LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.

  • 208 Replies
  • 33353 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« on: May 05, 2018, 09:05:58 AM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

3 km/h = 83 cm/s ... 36/3 = 12 ... 83cm/12 = 6,91... 83-6,91 = 76 cm
So, if the train were moving 3 km/h Michael Powell would gain additional 76 cm while performing his long jump inside moving train (running in counter direction of it's motion)

If our train would move :
6 km/h = 1,6 m/s ... 36/6 = 6 ... 160 cm/6 = 26,6 cm ...160-26,6 = 133,4 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 133,4 cm longer

If our train moved :
9 km/h = 2,5 m/s ... 36/9 = 4 ... 250 cm/4 = 62,5 cm ... 250-62,5 = 187,5 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 187,5 cm longer

If our train was moving at :
18 km/h = 5m/s ... 36/18 = 2 ... 5m/2 = 2,5 m ... 5m-2,5m = 2,5 m
Michael Powell long jump would be 2,5m longer

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

One youtuber asked me a while ago :

greg55666
35 minutes ago
3 km/h = 83 cm/s CORRECT
36/3 = 12 CORRECT!
83cm/12 = 6,91 (actually 6.92. To be precise it should be 83.333/12=6.94, but) CORRECT
83-6,91 = 76 cm (76.39) CORRECT

ME: Why are you dividing 36/3? What is 36? What is 3? Why are you dividing 83 by 12?

I responded like this :

- 36 is 36 km/h
- 3 is 3 km/h
- I divide 36/3 36/6 36/9 36/18 in order to get numbers which will tell us how much times Michael Powell (while running in counter direction of trains motion) overpowers train's momentum.
- I divide 83 by 12 160 by 12 etc...so to get residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion

Have you noticed what happens after train's speed and Michael Powell's speed became equal? Michael Powell doesn't gain (from this moment on - as the train's speed becomes equal and gets greater than his own speed) any amount of additional gain ground (forward motion)?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2018, 09:45:22 AM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

3 km/h = 83 cm/s ... 36/3 = 12 ... 83cm/12 = 6,91... 83-6,91 = 76 cm
So, if the train were moving 3 km/h Michael Powell would gain additional 76 cm while performing his long jump inside moving train (running in counter direction of it's motion)

If our train would move :
6 km/h = 1,6 m/s ... 36/6 = 6 ... 160 cm/6 = 26,6 cm ...160-26,6 = 133,4 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 133,4 cm longer

If our train moved :
9 km/h = 2,5 m/s ... 36/9 = 4 ... 250 cm/4 = 62,5 cm ... 250-62,5 = 187,5 cm
Michael Powell long jump would be 187,5 cm longer

If our train was moving at :
18 km/h = 5m/s ... 36/18 = 2 ... 5m/2 = 2,5 m ... 5m-2,5m = 2,5 m
Michael Powell long jump would be 2,5m longer

If our train moved :
36km/h = 10m/s ... 36/36 = 1 ... 10m/1 = 10m ... 10m-10m = 0
Michael Powell long jump would be 0 (ZERO) longer

One youtuber asked me a while ago :

greg55666
35 minutes ago
3 km/h = 83 cm/s CORRECT
36/3 = 12 CORRECT!
83cm/12 = 6,91 (actually 6.92. To be precise it should be 83.333/12=6.94, but) CORRECT
83-6,91 = 76 cm (76.39) CORRECT

ME: Why are you dividing 36/3? What is 36? What is 3? Why are you dividing 83 by 12?

I responded like this :

- 36 is 36 km/h
- 3 is 3 km/h
- I divide 36/3 36/6 36/9 36/18 in order to get numbers which will tell us how much times Michael Powell (while running in counter direction of trains motion) overpowers train's momentum.
- I divide 83 by 12 160 by 12 etc...so to get residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion

Have you noticed what happens after train's speed and Michael Powell's speed became equal? Michael Powell doesn't gain (from this moment on - as the train's speed becomes equal and gets greater than his own speed) any amount of additional gain ground (forward motion)?
The biggest error you made was not taking into account his speed.

Also I like how the distance rises with the train speed and then suddenly drops to zero.

You are so clueless it's unbelievable.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 09:57:19 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2018, 12:00:47 PM »

The biggest error you made was not taking into account his speed.

Also I like how the distance rises with the train speed and then suddenly drops to zero.

You are so clueless it's unbelievable.
You are so legendary troll, it's unbelievable!

I wasn't taking into account his speed? You are so high, it's unbelievable!

The distance rises with the train speed and then suddenly drops to zero? So what? It is perfectly consistent, but since you are unbelievably lazy thinker then it is no wonder you are perfectly pander...:)
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2018, 01:07:43 PM »

The biggest error you made was not taking into account his speed.

Also I like how the distance rises with the train speed and then suddenly drops to zero.

You are so clueless it's unbelievable.
You are so legendary troll, it's unbelievable!
The only troll is you.

Quote
I wasn't taking into account his speed? You are so high, it's unbelievable!

Where do you use his speed?
You do realize if the train is moving he is moving right?


Quote
The distance rises with the train speed and then suddenly drops to zero? So what? It is perfectly consistent, but since you are unbelievably lazy thinker then it is no wonder you are perfectly pander...:)
Your made up formula fails.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2018, 01:31:33 PM »
Another problem, units.

If yo attempt to write out your formula.

Distance = (train speeds x 1 second)-(train speed x 1 second/((36km/hr)/train speed))

See how that makes no sense?

I also had to assume you used the 1 second from the original post. You of course cant just change 83 cm/s to 83 cm.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2018, 01:41:21 PM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :



You haven't tried this experiment yet, have you? How about actually conducting that simple and practical experiment instead of speculating about the results of an experiment that cannot be done?

Quote
Have you noticed what happens after train's speed and Michael Powell's speed became equal? Michael Powell doesn't gain (from this moment on - as the train's speed becomes equal and gets greater than his own speed) any amount of additional gain ground (forward motion)?

Clearly there is something wrong with your analysis.

Here's what you're calculating:
St = speed of train
Sj = speed of jumper = 36 km/hr (I presume)
Dt = distance train travels in 1 second
R = Sj / St = ratio of speeds
d = Dt / R = Dt / (Sj / St) = Dt X St / Sj = St X St X 1 sec / Sj = St2 X 1 sec / Sj

d has the units of distance, but what does it represent? It's proportional to the train's speed squared since (1 sec / Sj) is constant.

Then, for some reason, you calculate a quantity, let's call it Q:

Q = Dt - d = St X 1 sec - St2 X 1 sec / Sj, which is a quadratic where reaches Q at maximum when St = Sj / 2, and why Q returns to zero when St = Sj.

If St exceeds Sj, Q becomes negative. Your calculation is meaningless. 

The units do work out to distance, though.

Like I keep asking: get on a train (a real one) and when it's at a constant velocity (steady speed and not turning), drop something (real) like a book, ball, beanbag, or whatever is convenient and see if it falls to the floor directly below, or if it lands well behind the drop point.

