure paradox, a total defiance of both the thermal effects and of the gravitational effects:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707294#msg1707294


From Galileo Was Wrong:

"If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.)

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."


In the RE model, from the very start, the Earth would be turning in a free roaming gaseous envelope (the atmosphere).

Friction would work only very near the surface, where the "pull" would be strongest; further away from the Earth this force would logically become weaker and weaker, as would the movement of the gaseous envelope surrounding the Earth.

Inversely proportional: the higher the altitude, the weaker the friction.


There has to be friction outside of the Earth: the Ruderfer experiment tells us that the ether must exist in order to explain both the missing solar gravitational potential effect and the missing orbital Sagnac effect.


Moreover, the damping effect of the frictional layer should have PUT A STOP TO THE EARTH'S ROTATION A LONG TIME AGO.

"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."


Restoring forces paradox

"This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.

Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.

 

Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.

Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.

Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).

 

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."

*

sokarul

  • 16554
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #87 on: February 03, 2018, 10:18:40 PM »
Didn't I already correct you, wind is from a difference in pressure, not a difference in weight.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4887
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #88 on: February 03, 2018, 10:54:39 PM »
Let's put your word to the test.

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

Atmospheric pressure, sometimes also called barometric pressure, is the pressure exerted by the weight of air in the atmosphere of Earth.

Atmospheric pressure is closely approximated by the hydrostatic pressure caused by the weight of air above the measurement point.


The pressure is caused by the weight of air.

The hydrostatic pressure is equal to the weight divided by the surface area.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-relationship-between-air-pressure-air-density-542996

Air pressure, or atmospheric pressure, is defined as the weight of air in Earth's (or another planet's) atmosphere.

Pressure is directly proportional to the weight.

*

sokarul

  • 16554
  • Discount Chemist
Re: INERTIA
« Reply #89 on: February 03, 2018, 11:10:47 PM »
That link doesn't claim what you say it claims.  Air pressure and air density are related. But nothing says anything about the weight of air above s location. By your definition in th mountains would always be low pressure. Desity can change Independent of the air above it. To see this just look how water affects air pressure. Or for that mater, temperature.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run