# INERTIA

• 127 Replies
• 7714 Views
?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #90 on: February 04, 2018, 12:06:38 AM »
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).
Not quite.
They are monotonically decreasing as r increases.
Gravity is proportion to 1/r^2, or inversely proportional to r^2.
Friction is much more complex.

Regardless, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Either discuss the topic or get lost.

It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air.
And there you go ignoring inertia yet again.

If it was rotating with Earth, its own inertia would keep it going.

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.
Nope. It applies to all bodies.
Angular momentum can't magically be discareded.
At best you no longer consider it as part of angular momentum and instead consider it as linear momentum where the gas would continue along a straight path (but then gravity pulls it down causing it to follow a curved path).

There is nothing to stop the gas from spinning and nothing to stop Earth from spinning.

There is no magical damping effect to stop Earth spinning.

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.
And in doing so would result in the air speeding up to match the speed of Earth while Earth slows down negligibly.

The atmosphere is a very thin shell with a very low density. It does not have a large enough mass to stop Earth.
Even if it started at rest around Earth and was spun up by Earth, it would have a negligible effect.

Again, this shows a complete ignorance of inertia.
If you have a very large mass moving at a decent speed, a tiny mass can't stop it.
You can't jump out in front of a moving truck with a full load and stop it. It will run you over and keep on going.
But you can easily jump out in front of a moving piece of paper and stop it.

Now deal with the topic at hand or fuck off.

#### rabinoz

• 24322
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #91 on: February 04, 2018, 01:07:04 AM »
Both friction and RE attractive gravity are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).
Incorrect! Gravity in inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the centre of the earth, so hardly changes in the altitudes involved.
"Friction" will fall off with the density of the atmosphere, which falls off approximately exponentially with height.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is, the higher the altitude, the lower the magnitude of the force.
Sure, but nothing like, "INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to r (distance).".

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
No, it's not!

Quote from: sandokhan
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.

Quote from: sandokhan
Thermal effects cannot be brought into the discussion.
Incorrect!
Apart from drag (friction) there are vertical circulations that are a result of the temperature gradient between the equatorial and polar regions.

Read about it in, Met Office, Global circulation patterns and find out what this is all about:
Yes, there are plenty of opportunities for vertical mixing in the atmosphere.

Quote from: sandokhan
<< Irrelevant!  >>

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #92 on: February 04, 2018, 01:10:02 AM »
Friction only applies for the first several 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.

Friction is inversely proportional to the altitude.

As such, modern science leaves UNEXPLAINED how the upper layers of the atmosphere rotate at the same time speed as that of the Earth.

Friction = damping effect.

Modern science ignores this damping effect by assuming that the angular momentum is being conserved.

Let us go the textbook on atmospheric physics:

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."

The damping effect of the upper layers of the atmosphere which cannot rotate at the same speed as the Earth itself would have put a stop to the ROTATION OF THE FIRST LAYER OF THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH DEPENDS ON FRICTION.

Thus, the entire atmosphere could not rotate at all along with the Earth.

Since the entire structure is not a closed system, angular momentum is not being conserved at all.

"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."

The first layer of the atmosphere, closest to the Earth would have been stopped in its tracks by the fact that the other upper layers could not rotate along at the same speed as that of the Earth itself.

Taken together, the entire atmosphere would have served as a formidable damping term which would have stopped the rotation of the Earth.

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.

The air could NOT be speeding up to match the speed of the Earth. Modern science does not provide a mechanism for that, other than friction for the first several hundreds of meters.

The very first layer would come to a stop, given the damping effect of the other upper layers of the atmosphere.

The entire atmosphere would have acted as a huge damping term.

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."

?

#### sceptimatic

• Flat Earth Scientist
• 23256
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #93 on: February 04, 2018, 01:17:49 AM »
For those who cannot see the video, Ill go through what Brian Cox says as he gets into the Typhoon and explaining what's happening from his comments, then I'll explain why the globe is killed off by his words.
Of course, the globe can always be kept alive by MAGIC. Anything can be kept alive by MAGIC.
That is down to the people who prefer to deal with MAGIC.

I'm dealing with logic and common sense in as simple as way as is necessary for people to see how we are duped.

Ok, at 755 Brian says: Turning towards the SETTING sun the Typhoon accelerates to CATCH up with the Earth's SPIN.
Brian says: Beneath us, a 6 thousand billion billion tonne rock is spinning at 650 mph. Match that speed and something interesting happens to the suns motion across the sky.

The pilot says: We have reached 650 mph, so we are travelling at PRECISELY at the speed of the Earth's rotation. So we STOP the sun as we can see it's about two thirds down.

Brian Cox says: So it should just STAY there now because we are going EXACTLY the same speed as the Earth.

Brian Cox says: But travel faster than the planets SURFACE and the normal passage of the day, is REVERSED.
As the jet accelerates it begins to OVERTAKE the spin of the Earth. Causing the setting sun to rise again.

The pilot says: It's starting to GROW A LITTLE. (THE SUN).

Brian Cox replies: It is, I can see it; we are beating the Earth.

So for all you people that didn't see nor hear Brian Cox - go through what he said and think about what I said and forget about those people who try to use the passenger in the train scenario to dupe you.
If you take the time to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that Brian Cox and his script crew have killed off the rotating globe.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07kxdr9/forces-of-nature-with-brian-cox-2-somewhere-in-spacetime#
Exactly correct.

Good to see you back posting scepti...
Cheers.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #94 on: February 04, 2018, 01:24:24 AM »
The Hadley cells argument cannot be used by the RE.