[Edit: minor clarification.]
« Last Edit: May 05, 2018, 01:46:21 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2018, 02:36:09 PM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds
Is this going to be you just ignoring inertia yet again?
You have repeatedly brought this up and repeatedly made a fool out of yourself. You aren't going to magically make it any better.

Stop bringing up the same refuted nonsense.
Stick to one thread and deal with the objections already being made.

Assuming the train is moving steadily, then in the reference frame of the train there will be no difference.
You ignoring momentum and inertia wont magically make it go away.
So enough of your BS, justify your claims.

Have you noticed what happens after train's speed and Michael Powell's speed became equal? Michael Powell doesn't gain (from this moment on - as the train's speed becomes equal and gets greater than his own speed) any amount of additional gain ground (forward motion)?
Have you noticed how in reality, none of that actually matters, and the speed of the train is irrelevant to the motion in the reference frame of the train?

All you have are baseless thought experiments with nothing to back them up.
You aren't using any real physics to do your fake experiments.
Meanwhile, actual scientists have done experiments and found your ideas to be pure nonsense (although not specifically focusing on your ideas).

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2018, 05:44:46 AM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

You haven't tried this experiment yet, have you? How about actually conducting that simple and practical experiment instead of speculating about the results of an experiment that cannot be done?

That cannot be done???

What is wrong with you? Why such a simple experiment couldn't be done? Only because you are perfectly aware what would be the outcome of such a simple experiment and what would be the consequences of that outcome??? Come on Alpha, it's time for you to grow up, finally! Be an honest man, look up to me, i was wrong (about flat earth theory), and i honestly admitted that i was wrong, be a man and do what you have to do (if you ever intended to be a Man with big M). Sometimes it is not easy to be an honest man, especially if you are paid shill, but if you are not, then what stops you to become a Man??? Your proud? Proud is very heavy illness, i must admit...

Regarding your regurgitation of one form of "fly in a car" hoax is meaningless, because we all know what is the purpose of that hoax example. What do i mean when i say that it is a hoax example? I don't claim that "a fly in a car" (and similar galilean examples) is a hoax in itself (that what is described in that  experiment doesn't work (as it is described)), however it is a hoax in a sense that such stories don't prove what they are supposed to prove. That is why we have to design (and carry out in reality) appropriate thought experiments.
LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED :

Clearly there is something wrong with your analysis.

Here's what you're calculating:
St = speed of train
Sj = speed of jumper = 36 km/hr (I presume)
Dt = distance train travels in 1 second
R = Sj / St = ratio of speeds
d = Dt / R = Dt / (Sj / St) = Dt X St / Sj = St X St X 1 sec / Sj = St2 X 1 sec / Sj

d has the units of distance, but what does it represent? It's proportional to the train's speed squared since (1 sec / Sj) is constant.

Then, for some reason, you calculate a quantity, let's call it Q:

Q = Dt - d = St X 1 sec - St2 X 1 sec / Sj, which is a quadratic where reaches Q at maximum when St = Sj / 2, and why Q returns to zero when St = Sj.

If St exceeds Sj, Q becomes negative. Your calculation is meaningless. 

The units do work out to distance, though.

Nice job, thanks for letting me know that 6,94 cm should be corrected to 25 cm (residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion)...

A few quotes from my recent youtube conversation :

1. Walking (and swimming) = (no problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated)
2. Running (and flying) = big problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated
3. _WHY_do i think it's wrong that runner would take 10 seconds to go from the back to the front of a 100 m long train (INSIDE the train)?

Our runner spends 50 % of his race in the air (practically flying above the surface of the train) which makes the whole difference. When he is flying (in counter direction of train's motion) he allows the surface of the train to slip below his feet, and with every step the train slips one additional bit further below/behind him, that is to say, our runner advances bit by bit forward, so that the final result (after 100 m) should be 1 second earlier arrival at the finish line (another end (back) of our train).

4. Why i've mentioned long jump example? Because there would be some issues regarding the first part of the race at such a short distance (100 m), since the runner needs some time to reach the full speed a.k.a. to overpower initial momentum due to the train's motion in counter direction, and that would contribute to inaccuracy of our measurements. That is why i proposed another discipline which would be much more appropriate (regarding the accuracy of measurements), since we would have to pay attention solely to one (much shorter) segment of the entire experiment which would give us much better control (over the crucial part of our experiment) when trying to establish the exact values of the final outcome of our experiment.

Long jumper would jump only after reaching the maximum speed, so canceling out initial momentum wouldn't be of any significant importance for us (it wouldn't present any kind of an obstacle for determining the exact difference between two measurements comparing two different long jumps - going against the train vs going in the same direction of train's motion).

I have designed this thought experiment having in mind one very important moment : the speed of the runner is 10-12 times greater than the speed of the train (this is the first important condition for easier grasping what would really happen in reality), and the speed of the train is quite slow (which presumes almost no effect to our runner from air drag, even if we carried out such an experiment on the roof of the train)...

When our runner overpower initial momentum 10-12 times, then we can forget about that FORCE (momentum) which is lost to the significant extent (overpowered multiple times), and what we primarily should pay attention to is this :

After reaching the full speed in counter direction on/in such a slow moving train (3 km/h) we could hardly notice any difference between him and hypothetical runner (who runs at full speed, also) who would run beside the train (on the ground) parallel to our runner in the train.

I remind you to this sentence (from one of my today's post) :

Long jump contest is valid even with the winds of up to 2 m/s (7,2 km/h). You see the wind of 7,2 km/h is of much greater impact than the motion of the train of 3 km/h (which initial momentum would be overpowered TWELVE times by the runner who runs 36 km/h in counter direction of train's motion).

So, if (after reaching the full speed) we could hardly tell the difference between two equally fast runners (who run parallel to each other - one in the train, and other on the ground), this absence of obvious (decisive) difference would be the hidden part of the core of our experiment which would make the whole difference.

And if there would still be some (minor = lesser than 12 times overpowered momentum) difference between these two hypothetical runners, this difference would be in favor of my argument, that is to say : our train-runner would still manage (despite the slight difference in favor of the ground-runner) to arrive at the back of the train significantly faster than it would be expected by galilean relativity according which no difference in relative motions is possible to happen which is total and absolute nonsense.

Same can be applied to our long jump example : in one second (Carl Lewis and Michael Powell spent exactly 1 sec. in the air when performing their world records - i even made today a video on this topic but i haven't uploaded it yet...) our 3 km/h moving train passes 83 cm...So, even if there would be some slight difference (even if Lewis or Powell wouldn't benefit all 83cm difference but rather some 10 or 20 cm less than that) due to some left-over of initial inertia (momentum) Lewis or Powell would still very easily confirm that galilean relativity isn't all-valid physical law, just like einsteinian relativity is nothing else but pure and absolute bullshit!!!