A professor of atmospheric physics tries to use the Hadley cells hypothesis:

The boundary layer (BL) in general is the interface area between 2 different
environments, the region where one environment influences the other. If
there is no effect of one env. on the other then there's no BL.

The BL between air and the earth's surface includes the transfer of heat and
moisture and wind currents (convection). The local friction of earth and air
on a flat surface is only inches thick, since the air is non-viscous. But
the irregular topography of the earth is said to produce a frictional BL of
about 6 miles - Death Valley to Mt. Everest.

The problem with this picture is that if the air is dragged along by the BL
of the rotating earth, it should display a latitude-dependent velocity
profile, with upper level winds blowing to the West, which is exactly what
is NOT observed.

If the air somehow rotates with the earth, the coupling being achieved by
some special dispensation from scientific principles, then there's no
frictional BL, since there's no relative motion between ground and air.

Here's the tricky part: the atmosphere is not attached to the Earth.
Therefore, the Earth can spin independently of the atmosphere. But we've got
these convection cells of air rotating from the equator to the poles, and an
Earth spinning beneath it. Thus, the air appears to be moving eastward as
the Earth moves eastward at a rate of 1050 miles per hour along the
equator.

Whoa, professor!
If the Earth spins independently of the air, and the N-S Hadley convection
cells prove this, then why is the E-W motion of the air NOT independent of
the Earth's rotation (sic), as the N-S circulation is? Is the air a gas when
moving along a longitude line, and a solid when moving along a latitude?
What is the origin of this astounding anisotropy? When does the 'tricky'
part become 'untricky'- it seems more like 'impossible' ?

Put another way: if the Sun's heating (insolation) at the equator provides
the thermal energy that maintains the Hadley cell N-S rotation, what
force/energy keeps the equatorial winds rotating at the same speed as the
rotating (sic) Earth?

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

The density argument is defied by the gases in the upper atmosphere.

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?

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

Beyond a few hundreds of meters, friction disappears completely.

It cannot be invoked anymore.

Then, for the upper layers of the atmosphere a NEW FORCE WOULD BE NEEDED, a lateral gravitation. This leads directly to the 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."

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #95 on: February 04, 2018, 01:29:43 AM »
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."

First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.

Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.

Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001

THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF

Seventh reference.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

Eighth reference.

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf

U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.

Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the inﬂuence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating proﬁle in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

?

#### Lonegranger

• 4083
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #96 on: February 04, 2018, 01:57:03 AM »
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."

First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.

Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.

Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001

THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF

Seventh reference.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

Eighth reference.

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf

U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.

Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the inﬂuence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating proﬁle in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

Wow......

#### rabinoz

• 24322
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #97 on: February 04, 2018, 02:22:29 AM »
The vertical mixing, thermal effects, and the gravitational effects are totally defied on a cosmic scale by the barometer pressure paradox.
Rubbish, there is no "barometer pressure paradox" on any scale.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.
http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf
Where's your big problem? Do you even understand what this means?
Quote
Figure 7a shows the time and zonal mean updraft
mass flux profile from the convection scheme for the
equatorial grid points.
The altitude range plotted is roughly from sea-level to 14,000 m. That high enough to cause atmospheric mixing?

Quote from: sandokhan
While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the inﬂuence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating proﬁle in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.
So what?

?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #98 on: February 04, 2018, 02:27:32 AM »
Friction only applies for the first several hundreds of meters.
This was already shown to be bullshit, and is irrelavent to the topic at hand.
Deal with the topic at hand, or fuck off.
Your insentient need to continually change the subject shows you are completely incapable of rationally and honestly defending the claims made.

#### rabinoz

• 24322
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #99 on: February 04, 2018, 03:16:24 AM »
The Hadley cells argument cannot be used by the RE.
. . . . . .
Put another way: if the Sun's heating (insolation) at the equator provides
the thermal energy that maintains the Hadley cell N-S rotation, what
force/energy keeps the equatorial winds rotating at the same speed as the
rotating (sic) Earth?
Nothing is needed to keep the atmosphere moving with the earth. There is simply nothing to stop it or slow it down.
But there is still drag between the earth's surface (including mountains etc) at the equator.
Then the Hadley (and other) cells provide mixing of low an high altitudes keeping the atmosphere all moving at roughly the same speed.

Quote from: sandokhan
. . . . . . . . .
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.
So what? But there is no rapid decrease in gravity with altitude! There is not much atmosphere above 20 km.
If g = 9.8 m/s2 at sea level, it is about 9.74 m/s2 at 20 km - big deal!

Quote from: sandokhan
<< irrelevant >>
Conclusion
The World either rotates or it doesn't.
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude.
Agreed.
Quote from: sandokhan
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.
Incorrect:
• The atmosphere was presumably derived from the already rotating earth, so it never had to be brought "up to speed".
• There is nothing outside the atmosphere to stop it moving with the earth, so even the smallest drag would bring it up to speed eventually.
• There is quite adequate mixing of the lower atmosphere, in your "friction zone", with the upper atmosphere, transferring any horizon velocity with it.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.
Totally irrelevant, but no "restoring vector field" is needed anyway, as has been explained numerous times.

Quote from: sandokhan
Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."
Totally incorrect! As are most things that you come out with, but we'll leave that for another day.

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #100 on: February 04, 2018, 06:07:04 AM »
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
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.
-------

Not only that.

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

Why?

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

JackBlack could say : "So what?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction :

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quick reminder :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong. But you know that, there is no doubt in my mind that you are perfectly aware of it. However, we can talk like this 1000 years, and you will still tell us your silly HC fairytales, that is why we really need to perform our simple experiment, don't you think so?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 08:50:12 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #101 on: February 04, 2018, 06:22:26 AM »
“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - *NICOLAS COPERNICUS*

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy ; FOR IN THIS EXACT "SCIENCE" THE ALTERATION OF MILLIONS OF MILES IS "A MERE DETAIL!"

It is to be remembered that at that time the earth was believed to stand still, while the sun, moon,
planets and stars moved round it daily from east to west, as stated by Ptolemy ; but this did not seem
reasonable to Copernicus. He was a daring and original thinker, willing to challenge any theory— be
it ever so long established— if it did not appear logical to him, and he contended that it was unreasonable
to suppose that all the vast firmament of heavenly bodies revolved around this relatively little earth, but,
on the contrary, it was more reasonable to believe that the earth itself rotated and revolved around an enormous sun, moving within a firmament of stars that were fixed in infinite space ; for in either case the appearance of the heavens would be the same to an observer on the surface of the earth.

This was the idea that inspired Nicholas Copernicus to labour for twenty-seven years developing the
Heliocentric Theory of the universe, and in compiling the book that made him famous :— ” De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium,” which was published in the last year of his life : 1543.

Ptolemy had made it appear that the sun and stars revolved around a stationary earth, but Copernicus
advanced the theory that it was the earth which revolved around a stationary sun, while the stars
were fixed ; and either of these entirely opposite theories gives an equally satisfactory explanation of
the appearance of the sun by day and the stars by night. Copernicus did not produce any newly-
discovered fact to prove that Ptolemy was wrong, neither did he offer any proof that he himself was
right, but worked out his system to show that he could account for all the appearances of the heavens
quite as well as the Egyptian had done, though working on an entirely different hypothesis ; and offered
his new Heliocentric Theory as an alternative.

He argued that it was more reasonable to conceive the earth to be revolving round the sun than it was
to think of the sun revolving round the earth, because it was more reasonable that the smaller body should move round the greater.

And that is good logic.

We see that Copernicus recognized the physical law that the lesser shall be governed by the greater, and
that is the pivot upon which the whole of his astronomy turns ; but it is perfectly clear that in building up
his theories he assumed the earth to be much smaller than the sun, and also smaller than the stars ; and that
was pure assumption unsupported by any kind of fact. In the absence of any proof as to whether the
earth or the sun was the greater of the two, and having only the evidence of the senses to guide him,
it would have been more reasonable had he left astronomy as it was, seeing that the sun appeared to move
round the earth, while he himself was unconscious of any movement.

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

All major encyclopedias and historical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over.

BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338

“If the Government or NASA had said to you that the Earth is stationary, imagine that. And then imagine we are trying to convince people that 'no, no it's not stationary, it's moving forward at 32 times rifle bullet speed and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour.' We would be laughed at! We would have so many people telling us 'you are crazy, the Earth is not moving!' We would be ridiculed for having no scientific backing for this convoluted moving Earth theory. And not only that but then people would say, 'oh then how do you explain a fixed, calm atmosphere and the Sun's observable movement, how do you explain that?' Imagine saying to people, 'no, no, the atmosphere is moving also but is somehow magically velcroed to the moving-Earth. The reason is not simply because the Earth is stationary.' So what we are actually doing is what makes sense. We are saying that the moving-Earth theory is nonsense. The stationary-Earth theory makes sense and we are being ridiculed. You've got to picture it being the other way around to realize just how RIDICULOUS this situation is.

This theory from the Government and NASA that the Earth is rotating and orbiting and leaning over and wobbling is absolute nonsense and yet people are clinging to it, tightly, like a teddy bear. They just can't bring themselves to face the possibility that the Earth is stationary though ALL the evidence shows it: we feel no movement, the atmosphere hasn't been blown away, we see the Sun move from East-to-West, everything can be explained by a motionless Earth without bringing in all these assumptions to cover up previous assumptions gone bad."
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

#### EvolvedMantisShrimp

• 906
• Physical Comedian
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #102 on: February 04, 2018, 07:33:11 AM »
“So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it.” - *NICOLAS COPERNICUS*

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy ; FOR IN THIS EXACT "SCIENCE" THE ALTERATION OF MILLIONS OF MILES IS "A MERE DETAIL!"

~snip~

The Sun is 93 million miles away.
Nullius in Verba

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #103 on: February 04, 2018, 08:41:50 AM »
The Sun is 93 million miles away.
I am the president of USA.

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 09:01:12 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3862
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #104 on: February 04, 2018, 10:11:39 AM »
Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

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

Yesterday I performed the even simpler, far more practical, and more conclusive experiment I recommended.

Driving at a steady 62 mi/hr (100 km/hr) on a straight stretch of level road with the windows closed, I held a "squeeze ball" (a soft ball with vinyl cover) at the ceiling and let it drop into the passenger seat. It fell straight down to the cushion 38" (97 cm) below the drop point (see specification drawing; the trajectory was pretty much exactly along the line indicating front-seat headroom in the drawing). The diameter of the ball is about 6 cm, so the distance of the fall was about 90 cm.