@ Jack, i've got something for you :

This is how you can be sure that the earth does not spin on it's axis : If the earth was spinning then the moon would still have to go in a CCW direction (monthly) around the earth. However i have proven that this isn't so :
---NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION - part 2 :


Closer observer = 106 551 km/h
Farther observer = 107 913 km/h

The speed of the moon : 2r*pi/27,5*24 = 3674 km/h
The speed of the earth : 2r*pi/365,25*24 = 107 460 km/h

107 460 - 3674 = 103 786
Closer observer : 106 551 - 103 786 = 2765 km/h
Farther observer : 107 913 - 103 786 = 4127 km/h
2765/381 800 = 0,00724
4127/381 800 = 0,01080
ctg (0,00724) = 0,41
ctg (0,01080) = 0,61
0,61 - 0,41 = 0,20

Actually 0,41 is 0,45 and 0,61 is 0,65

0,45 = 69 % of 0,65

The difference = 31 %

What does this difference mean? It means that if HC theory were true the apparent translation of the moon (across the sun's disc) would occur 31 % faster for the observer at farther side of the Arctic circle than for the observer at closer side of the Arctic circle!!!

Does this difference exist in reality??? That is the question!!!
The core of my method of verification allows us to determine whether such difference (between the apparent speeds of the moon for two hypothetical observers placed at the Arctic circle (4127 km/h vs 2765 km/h)) exists or not - by providing a LATERAL MOTION of the observers at the Arctic circle, as i explained in the video above...
READ MORE : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74745.msg2041498#msg2041498
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 05:50:23 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2018, 07:47:18 AM »
IN a moving train?

That would be the same as IN a flying airplane.

They are both enclosed spaces and would show no difference than on the ground.

Now if you are saying on an open train moving at some speed, of course it will make a difference, depending on the speed of the train as wind resistance will slow you down from moving in the relative direction of the traveling train.

If you experiment was actually meaningful, if I jumped up in a plane, I shouldn't land in the same spot.  And in fact I should land considerably behind where I jumped from.  I don't because the air (inside the cabin), the plane, and myself are moving at the same speed.  Inside the flying plane we are as if we are sitting on the ground.  The same would apply to inside the moving train.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 07:49:30 AM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2018, 09:23:56 AM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

You haven't tried this experiment yet, have you? How about actually conducting that simple and practical experiment instead of speculating about the results of an experiment that cannot be done?

That cannot be done???

Nope.

You seem to be specifying that Michael Powell perfectly replicate his record-setting long jump inside a train car, several times. That alone would be impossible even if he were still 28 years old instead of now 54 and long retired from athletics competition.

Beyond that, as a practical matter, how much space do you think a world-class long jump takes? The jump itself is almost 9 meters, and you're predicting another 2.5 meters beyond that. The landing pit would obviously have to extend well beyond the landing point for the jumper to come to a complete stop, so the distance from the foul line to the end of the landing pit would need to be the 15 to 20 meters. Long jumps are not done from a standing start, either. The jumper sprints from a standing start to the foul line taking 20 - 22 strides (according to wikipedia). A sprinter's stride will be more than a meter, but just using 1 meter, you have to allow at least another 20 meters of track (realistically, probably 30 meters or more) of track before the foul line. Now we're up to about 40 meters of total length. Are there any enclosed cars that length? I there are, are they available?

Then, even if you had a suitably-long train car available, you would need to configure it as an indoor long-jump track, and hire an engine to pull it and crew to operate the equipment, and secure permission to use a suitable section of track.

Sorry. It's impossible. For several reasons.

Quote
What is wrong with you? Why such a simple experiment couldn't be done? Only because you are perfectly aware what would be the outcome of such a simple experiment and what would be the consequences of that outcome???

Simple. Lol!

I already know what the outcome of jumping inside a train moving at constant velocity would be: the same as jumping inside a non-moving train. It would be much simpler to just drop something inside a train car rather than attempting to re-create a record-setting long jump. Do it!

Quote
Come on Alpha, it's time for you to grow up, finally! Be an honest man, look up to me, i was wrong (about flat earth theory), and i honestly admitted that i was wrong, be a man and do what you have to do (if you ever intended to be a Man with big M). Sometimes it is not easy to be an honest man, especially if you are paid shill, but if you are not, then what stops you to become a Man??? Your proud? Proud is very heavy illness, i must admit...

I appreciate your honesty. Admitting you're wrong (when you are) is liberating, but can be difficult to do.

Quote
Regarding your regurgitation of one form of "fly in a car" hoax is meaningless, because we all know what is the purpose of that hoax example. What do i mean when i say that it is a hoax example? I don't claim that "a fly in a car" (and similar galilean examples) is a hoax in itself (that what is described in that  experiment doesn't work (as it is described)), however it is a hoax in a sense that such stories don't prove what they are supposed to prove. That is why we have to design (and carry out in reality) appropriate thought experiments.
LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED :

Can you summarize what that youtube video purports to show, or provide a transcript? Also, how long is it? I won't watch those without at least a little more information. They're invariably crap and an utter, annoying, waste of time.

Quote
A few quotes from my recent youtube conversation :

1. Walking (and swimming) = (no problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated)
2. Running (and flying) = big problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated
3. _WHY_do i think it's wrong that runner would take 10 seconds to go from the back to the front of a 100 m long train (INSIDE the train)?

Our runner spends 50 % of his race in the air (practically flying above the surface of the train) which makes the whole difference. When he is flying (in counter direction of train's motion) he allows the surface of the train to slip below his feet, and with every step the train slips one additional bit further below/behind him, that is to say, our runner advances bit by bit forward, so that the final result (after 100 m) should be 1 second earlier arrival at the finish line (another end (back) of our train).

You keep saying this. You're still wrong. There would be no such "slippage" if the train is not accelerating.

If this were right, a dropped ball, or book, or whatever, would land behind its drop point on a non-accelerating but moving train. It doesn't, and you can easily see this for yourself for the cost of a train ticket and a little time (and no extra cost at all if you were going to take the train anyway).

Quote
4. Why i've mentioned long jump example? Because there would be some issues regarding the first part of the race at such a short distance (100 m), since the runner needs some time to reach the full speed a.k.a. to overpower initial momentum due to the train's motion in counter direction, and that would contribute to inaccuracy of our measurements. That is why i proposed another discipline which would be much more appropriate (regarding the accuracy of measurements), since we would have to pay attention solely to one (much shorter) segment of the entire experiment which would give us much better control (over the crucial part of our experiment) when trying to establish the exact values of the final outcome of our experiment.

Long jumper would jump only after reaching the maximum speed, so canceling out initial momentum wouldn't be of any significant importance for us (it wouldn't present any kind of an obstacle for determining the exact difference between two measurements comparing two different long jumps - going against the train vs going in the same direction of train's motion).

I have designed this thought experiment having in mind one very important moment : the speed of the runner is 10-12 times greater than the speed of the train (this is the first important condition for easier grasping what would really happen in reality), and the speed of the train is quite slow (which presumes almost no effect to our runner from air drag, even if we carried out such an experiment on the roof of the train)...