Using the formula for distance traveled, s, under constant acceleration, a

s = 1/2 a t2

and solving for t (time), we get

t2 = 2 s / a
t = sqrt (2 s / a)

Plugging in the distance of fall for s, and the standard value for acceleration of gravity,

t = sqrt (2 * 0.9 m / (9.8 m/s2))
= sqrt (0.18 s2)
t = 0.43 seconds

Distance traveled by the car is, of course distance = velocity times time

d = vt

v = 100 km/h
= 100 km/h * 1000 m / km / (3600 s/h)
v = 28 m/s

So, in the 0.43 seconds it took the dropped ball to fall to the seat, the car traveled

d = 28 m/s * 0.43 s
d = 12 meters.

The specifications for the car show the overall length as 189.6", or 4.816 meters, meaning the car travels 2 1/2 times times its own length while the ball is in the air.

If "detaching" the ball and allowing it to free fall inside the cabin meant all its forward momentum immediately vanished, the car would be "scooting past it" until it hit something. It didn't; it dropped straight down from the FOR of the car, which means it maintained exactly the same forward speed as the car.

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

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

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

says that being "in the air" and not in contact with the vehicle (steadily moving train in your case, steadily moving car in mine) will "allow the rigid base of the [vehicle] to [slide] below ... to a certain extent". To what extent? In the case of the dropped ball in the air for about 0.4 seconds, how far would you expect the rigid body of the car to "slide" past the ball? I observed zero. Therefore, your hypothesis is not supported unless the "extent" is so close to zero that it couldn't be detected.

Don't believe me? Conduct your own experiment. In the meantime, please save everyone's time (especially yours) and cease with the wordy speculation based on your flawed premise.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

#### Papa Legba

• Ranters
• 9566
• Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #105 on: February 04, 2018, 12:10:25 PM »
Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...

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

Yesterday I performed the even simpler, far more practical, and more conclusive experiment I recommended.

Driving at a steady 62 mi/hr (100 km/hr) on a straight stretch of level road with the windows closed, I held a "squeeze ball" (a soft ball with vinyl cover) at the ceiling and let it drop into the passenger seat. It fell straight down to the cushion 38" (97 cm) below the drop point (see specification drawing; the trajectory was pretty much exactly along the line indicating front-seat headroom in the drawing). The diameter of the ball is about 6 cm, so the distance of the fall was about 90 cm.

Using the formula for distance traveled, s, under constant acceleration, a

s = 1/2 a t2

and solving for t (time), we get

t2 = 2 s / a
t = sqrt (2 s / a)

Plugging in the distance of fall for s, and the standard value for acceleration of gravity,

t = sqrt (2 * 0.9 m / (9.8 m/s2))
= sqrt (0.18 s2)
t = 0.43 seconds

Distance traveled by the car is, of course distance = velocity times time

d = vt

v = 100 km/h
= 100 km/h * 1000 m / km / (3600 s/h)
v = 28 m/s

So, in the 0.43 seconds it took the dropped ball to fall to the seat, the car traveled

d = 28 m/s * 0.43 s
d = 12 meters.

The specifications for the car show the overall length as 189.6", or 4.816 meters, meaning the car travels 2 1/2 times times its own length while the ball is in the air.

If "detaching" the ball and allowing it to free fall inside the cabin meant all its forward momentum immediately vanished, the car would be "scooting past it" until it hit something. It didn't; it dropped straight down from the FOR of the car, which means it maintained exactly the same forward speed as the car.

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

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

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

says that being "in the air" and not in contact with the vehicle (steadily moving train in your case, steadily moving car in mine) will "allow the rigid base of the [vehicle] to [slide] below ... to a certain extent". To what extent? In the case of the dropped ball in the air for about 0.4 seconds, how far would you expect the rigid body of the car to "slide" past the ball? I observed zero. Therefore, your hypothesis is not supported unless the "extent" is so close to zero that it couldn't be detected.

Don't believe me? Conduct your own experiment. In the meantime, please save everyone's time (especially yours) and cease with the wordy speculation based on your flawed premise.

So you did an experiment whilst driving your car solo at 60 mph and made all the measurements by eye alone, with no recording of any data whatsoever?

And we're expected to take this experiment seriously?

This kinda nonsense is why everyone I know believes this forum is run by bots.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

#### EvolvedMantisShrimp

• 906
• Physical Comedian
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #106 on: February 04, 2018, 12:23:18 PM »
The Sun is 93 million miles away.
I am the president of USA.

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

Nullius in Verba

?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #107 on: February 04, 2018, 02:03:54 PM »
The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
Yes, we saw Sandy post that before.
Now tell us how the gun was confirmed to be perfectly vertical and how the "8 inches" was measured.
Or the 2 feet, which was the upper limit of the claimed deviation.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).
Why?
Not by the amounts you are claiming, and it has nothing to do with cancelling out inertia.
The reason is purely due to removing the Coriolis effect from the situation.
However you then have the competing effect of wind resistance and I don't think a cannonball moving at 1000 km/hr through the air (relative to the air) would still have a negligible effect. I think the wind is more likely to contribute and push it over.

Within HC theory a non-moving object (local FOR) is in fact moving object (inertial FOR).
No, within relativity, even Newtonian relativity, in which the shape of Earth and if it is orbiting the sun or not is completely irrelevant, inertial FOR are equivalent.
What happens in one inertial FOR can happen in another inertial FOR.
Previously the only possible exception was light due to the hypothesised relative motion of the hypothesised aether. But that was shown to be wrong.

Well, Jack, do i really have to explain that to you?
Yes, you do, as you have completely failed to justify your claims.

hence the ball that would be discharged from our APPARENTLY stationary cannon would have very significant impetus.
Yes, and that is what means it will keep moving with Earth and land close to the cannon.
You want it to magically lose that impetus just because it was shot upwards.

How HC believers are going to explain that?
We aren't the ones that need to explain it.
The ball is moving with Earth. It has impetus because of that.
It is fired out of the cannon.
This does not magically remove that impetus.
This means it will continue with that impetus and thus continue moving with Earth.

You need to explain why it should magically lose all that impetus and fly up while Earth continues moving sideways.

All that they can call upon is "air drag"
No, in this case we call upon inertia and conservation of energy. The ball doesn't magically stop going sideways because of that.

Sandokhan provided for us very compelling explanations on which basis we can discard even that
Nope.
He provided the same childish refuted BS.

The motion of the train wont make it harder or easier for you to WALK to the front or back of the train
Nor will it make it harder or easier for you to run or hop or jump, of to have an object fly, nor will it magically make objects fly backwards when dropped.
This is likely confirmed by hundreds of millions of people on a twice daily basis.

when our walker becomes our runner then we are going to see the differences in the final results of his running (not walking) race comparing his results after running in counter direction of train's motion vs running in the same direction of train's motion.
No we are not
Every single observation made so far shows your claims to be bullshit.
Simple analysis shows them to be bullshit.
All we have supporting them are your baseless claims.

Detecting the Aether Wind: the Michelson-Morley Experiment
Stop trying to change the subject.

I hope this is going to be our decisive thought experiment:
Respond to what has been said, stop ignoring it.

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 :
Yet you previously claimed the acceleration is irrelevant.

The final result of our experiment will be the faster arrival
No it wouldn't.
The final result would be all three taking the same time.
This was explained before and you just ignored it.

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!!!
No, we can't.
Carrying out simple honest experiments shows your claims to be pure bullshit.
The same things happen in the moving and stationary train.
There is no magical ease of moving backwards and no magical difficulty of moving forwards.
This shows your experiments cannot detect motion and thus are useless to determine if Earth is moving.

Too many variables? What a pathetic excuse...
Nope, just showing your experiment to be nonsense. You are trying to use runners. How are you going to ensure that they are running the same going forwards and backwards?

A far better experiment would be a long track which an enclosed box rides along, 100 m in length, with video cameras installed along the length at regular intervals.
At each end is a cannon (a small one) which can fire balls (like tennis balls) in the same way repeatedly.
Perform a few tests while it is stationary to confirm it behaves well.
Then perform the tests while the box is in motion at a constant rate.
You will have the same results.

Or even simpler, drop a pen or something on a train, and see if it flies towards the back.

As an example, if you drop a pen from a height of 2 m, then just using the simple equations of motion:
a=-g
v=-gt
z=h-0.5gt^2
you end up with it hitting the floor when h=0.5gt^2
Thus t=sqrt(2h/g).
So if you drop it from 2 m high, it will take roughly 0.63 seconds.
If you have a train going at even a modest speed of 10 km/hr, this will equate to it moving at a rate of ~ 2.8 m/s and thus a motion of 1.7 m.
I (as well as many other people) have dropped objects on trains, including ones moving much faster.
Guess what? They don't magically fly to the back of the train.

This shows you and conman RowBoat are wrong.

You see Alpha, this simple experiment (modified in a proper manner) is all we really need to prove you and your HC believers are utterly wrong.
No. These simple experiment show you and your conman rowboat to be wrong.

You "conclusions" are based upon rejecting reality, as such they don't show anyone to be wrong.
But simple experiments show your premises to be wrong.

You repeatedly ignoring these experiments and explanations and repeating the same refuted crap show you don't care about the truth.

#### rabinoz

• 24322
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #108 on: February 04, 2018, 05:06:24 PM »
we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus),
You still don't have the slightest of what inertia is! It certainly has no connection with "impetus".
And "impetus" is such a vague term that it's virtually meaningless in any debate on motion!

Quote
impetus
noun
the force or energy with which a body moves.
"hit the booster coil before the flywheel loses all its impetus"
synonyms: momentum, propulsion, impulsion, impelling force, motive force, driving force, drive, thrust, continuing motion.
Just look at all the synonyms to see how out of place such a word is here.

Please, oh, please learn a little elementary physics before trying to prove the earth stationary.

You cannot prove the earth stationary with measurements like this unless they can be done to extreme precision to show the absence of rotation.
Which they won't!
Plenty of experiments do show that the earth rotates, marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodolites utilise that fact.

You posted videos claiming that "NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION". Don't you believe you own video?
I don't entirely agree with those videos, but that's another story.

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #109 on: February 05, 2018, 05:00:04 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.

How high does a bullet go?

You know I like the MythBusters, right? Well, I have been meaning to look at the shooting bullets in the air myth for quite some time. Now is that time. If you didn't catch that particular episode, the MythBusters wanted to see how dangerous it was to shoot a bullet straight up in the air.

I am not going to shoot any guns, or even drop bullets - that is for the MythBusters. What I will do instead is make a numerical calculation of the motion of a bullet shot into the air. Here is what Adam said about the bullets:

A .30-06 cartridge will go 10,000 feet (3 000 m) high and take 58 seconds to come back down
A 9 mm will go 4000 feet and take 37 seconds to come back down.

Let's consider 58 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

v2 = u2 + 2ar

At the peak of it's flight, u = 0, therefore

r = 8532 / 19.6

= 37,123 m

Let's consider 100 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Does this happen in reality???
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #110 on: February 05, 2018, 05:09:52 AM »
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #111 on: February 05, 2018, 05:19:44 AM »
Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

Very well done.