Instead of wasting time on an impractical thought experiment, try a real, yet easy and more conclusive, experiment first.

Quote
When our runner overpower initial momentum 10-12 times, then we can forget about that FORCE (momentum) which is lost to the significant extent (overpowered multiple times), and what we primarily should pay attention to is this :

Momentum is not a force.

Quote
After reaching the full speed in counter direction on/in such a slow moving train (3 km/h) we could hardly notice any difference between him and hypothetical runner (who runs at full speed, also) who would run beside the train (on the ground) parallel to our runner in the train.

I remind you to this sentence (from one of my today's post) :

Long jump contest is valid even with the winds of up to 2 m/s (7,2 km/h). You see the wind of 7,2 km/h is of much greater impact than the motion of the train of 3 km/h (which initial momentum would be overpowered TWELVE times by the runner who runs 36 km/h in counter direction of train's motion).

So, if (after reaching the full speed) we could hardly tell the difference between two equally fast runners (who run parallel to each other - one in the train, and other on the ground), this absence of obvious (decisive) difference would be the hidden part of the core of our experiment which would make the whole difference.

And if there would still be some (minor = lesser than 12 times overpowered momentum) difference between these two hypothetical runners, this difference would be in favor of my argument, that is to say : our train-runner would still manage (despite the slight difference in favor of the ground-runner) to arrive at the back of the train significantly faster than it would be expected by galilean relativity according which no difference in relative motions is possible to happen which is total and absolute nonsense.

Same can be applied to our long jump example : in one second (Carl Lewis and Michael Powell spent exactly 1 sec. in the air when performing their world records - i even made today a video on this topic but i haven't uploaded it yet...) our 3 km/h moving train passes 83 cm...So, even if there would be some slight difference (even if Lewis or Powell wouldn't benefit all 83cm difference but rather some 10 or 20 cm less than that) due to some left-over of initial inertia (momentum) Lewis or Powell would still very easily confirm that galilean relativity isn't all-valid physical law, just like einsteinian relativity is nothing else but pure and absolute bullshit!!!

Instead of making yet another useless video, get on a train, and, when it's not accelerating, drop some object from a height of about 125 cm (so it takes about 1/2 second to fall to the floor) and see if the dropped object lands toward the rear of the train by the distance traveled while it was falling. If it doesn't, your premise is wrong, and you can stop worrying about elaborate and complex, yet impractical experiments that would be inconclusive because there are too many variables, anyway.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

tomato

  • 175
  • Shine on you crazy diamonds.
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2018, 10:04:13 AM »
Quote
Regarding your regurgitation of one form of "fly in a car" hoax is meaningless, because we all know what is the purpose of that hoax example. What do i mean when i say that it is a hoax example? I don't claim that "a fly in a car" (and similar galilean examples) is a hoax in itself (that what is described in that  experiment doesn't work (as it is described)), however it is a hoax in a sense that such stories don't prove what they are supposed to prove. That is why we have to design (and carry out in reality) appropriate thought experiments.
LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED :

Can you summarize what that youtube video purports to show, or provide a transcript? Also, how long is it? I won't watch those without at least a little more information. They're invariably crap and an utter, annoying, waste of time.

cikljamas is firmly asserting that a free object moving at constant velocity should slow down (I figure until it is at rest with the earth).

The video has clips of a lecture by Walter Lewin (was a prof at MIT) who made an experiment to attempt to demonstrate the conservation of momentum (and in this case horizontal speed), opposite of cikljamas' claim. The experiment uses a cart, which has a cannon that shoots a ball as straight as possible upwards. The cart rolls, and then the cannon is fired. If the cart and ball (in the air) move at the same horizontal speed, the ball should land straight back down into the cannon.

The video asserts that the experiment actually disproves conservation of momentum. It slows the clip down and shows a screenshot to point out that the ball lands slightly behind the cannon barrel (at about 3:24). This means the ball ended up slower than the cart.

It's up to the community here to decide whether everything presented supports or disproves cikl's claim.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 10:08:01 AM by tomato »
Tomato puree

?

Dirk

  • 200
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2018, 11:40:43 AM »
Quote
Regarding your regurgitation of one form of "fly in a car" hoax is meaningless, because we all know what is the purpose of that hoax example. What do i mean when i say that it is a hoax example? I don't claim that "a fly in a car" (and similar galilean examples) is a hoax in itself (that what is described in that  experiment doesn't work (as it is described)), however it is a hoax in a sense that such stories don't prove what they are supposed to prove. That is why we have to design (and carry out in reality) appropriate thought experiments.
LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED :

Can you summarize what that youtube video purports to show, or provide a transcript? Also, how long is it? I won't watch those without at least a little more information. They're invariably crap and an utter, annoying, waste of time.

cikljamas is firmly asserting that a free object moving at constant velocity should slow down (I figure until it is at rest with the earth).

The video has clips of a lecture by Walter Lewin (was a prof at MIT) who made an experiment to attempt to demonstrate the conservation of momentum (and in this case horizontal speed), opposite of cikljamas' claim. The experiment uses a cart, which has a cannon that shoots a ball as straight as possible upwards. The cart rolls, and then the cannon is fired. If the cart and ball (in the air) move at the same horizontal speed, the ball should land straight back down into the cannon.

The video asserts that the experiment actually disproves conservation of momentum. It slows the clip down and shows a screenshot to point out that the ball lands slightly behind the cannon barrel (at about 3:24). This means the ball ended up slower than the cart.

It's up to the community here to decide whether everything presented supports or disproves cikl's claim.

We did this experiment in school: For this experiment to work, you have to balance the rail to a slight downslope, so that the cart continues to move with an (almost) constant speed after the push. Otherwise, it would be slowed by friction and air resistance and then the ball would fall in front of the cart.

But now the ball is still slowed by air resistance in its horizontal move. So to be fair, you have to tweak the rail, until the ball will in fact fall inside the tube. But then you will hear "Fake!" calls.

Correctly, the experiment should be done with the cart having its own enclosed air and the ball shot inside that enclosed air.

Otherwise, it is like walking Hollywood-style outside on top of a wagon of a running train and risking a jump.

Additionally, the cart needs to be pulled by a motor with a constant speed.

So, the video is inconclusive.

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2018, 12:01:59 PM »
Quote
Can you summarize what that youtube video purports to show, or provide a transcript? Also, how long is it? I won't watch those without at least a little more information. They're invariably crap and an utter, annoying, waste of time.

cikljamas is firmly asserting that a free object moving at constant velocity should slow down (I figure until it is at rest with the earth).

The video has clips of a lecture by Walter Lewin (was a prof at MIT) who made an experiment to attempt to demonstrate the conservation of momentum (and in this case horizontal speed), opposite of cikljamas' claim. The experiment uses a cart, which has a cannon that shoots a ball as straight as possible upwards. The cart rolls, and then the cannon is fired. If the cart and ball (in the air) move at the same horizontal speed, the ball should land straight back down into the cannon.