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #112 on: February 05, 2018, 05:32:50 AM »
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling (ThrustSSC) 1000 km/h (which is roughly the alleged speed of the earth at 52 degrees N) WESTBOUND, that is to say : in counter direction of earth's rotation, we counteract (ENTIRELY - 100 % - cancel out) initial inertia (impetus), so that - if we carried out the same kind of an experiment (shooting the ball upwards) from the cannon which is attached to the moving frame of 1000 km/h fast object - we should expect the ball to come down much closer to the muzzle of the gun than in the case when the ball was discharged from a non-moving object (local frame of reference).
Why?
Not by the amounts you are claiming, and it has nothing to do with cancelling out inertia.
The reason is purely due to removing the Coriolis effect from the situation.
However you then have the competing effect of wind resistance and I don't think a cannonball moving at 1000 km/hr through the air (relative to the air) would still have a negligible effect. I think the wind is more likely to contribute and push it over.

Now, we have to apply the same method as we did in the case of our decisive thought experiment in which we ensured 4 times greater speed of our runner (inside the 1000 m long train) with respect to the speed of the train.

We have to avoid such enormous speeds (so that nobody can complain about supposed air drag), even very low speeds will suffice, let's say 50 km/h. So, if we shot the bullet in the air from the back side of the train which moves WESTWARD (in counter direction of the alleged spin of the earth), and if HC theory were true we should have canceled out to a certain extent initial inertia (impetus) of our gun, and the ball should fall closer to the gun in accordance to such diminished degree of (non-existent) initial inertia.

Does this happen in reality???
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 05:35:56 AM by cikljamas »
"You have no rational basis for your claim that from nothing nothing comes." JackBlack

?

#### Alpha2Omega

• 3862
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #113 on: February 05, 2018, 11:54:58 AM »
How high does a bullet go?

Does the change in topic mean you've given up on your "running on a train" idea? Did you try to simply drop an object and see, simply, yet definitively, that you were wrong from the outset? I hope so.

Any comment on the experiment I ran in my car? There have been no replies about that from you. Maybe the the reply by PL soon after was related to that post, but his posts are not worth reading and I've been ignoring them since he declared I am not here to respond, or debate more than two years ago, and he seems to be true to his word about that based on quoted bits.

Quote
You know I like the MythBusters, right? Well, I have been meaning to look at the shooting bullets in the air myth for quite some time. Now is that time. If you didn't catch that particular episode, the MythBusters wanted to see how dangerous it was to shoot a bullet straight up in the air.

I am not going to shoot any guns, or even drop bullets - that is for the MythBusters. What I will do instead is make a numerical calculation of the motion of a bullet shot into the air. Here is what Adam said about the bullets:

A .30-06 cartridge will go 10,000 feet (3 000 m) high and take 58 seconds to come back down
A 9 mm will go 4000 feet and take 37 seconds to come back down.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

Let's see. Using your numbers for muzzle velocity and acceleration...

From a starting velocity v1 and constant acceleration a, the new velocity v2 after time t will be

v2 = v1 + a t

v1 = muzzle velocity =  853 m/s
a = acceleration = -9.8 m/sec2

a is negative because it's in the opposite direction when v1 is vertically upward.

We want to find the time when vertical velocity, v2, is zero.

0 = 853 m/s + (-9.8 m/sec2) t

Rearranging

9.8 m/sec2 t = 853 m/s

t = 853 m/s / (9.8 m/sec2)

t = 87 seconds

Theoretically, it takes that same time to fall, though, so we need to double that to 174 seconds.

Plugging that value for t into the formula presented, using the other figures provided, at the equator, we get

δ = π * g * t3 * cos λ / (3 * TE)
= π * 32 ft/s2 * (174 s)3 * cos (0) / (3 * 86,400 s)
= π * 32 ft/s2 * 5,268,024 s3 * 1.0 / (259,200 s)
= π * 168,576,768 ft s / (259,200 s)
= π * 650 ft
δ = 2043 feet = 623 meters

Quote
Let's consider 100 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Sanity check:
(174 s / (100 s))3 = 1.743
= 5.28

623 m / (118 m) = 5.28

Checks!

Quote
Does this happen in reality???

Returning to the Barrett example since it has a muzzle velocity specified, let's see!

What deflection from perfectly vertical would cause the bullet to travel 623 m horizontally in 174 seconds?

dh = vh t

dh is horizontal distance, vh is horizontal component of velocity. t is, of course, time.

vh = vmuzzle sin(z)

z is the "zenith angle", the angular deviation from true vertical.

dh = vmuzzle sin(z) t

We want to solve for z.

sin(z) = dh / (vmuzzle t)
= 623 m / (853 m/s * 174 s)
= 623 m / (148,422 m)
sin(z) = 0.0042

z = sin-1(0.0042)
z = 0.24° = 14 arc minutes

It doesn't take much deviation from perfectly vertical aim to swamp the effect you're looking for. Also, this completely ignores the effect of wind on a bullet in flight for almost three minutes. The horizontal adjustment of telescopic rifle sights is called "windage" for a reason; bullets are typically in flight for a few seconds at most, and, for accurate shooting, even with much less time for the wind to have an effect, wind matters!

"Does this happen in reality???"

Who knows? It probably can't be rigorously tested.

Do the drop test in a moving train. It should be definitive and you can end this discussion.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #114 on: February 05, 2018, 01:09:47 PM »
1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.
Only if it is fired perfectly vertical with no problems due to the air.
As the bullet won't be falling down perfectly down and instead will be falling at terminal velocity, it will be seriously effected by the wind.

The site even pointed out some of these problems but you just ignore it because it doesn't help your dishonest presentation of this BS.

Regardless, this is yet another distraction from your failings in the OP.

Now, we have to apply the same method as we did in the case of our decisive thought experiment in which we ensured 4 times greater speed of our runner (inside the 1000 m long train) with respect to the speed of the train.
Your thought experiment was shown to be pure bullshit.

We have to avoid such enormous speeds (so that nobody can complain about supposed air drag)
Which is why I said an enclosed box, so the air moves with it.

if HC theory were true we should have canceled out to a certain extent initial inertia (impetus) of our gun, and the ball should fall closer to the gun in accordance to such diminished degree of (non-existent) initial inertia.
No, only if your delusional BS is true.
That is why there are 2 guns, one forwards, one backwards.

In reality it goes more like this (numbers tweaked a little to make the math simpler):
You fire the ball at 120 km/hr relative to the gun. The motion of the gun does not effect the velocity the projectile leaves relative to it and takes 2 minutes to fall and hit the bottom of the box.
The box moves at 60 km/hr.

This means in the stationary case, the ball travels 2 km before hitting the bottom of the box.
In the case of the moving box, the velocity in the forwards direction is now 180 km/hr, the 60 km/hr of the box plus the 120 km/hr of the gun. This means it hits 3 km from its launch point.
However, the box (and gun) has moved 1 km in the same direction and thus relative to the train the ball hits 2 km forward of the gun.
In the case of the backwoods facing gun, it nor fires at 60 km/hr, the 120 km/hr of the gun minus the 60 km/hr of the box.
This means it now lands 1 km backwards of the gun.
However the box (and gun) moved 1 km forwards, meaning it hits 2 km backwards of the gun.

Notice the same result in the moving and stationary cases?
This is what actually happens in reality.

So no, your pathetic straw man doesn't happen in reality.

?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #115 on: February 05, 2018, 01:13:04 PM »
That is why the vertically fired projectile (cannon ball, bullet, tennis ball) is the most direct experiment to prove that the Earth is stationary: we have a very precise formula which shows exactly what the lateral deflection should be in the case of a rotating Earth.
Yes, you have a precise formula, but the experiment itself is not precise enough.
It requires something not affected by the air at all, which is consistently accurate.
We do not have such a projectile device.
Cannons are not accurate enough.
Bullets and tennis balls are far to light.

Instead there are much more reliable tests, such as laser ring gyroscopes or Foucault's pendulum.
These are the most direct experiment to prove Earth is rotating.

Others options exist like a geosynchronous satellite.

Very well done.
No, very poorly done, completely ignoring how the bullet moves through the air.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4896
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #116 on: February 05, 2018, 01:25:18 PM »
Chatbots do not have any knowledge of Mach's principle:

'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'

Ernst Mach

Ring laser gyroscopes are one of the most direct proofs of geocentrism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846888#msg1846888

A ring laser gyroscope will record the effect of the ether drift/strings upon the laser beams: the Sagnac effect.

On a windless day, any vertically fired projectile experiment will yield valid results.

The numbers are incredible.

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 75,27 feet (22,5 meters) away from our gun.

A difference of twenty-two meters.

The final result for the cannon ball experiment was 8 inches, where at least 5.2 ft should have been recorded.

?

#### JackBlack

• 12136
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #117 on: February 05, 2018, 02:02:38 PM »
Chatbots do not have any knowledge of Mach's principle:
You are obviously grasping at whatever BS you can.

And you fail to understand Mach's principle yourself.
And again you try and derail the topic.

Why is it that you repeatedly fail to stay on topic?
Is it because you can't handle defeat?

Ring laser gyroscopes are one of the most direct proofs of geocentrism:
Nope. They prove Earth rotates.
Regardless, this is not the thread to discuss that.

On a windless day, any vertically fired projectile experiment will yield valid results.
Nope, only a perfectly fired one which will not be influenced by any random perturbations.

The final result for the cannon ball experiment was 8 inches, where at least 5.2 ft should have been recorded.
No, the final result varied dramatically, from back into the barrel, to a landing at most 2 feet from the cannon, with no indication of what that was a measure of or in what direction.
Of course, with his dishonest representation that wouldn't matter as he claims it should have been very far away.

?

#### ack1308

• 29
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #118 on: February 06, 2018, 10:43:57 AM »
Really?
Coming back after so long, reviving a dead thread, just to spout the same refuted nonsense.

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). Isn't that so? If you still think that it isn't so, please explain why it isn't so!
Because they don't magically turn instantly.
They gradually turn by interacting with the atmosphere, meaning their motion will be relative to it. As the atmosphere in general moves with Earth, that means they will continue moving with Earth.

Even if your hypothetical nonsense was accurate, how do you plan on having them tell the difference between Earth rotating and them moving?

Because they don't magically turn instantly? ROFLMAO
O.K., let's say they just proceed to fly in a straight line.
What is going to happen?
As soon as they took off, their speed (relative to the surface of the earth) would be 800 km/h (400 km/h due to already (before leaving the ground) gained acceleration + 400 km/h as a consequence of already (for so much) canceled out momentum).
Every experiment can easily prove that this is absolutely correct.
Remember when Professor (cough) Brian Cox went up in a fighter jet and caught up with the rotation of the Earth, he said?
He stopped the sun from setting by keeping up with the exact rotation as we were told.