The video asserts that the experiment actually disproves conservation of momentum. It slows the clip down and shows a screenshot to point out that the ball lands slightly behind the cannon barrel (at about 3:24). This means the ball ended up slower than the cart.

It's up to the community here to decide whether everything presented supports or disproves cikl's claim.

Thanks for the synopsis, tomato.

So, cikljamas, why does the ball not travel vertically and drop back on the track at the point it was launched, instead of near the end of the track where the car it was launched from has moved to in the time it was in flight?

This seems to nicely debunk your premise, despite your protestations.

"But, but...", you may splutter, "it doesn't fall right on the center of the launch tube!!!" Yeah... so what? As you note, resistance of air is a complicating factor, if you keep the projectile fairly dense (a golf ball instead of a ping-pong ball, say), then the effect of atmospheric drag is minor. Friction (mechanical and atmospheric drag) will also cause the car to decelerate, which will counteract that effect some.  How still the air in the room is matters some, too. Most likely the biggest factor is simply how close to perfectly vertical the launch is. It might have been instructive if a stationary launch with the funnel in place had been demonstrated. As it is, all you can deduce from the video is that it falls close to the top of the launch tube, but you can't tell exactly how far off it is. The funnel allows a certain amount of slop in the experiment, which makes it practical, but the amount it deviates from perfection is small compared to the horizontal distance the ball traveled while in flight, and that horizontal distance is what shows that your premise is wrong. There are some fine details at work, but the takeaway is that the ball traveled a couple of meters horizontally, almost exactly as far as the car instead of "losing its horizontal momentum" as soon as it lost physical contact with the car. You lose.

I didn't watch the last part of the video since that seems to be yet another rehash of the old "a plane flying west has to fly backwards" balderdash.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

Dirk

  • 200
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2018, 12:09:27 PM »
But to be hones, the ball will always be a little off for different reasons:
  • the shot is not perfectly vertical
  • the cart jiggles a little bit on the rail
  • the cart does not move with a constant speed (either because rail balancing or motor)
  • there are turbulences inside the air (especially inside a university auditorium)
  • etc.

So, FEers will always cry: "Debunked! The ball is one millimeter behind!"

Ah, Alpha2Omega wrote a similar post.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2018, 12:59:52 PM »
While performing his 8,95m long jump Michael Powell spent in the air exactly 1 sec., now let's imagine that Michael Powell attempts such "long jump" after running in counter direction of train's motion which moves at different speeds (3 km/h, 6 km/h, 9 km/h, 18 km/h)...What would be the results of such attempts? I am practically sure that every such long jump would be significantly longer if Michael Powell carried out this kind of an experiment in a counter direction of train's motion :

You haven't tried this experiment yet, have you? How about actually conducting that simple and practical experiment instead of speculating about the results of an experiment that cannot be done?

That cannot be done???

Nope.

You seem to be specifying that Michael Powell perfectly replicate his record-setting long jump inside a train car, several times. That alone would be impossible even if he were still 28 years old instead of now 54 and long retired from athletics competition.
Well, he is still younger than batman, isn't he?
Let me show you what is impossible (to get the story straight) :
How can NASA recover from this, EVER - part 1 :
How can NASA recover from this, EVER - part 6 :
Let's summarize what this series of my videos purports to show :

Jasonnnsaurus
6 months ago
This video is so great. This was one of the first realizations I had when venturing deeper into astronomy studies - that there were obvious hypocritical statements made by NASA itself.?

In The Beginning Was The Word 3 days ago
None of these heathens can get the story straight. The problem with telling a lie is that you have to remember the lie to keep it going.?

David Beatty 14 minutes ago
Finally someone addresses the dirt kicked up by the astronauts, and the rover. If that was 1/6th gravity, that dirt would float much longer than it does in the videos.?

MrTruth111 33 minutes ago
And those footprints are fake as fuck. Footprints like that ONLY occur in WET sand, like on the wet beach line. Also these footprints are so huge and deep. Moon's gravity is 1/6 of earths gravity, they weigh only 20 kg on the moon, and not 200 kg like in the pictures.?


MrTruth111
42 minutes ago
When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.?


Cam Alft
1 minute ago
35;05...'it's okay if you know it...''...you heard it folks,this astronut tells you right on video,he didn't go and he doesn't care that you know it.......because he will lie and lie to everyone and its because the liberal mind has no empathy or morals....none at all,just like actors,same exact thing..and when confronted about the lie,they get violent,that is always the last resort..?

Phil RIta 11 minutes ago
They can't find any of the footage or telemetry info regarding one of humankind's greatest ever achievements, if not it's greatest, and they don't even know where to look? FFS. Game up. Proof positive.


william brown 23 hours ago
It makes me ill that I have bought into the NASA bull for all this time.No wonder why the rest of the word hates us and does not trust in us.


Eldain ss
29 minutes ago
It is not logical to keep a lie.
Just go public right away, and then go forward.
The longer a lie is kept a lie,  the worse the aftereffect will be..... And lies will ALWAYS be found in the end.
So, it is not logical to keep a lie.

This video series is making some good logical markings, that proof a lie.
And when it comes to USA,  where most things are a lie.... i would not be surprised one bit if the landings were a lie.
9/11 terrorists is a lie.... Bin Laden is a lie.... and many many more things.


axelfoley20 4 hours ago
C'mon.  How did they fit two men and that car inside that lander?  It's all bullshit.  If you believe they went to the moon then you're under complete mind control.


Jeremy Hier 13 hours ago
Jeez, they can't even come up with a believable story. You can poke your finger through the lunar module? What idiot came up with this story for the people to believe.  Good God.


H. Antonio Netzer 25 minutes ago
It's a remote control small scale toy  car. 
   The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.


Jake Benjamin 3 hours ago
The dust should fall the same speed he did. This is the famous Ifle Tower proof. Doesn't matter what the weight, ESPECIALLY when you have no atmosphere. But the dust falls faster than he does, unmistakably. Therefore this is 100% fake. It means he is on cables.

John Ward 8 hours ago
Why is there arms moving so slowly? Did they somehow get stiff muscles???


LakesideHog 15 minutes ago
Why is the front end not coming up even more off of the surface? Actually the whole vehicle? Wouldn't the vehicle actually jump off the surface as the suspension/tires compress then extend? It weighs 1/6 of its weight.....just curious what I'm not comprehending about this.


Chris H 9 hours ago
We send men to another body in our solar system for the first time and what do they concentrate their camera on... the spaceship they flew in from earth. Doesn't that strike you as odd? It would be like sending the Rover to Mars with a camera that just points backwards at the Rover.

rydershortboard Mcleod 11 hours ago
Ask what happened to the missing 800 pounds of moon rocks, lol?

William Anthony 6 hours ago
My father, God rest his soul, stated it was a mob hit as soon as Oswald was taken down by Ruby.  It was a sad day in history for me as a 10 year old boy, but the saddest fact is that the government covered it up for so long, a wife lost her husband, and two children lost their father; and Camelot came to an abrupt end.  Shame on the USA which I have so proudly called my home.

JFK ASSASSINATION  THE FINAL TRUTH  part 1 :

JFK ASSASSINATION  THE FINAL TRUTH  part 4 (epilogue - with few corrections) :

JFK ASSASSINATION  THE FINAL TRUTH  part 5 (closure) :

« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 09:34:28 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2018, 01:00:27 PM »


"But, but...", you may splutter, "it doesn't fall right on the center of the launch tube!!!" Yeah... so what?

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

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

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

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

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

g = 32ft/s^2

TE = period of rotation = 86,400 s

LAMBDA = latitude


Bedford latitude = 52.13 degrees

d = 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 (black bird) 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 (heliocentrist) 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 (sitated 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.

JackBlack's objection :

>>>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.<<<

CIKLJAMAS (ODIUPICKU) RESPONDED LIKE THIS :

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???

*C)*
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.

READ MORE : https://www.wired.com/2009/09/how-high-does-a-bullet-go/

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.

DOES THIS HAPPEN IN REALITY???

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

--- ALPHA2OMEGA QUOTES MY WORDS :

Not only that.

Within HC theory (rotating earth), when flying or rolling 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).

--- ALPHA2OMEGA REPLIES WITH ONE SINGLE WORD :

Nope.

--- MY REPLY TO ALPHA2OMEGA :

Why not?
When moving in counter direction of earth's alleged rotation we are simulating that we are at higher latitude (depends on the speed of our moving frame), and vice versa, when we are moving in the same direction of earth's alleged rotation we are simulating that we are at lower latitude. So, with the same set up, and at the same place we can carry out this very important (and very cheep) experiment so that we can compare deviations regarding the amount of lateral displacement of a bullets fired from the moving (in both directions (EAST & WEST) cannon, and thus additionally eliminate your theoretical objections with respect to the possible misalignment (in relation to the true vertical position) of the cannon barrel...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2018, 01:38:08 PM »
Why are you detailing your own thread? Oh well.


The cannon ball joke experiment has already been covered in here.
Let’s move to south edging more modern, ring laser gyroscopes. Anything against them.

The Southern cross is on Australia‘s flag and New Zealand’s flag. Which country is the Southern Cross due south?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2018, 03:23:50 PM »
What is wrong with you? Why such a simple experiment couldn't be done?
Because it requires actually making sure they have the people running at a set rate and so on. There are too many variables to control, especially when you bring in a human.

Be an honest man, look up to me, i was wrong (about flat earth theory), and i honestly admitted that i was wrong
Yet you are still sticking to this geocentric nonsense.
Be a man and admit you were wrong about that as well.

Regarding your regurgitation of one form of "fly in a car" hoax is meaningless
No it isn't. It shows the motion of the car is irrelevant.
The fly will fly the same regardless of if the car is in motion or not.

The same applies to the jumper, they will jump the same regardless of if the train is in motion or not.

LINEAR INERTIA EXPERIMENT BUSTED :
Yes, you have busted your experiment.
Linear inertia allowed the ball to land back in the barrell.
It was a lightweight ball and thus affected significantly by the air and didn't land perfectly.
You can see that even when it was fired straight up.

Nice job, thanks for letting me know that 6,94 cm should be corrected to 25 cm (residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion)...
No, that was not the error.
The error was that it made no sense.

You are just putting in a bunch of numbers without any justification for why it should be like that.

1. Walking (and swimming) = (no problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated)
2. Running (and flying) = big problems with relative speeds as Galileo postulated
No. No problems with relative speeds.
Appealing to Galileo is pointless and I'm pretty sure he didn't claim there would be any problems.

Our runner spends 50 % of his race in the air (practically flying above the surface of the train) which makes the whole difference.
No. Which makes no difference at all.
4. Why i've mentioned long jump example?
Because you want to come up with some more nonsense, rather than do the simple test I suggested, of firing balls from a device which can reliably fire them at the same speed.

Because there would be some issues regarding the first part of the race at such a short distance (100 m), since the runner needs some time to reach the full speed a.k.a. to overpower initial momentum due to the train's motion in counter direction, and that would contribute to inaccuracy of our measurements. That is why i proposed another discipline which would be much more appropriate (regarding the accuracy of measurements), since we would have to pay attention solely to one (much shorter) segment of the entire experiment which would give us much better control (over the crucial part of our experiment) when trying to establish the exact values of the final outcome of our experiment.
Meanwhile, the long jump runner will take time to get up to speed and will be running while doing so.
If the speed they run at is affected (as your nonsense claims) then that will affect the distance as well.

I have designed this thought experiment having in mind one very important moment
And completley ignoring inertia, making it a useless thought experiment.
It is no better than a simple statement saying you are correct.

So, if (after reaching the full speed) we could hardly tell the difference between two equally fast runners (who run parallel to each other - one in the train, and other on the ground)
No, we can tell a difference, as one is running relative to the train and thus drifts with the train.

And if there would still be some (minor = lesser than 12 times overpowered momentum) difference between these two hypothetical runners, this difference would be in favor of my argument
No, it would destroy it.
They would both reach their 100 m mark at the same time, but one will have moved forwards roughly 83 cm as it was on the train.

This is how you can be sure that the earth does not spin on it's axis : If the earth was spinning then the moon would still have to go in a CCW direction (monthly) around the earth. However i have proven that this isn't so :
No, you have repeatedly asserted that bullshit and repeatedly had your ass handed to you.
If you wish to discuss it, go back to the thread you have your ass handed to you already and deal with the arguments there showing you to be completely wrong, and that would have the same result if Earth was spinning with the moon slowly circling or if Earth was stationary with the moon circling.
I provided the math showing the results were equal.

---NO EXPERIMENT CAN DETECT EARTH'S MOTION
Except all those that have, which you just ignore.

*A)* There are too many proofs that the earth is at rest
Except you have been unable to provide even one.

but i would like to show you one very primitive example which corroborates this already 100 % proven fact
You mean this pile of nonsense made up by a conman.

>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured;
BS!
The level of accuracy required would be far too difficult to achieve.
How did they make sure the bore itself was vertical, without cutting it open to align it?
If you are using the outside, you stand no chance.
So it seems it could easily have been slightly angled.

As it was set up by a con man, who was also reporting this, I have no reason to trust a single word.

it should have fallen behind it a distance of 8400 feet
Only if you are a conman or a moron ignoring inertia.

IMPORTANT CORRECTION : Mr Rowbotham calculated wrong : the ball coming down to within a few inches of the muzzle of the gun should have fallen behind it more than 4.6 miles (not "more than a mile and a half")!!!
As you have done just now, ignoring inertia, like your conman prophet.

*B)* The exact formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically fired projectile:
No, an approximate formula, ignoring higher order terms and only truly applicable in a vacuum.

One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.
Nope, an experiment with far too many variables due to the wind and ensuring it is perfectly level.
A much simpler experiment is that of Foucault's pendulum, but that shows Earth is moving.