But then you get these people on here saying that the atmosphere carries on dragging planes regardless of them going with or against the rotation.

Absolutely mental.
The reality is clear to see by Brian Cox and the pilot.
They simply followed the sun as it moved away and kept up with the suns movement, making it appear that the sun had stopped dead yet obviously still moving over ground at a set speed, which was 700 mph or something.

If they were on a spinning ball then they would have to literally appear to be going backwards to the observer on the ground if the observer was to watch a so called sun set whilst Brin Cox and pilot saw a stationary sun.
Uh, nope.

The earth is rotating, along with the mass of atmosphere that surrounds it.  At the equator, the effective rotational speed is a tad over a thousand miles an hour.  A jet can break that speed by exerting x amount of thrust toward the rear.  If the pilot decided to fly east at that speed (and had infinite fuel) he could get around the earth to meet the rising sun a lot quicker than those of us standing on the ground and waiting.

However, if he flies west and adjusts his throttle to make his ground speed equivalent to the effective rotation speed, a hypothetical ground observer would see him vanish over the horizon in the direction of the setting sun -- going forward -- in short order.  Just as any plane travelling at more than the speed of sound would do.

Because the Earth is rotating, carrying any observer away from the sun, and the jet is simply flying toward the setting sun.

Note that the jet has neither gained nor lost inertia.  Inertia is a product of mass.  You have it whether you're sitting still or in motion.  It's what makes things hard to start moving and hard to stop moving.

#### cikljamas

• 1887
• Ex nihilo nihil fit
##### Re: INERTIA
« Reply #119 on: February 10, 2018, 04:52:11 AM »
How high does a bullet go?

Does the change in topic mean you've given up on your "running on a train" idea? Did you try to simply drop an object and see, simply, yet definitively, that you were wrong from the outset? I hope so.

Any comment on the experiment I ran in my car? There have been no replies about that from you. Maybe the the reply by PL soon after was related to that post, but his posts are not worth reading and I've been ignoring them since he declared I am not here to respond, or debate more than two years ago, and he seems to be true to his word about that based on quoted bits.

Quote
You know I like the MythBusters, right? Well, I have been meaning to look at the shooting bullets in the air myth for quite some time. Now is that time. If you didn't catch that particular episode, the MythBusters wanted to see how dangerous it was to shoot a bullet straight up in the air.

I am not going to shoot any guns, or even drop bullets - that is for the MythBusters. What I will do instead is make a numerical calculation of the motion of a bullet shot into the air. Here is what Adam said about the bullets:

A .30-06 cartridge will go 10,000 feet (3 000 m) high and take 58 seconds to come back down
A 9 mm will go 4000 feet and take 37 seconds to come back down.

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

Taking .50 cal as a Barrett M82 rifle:

velocity = 853m/s (wiki page) acceleration = 9.8m/s2

Let's see. Using your numbers for muzzle velocity and acceleration...

From a starting velocity v1 and constant acceleration a, the new velocity v2 after time t will be

v2 = v1 + a t

v1 = muzzle velocity =  853 m/s
a = acceleration = -9.8 m/sec2

a is negative because it's in the opposite direction when v1 is vertically upward.

We want to find the time when vertical velocity, v2, is zero.

0 = 853 m/s + (-9.8 m/sec2) t

Rearranging

9.8 m/sec2 t = 853 m/s

t = 853 m/s / (9.8 m/sec2)

t = 87 seconds

Theoretically, it takes that same time to fall, though, so we need to double that to 174 seconds.

Plugging that value for t into the formula presented, using the other figures provided, at the equator, we get

δ = π * g * t3 * cos λ / (3 * TE)
= π * 32 ft/s2 * (174 s)3 * cos (0) / (3 * 86,400 s)
= π * 32 ft/s2 * 5,268,024 s3 * 1.0 / (259,200 s)
= π * 168,576,768 ft s / (259,200 s)
= π * 650 ft
δ = 2043 feet = 623 meters

Quote
Let's consider 100 seconds needed time for a bullet to come back on the surface of the earth :

Using our formula above :

1. If we were at the North Pole our bullet should still come back right in the gun muzzle.
2. If we were at the Equator our bullet should fall 385,80 feet (117,58 m) away from our gun.

Sanity check:
(174 s / (100 s))3 = 1.743
= 5.28

623 m / (118 m) = 5.28

Checks!

Quote
Does this happen in reality???

Returning to the Barrett example since it has a muzzle velocity specified, let's see!

What deflection from perfectly vertical would cause the bullet to travel 623 m horizontally in 174 seconds?

dh = vh t

dh is horizontal distance, vh is horizontal component of velocity. t is, of course, time.

vh = vmuzzle sin(z)

z is the "zenith angle", the angular deviation from true vertical.

dh = vmuzzle sin(z) t

We want to solve for z.

sin(z) = dh / (vmuzzle t)
= 623 m / (853 m/s * 174 s)
= 623 m / (148,422 m)
sin(z) = 0.0042

z = sin-1(0.0042)
z = 0.24° = 14 arc minutes

It doesn't take much deviation from perfectly vertical aim to swamp the effect you're looking for. Also, this completely ignores the effect of wind on a bullet in flight for almost three minutes. The horizontal adjustment of telescopic rifle sights is called "windage" for a reason; bullets are typically in flight for a few seconds at most, and, for accurate shooting, even with much less time for the wind to have an effect, wind matters!

"Does this happen in reality???"

Who knows? It probably can't be rigorously tested.

Do the drop test in a moving train. It should be definitive and you can end this discussion.