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
No we shouldn't.

Posing questions like you have done of "does this happen in reality" doesn't help your case as you haven't done the experiment and again, you ignore the air.

The simple fact is all experiments show you cannot detect absolute linear motion.
All you can detect (regarding linear motion) is relative linear motion.

All experiments which set out to measure the rotation of Earth are either too imprecise to determine if it is rotating or not, or confirm that Earth is rotating.

You have no rational basis for your claims.
All you can do is repeat the same kind of nonsense thought experiments without any backing from reality, or repeat the same crap from your conman prophet.

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2018, 07:23:37 PM »


"But, but...", you may splutter, "it doesn't fall right on the center of the launch tube!!!" Yeah... so what?

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

>>>A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line...

This sounds familiar. Ah, yes... word for word! It was already answered here.

Here's the gist of the response:

If the length of the cannon bore was 6 feet (72 inches), a misalignment of as little as 0.06" (72" * 0.00083) would fully account for this error, assuming everything else was perfect. How accurate do you believe his plumb line was? Did he compare it with the bore, or the outside of the cannon? If against the bore, how? How accurate do you believe these smooth bore cannons were?

We're not even considering real-world effects like aerodynamics of non-rifled projectiles, or even wind, both of which are significant.

All of these ambiguities make the results inconclusive at best.

The much bigger question is, of course, "how do we know the described experiment was ever conducted at all?" Is there any independent verification that the entire scenario wasn't completely made up?

That line of argument was completely abandoned after this response, until it was copied and pasted here, months later.

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

You have unique notions about what makes an easy experiment, my friend. Repeat (exactly) a world-record long jump inside a moving train car. Obtain a cast-iron cannon, place it vertically in sand, fire a projectile into the sky, and measure the deviation from perfectly vertical flight and return. Sure. No problem!

Buy a train ticket and drop a book while the train is stopped, and again while the train is in motion with constant velocity. Compare where the book lands compared to the drop point in the two cases. The end.

Instead of speculating about what happens with exotic aircraft and parroting (most likely fraudulent) reports of poorly designed and poorly documented experiments, please just do a truly simple experiment for yourself.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2018, 08:39:53 AM »
Nice job, thanks for letting me know that 6,94 cm should be corrected to 25 cm (residual quantity of the total initial momentum of train's motion)...
No, that was not the error.
The error was that it made no sense.
Prove it!

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

You have unique notions about what makes an easy experiment, my friend. Repeat (exactly) a world-record long jump inside a moving train car. Obtain a cast-iron cannon, place it vertically in sand, fire a projectile into the sky, and measure the deviation from perfectly vertical flight and return. Sure. No problem!

How about using adjusted airport moving walkaway or something like that?

Are you serious when claiming that it would be so difficult to set up (actually to adjust it) such a simple set up (as an airport moving walkaway) in order to perform such a simple experiment? How any sane person can assert such an obvious stupidity? Are you trying to break the world record in stupidity-contest? Well, it would be a hard battle since JackBlack is extremely good stupidity-fighter, no doubts about that.


"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #20 on: May 07, 2018, 09:23:32 AM »
One of the easiest experiments which can be done to find out that the Earth is stationary.

You have unique notions about what makes an easy experiment, my friend. Repeat (exactly) a world-record long jump inside a moving train car. Obtain a cast-iron cannon, place it vertically in sand, fire a projectile into the sky, and measure the deviation from perfectly vertical flight and return. Sure. No problem!

How about using adjusted airport moving walkaway or something like that?

Are you serious when claiming that it would be so difficult to set up (actually to adjust it) such a simple set up (as an airport moving walkaway) in order to perform such a simple experiment?

What experiment are you proposing? The long jump? Adjust it in what way? Speed it up? Those things are pretty slow. How easy do you think it would be to get permission to adjust it and to use it that way?

A long jump will hurt when you land, and it will still be impossible to make repeated jumps consistently. You could maybe drop a ball while riding on one, though, and note whether it suddenly ceases its horizontal motion when released, although it may be so slow that the results are less than conclusive, depending on how well you carry out the experiment. 

Quote
How any sane person can assert such an obvious stupidity? Are you trying to break the world record in stupidity-contest? Well, it would be a hard battle since JackBlack is extremely good stupidity-fighter, no doubts about that.

Now, now. There's no reason to be rude.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #21 on: May 07, 2018, 09:59:09 AM »

How any sane person can assert such an obvious stupidity? Are you trying to break the world record in stupidity-contest? Well, it would be a hard battle since JackBlack is extremely good stupidity-fighter, no doubts about that.

Now, now. There's no reason to be rude.
To be rude? Where do you see any sign of rudeness??? You are perfectly aware of your pure bullshitting!!! Since you are perfectly aware of your pure bullshitting it means that you are bullshitting deliberately with a very clear intention (to joke with me and others), and i don't  even blame you since it is more than obvious that it is your only and last resort, however if anyone should be detected as a rude person here, then it would be you (who is trying to joke with me), and not me (who is trying to make serious conversation with obviously wrong person whose intention is to deceive and to fool others etc...)...You are too clever not to be recognized as a deliberate paid (professional) NASA shill. I have figured this out long time ago, however, we can talk, why not, since when someone find out that someone else is a liar then is not frustrating (anymore) for the former someone to here one new lie (among billion already spouted out) from latter someone whose job is to lie and to deceive...
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 10:00:53 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #22 on: May 07, 2018, 11:23:04 AM »

How any sane person can assert such an obvious stupidity? Are you trying to break the world record in stupidity-contest? Well, it would be a hard battle since JackBlack is extremely good stupidity-fighter, no doubts about that.

Now, now. There's no reason to be rude.
To be rude? Where do you see any sign of rudeness??? You are perfectly aware of your pure bullshitting!!! Since you are perfectly aware of your pure bullshitting it means that you are bullshitting deliberately with a very clear intention (to joke with me and others), and i don't  even blame you since it is more than obvious that it is your only and last resort, however if anyone should be detected as a rude person here, then it would be you (who is trying to joke with me), and not me (who is trying to make serious conversation with obviously wrong person whose intention is to deceive and to fool others etc...)...You are too clever not to be recognized as a deliberate paid (professional) NASA shill. I have figured this out long time ago, however, we can talk, why not, since when someone find out that someone else is a liar then is not frustrating (anymore) for the former someone to here one new lie (among billion already spouted out) from latter someone whose job is to lie and to deceive...

I realize that English is not your native language. You read and write English quite well, but maybe you don't realize that calling someone stupid is considered rude. So is calling someone a bullshitter or a liar when he's speaking honestly.

Does my saying that an experiment is impossible because it cannot be carried out in the real world because of practical reasons offend you? If that's it, then too bad. Sometimes the truth hurts. If you disagree with the reasons given for why the experiment cannot be conducted or would render any results meaningless, by all means discuss those.

Your problem here seems to be that you believe that an object that's being propelled by another object loses all of its velocity (and, thus, momentum) the moment it ceases to have contact with the object propelling it. That is, quite simply, wrong, and this can be easily verified by simply dropping some solid object while inside some conveyance, like an automobile, train, or airplane (or on a moving sidewalk) that is moving at a constant velocity. There is no need to run, attempt to do long jumps consistently, or attempt to do other impractical things inside some moving conveyance to see this.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

JackBlack

  • 21560
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2018, 02:24:02 PM »
Prove it!
Perhaps if you didn't just ignore the explanation in the post you would have seen the proof.

All you have done is put in a bunch of numbers and made baseless claims about it.
You have no justification for why it should be like that at all.
Hence it is nonsense. There is no sense to it at all.

How about using adjusted airport moving walkaway or something like that?
Are you serious when claiming that it would be so difficult to set up (actually to adjust it) such a simple set up (as an airport moving walkaway) in order to perform such a simple experiment?
Notice how you completely fail to address the actual issue?
The big problem is having the person do the same jump, especially when they would have a running start and you claim running speed would be effected.

How any sane person can assert such an obvious stupidity?
Good question, how can you assert such obvious stupidity, or aren't you sane?

To be rude? Where do you see any sign of rudeness??? You are perfectly aware of your pure bullshitting!!!
You are the one bullshitting here, spotting pure garbage which is yet to be backed up by any experiment and has been refuted by numerous experiments.

So good job describing yourself.

You continually leave out the most obvious possibility; that you are wrong and what we are saying is actually true and we are saying it because unlike you, we care about the truth.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2018, 05:52:23 AM »
What would say judge Judy to all this? I am sure she would say something like this :
"Don't try to dance around me because you will regret it very soon!" Or something like this :
"Even if you were right about everything else, the very fact that you are insisting (so persistently) on such an idiotic claim (which meet all conditions required for breaking world record in stupidity contest) according which it would be impossible to furnish such a simple set up, is enough to reveal and to establish (with ABSOLUTE certainty) the true nature of your character. And we have a name for such a people : the born liars!"

You claim that Michael Powell would achieve the same result in a moving train, as well.
Now, let's imagine Michael Powell as running in a moving train in counter direction of it's motion.
He has gained the full speed and he takes off, he is going to spend in the air exactly one second.
During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag?
B) Conserved momentum?
C) Something else?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2018, 06:54:02 AM »
He has gained the full speed
Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.

During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
Relative to ground. He's going to move 8.12 m in the opposite direction - relative to ground.

What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag?
B) Conserved momentum?
C) Something else?
C - Relativity: his speed in ground FR was reduced by train speed.

?

Dirk

  • 200
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2018, 08:31:44 AM »
You claim that Michael Powell would achieve the same result in a moving train, as well.
Now, let's imagine Michael Powell as running in a moving train in counter direction of it's motion.
He has gained the full speed and he takes off, he is going to spend in the air exactly one second.
During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag?
B) Conserved momentum?
C) Something else?

So, you claim that if Michael Powell (or any other person) does not run, but instead simply jumps upwards in the air for one second, he would land 83 cm from the place where he jumped?

You claim, that if he (or any other person) does that in an airplane he would fly to the back of the plane?

Then serving coffee would be quite impossible in an airplane. The coffee would never fall into the cup. Even so in a moving high-speed train. The coffee then should miss the cup by several centimeters.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2018, 09:32:30 AM »
Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.
Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.
Secondly, nobody cares what is his speed relative to the ground.
Thirdly, you claim that he would run at the same speed relative to the train's floor comparing his speed (when running on the ground) relative to the ground. Let's say that you are right (although you are not) it would mean that all the way up to the moment of taking off everything would be the same in both scenarios (on the ground vs in the moving train).
However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same (in both scenarios) even with such (undeserved) concession towards you (see above what i've written in the sentence which starts with the word Firstly), because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight. 

Dirk means jerk (off) in croatian.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2018, 10:13:47 AM »
What would say judge Judy to all this? I am sure she would say something like this :
"Don't try to dance around me because you will regret it very soon!" Or something like this :
"Even if you were right about everything else, the very fact that you are insisting (so persistently) on such an idiotic claim (which meet all conditions required for breaking world record in stupidity contest) according which it would be impossible to furnish such a simple set up, is enough to reveal and to establish (with ABSOLUTE certainty) the true nature of your character. And we have a name for such a people : the born liars!"

If you're going to idly speculate about what "you're sure" Judge Judy would say, then I get to, too.

I'm sure she'd look at your claim, maybe laugh at it, then throw it out of court and move on to the next case.

Quote
You claim that Michael Powell would achieve the same result in a moving train, as well.
Now, let's imagine Michael Powell as running in a moving train in counter direction of it's motion.
He has gained the full speed and he takes off, he is going to spend in the air exactly one second.
During that one second the train is going to move 83 cm towards him.
What would be the reason which should prevent him from benefiting these 83 cm so that we could add these 83 cm to the result of his world record (achieved on the motionless ground)?
A) Air drag? No
B) Conserved momentum? Yes
C) Something else? No

Yes, 8.95 m/s relative to train floor, and (8.95-0.83=8.12) m/s relative to ground.
Firstly, that is wrong, his speed (relative to the train's floor) would be practically the sum of his speed (relative to the ground when he is running on the ground) and the speed of the train floor.

Since his velocity relative to the train's floor is in the opposite direction as the train's floor is to the ground, then they have opposite signs. The sum of numbers with opposite signs is their difference. wpeszko is correct.

Quote
Secondly, nobody cares what is his speed relative to the ground.

You do. You keep bringing the train's speed, and how far it travels while he's in the air, up. These are both relative to the ground.

Quote
Thirdly, you claim that he would run at the same speed relative to the train's floor comparing his speed (when running on the ground) relative to the ground. Let's say that you are right (although you are not) it would mean that all the way up to the moment of taking off everything would be the same in both scenarios (on the ground vs in the moving train).

As long as the train isn't accelerating, this is exactly right.

Quote
However, after taking off the situation wouldn't be the same (in both scenarios) even with such (undeserved) concession towards you (see above what i've written in the sentence which starts with the word Firstly), because at least during his 1 sec. long flight his speed must be added to the speed of the moving train in counter direction of his flight. 

Your assertion in the first sentence is wrong.

Your notion is completely wrong and you can easily see this for yourself. Please stop imagining scenarios that are flawed and impossible to enact. Get on a train. Drop a book. See what happens.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: LONG JUMP (in a moving train) EXP.
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2018, 10:55:05 AM »
Is this thread serious?

You’re talking about throwing out the most basic laws of motion.

This is so absolutely fundamental to how stuff works that if we had it wrong, there would be practically no technology at all. 

Honestly, as an engineer, I find it incredible that people are prepared to use the tools that hundreds of years of scientific and technological development has provided to try to undermine it all on the internet.  It all gets orders of magnitude more complicated than this.

I don’t mean to get on my high horse, but it really is a bit insulting.

(Apologies if that’s a bit ranty.  Drinking in the sun)