"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.jpgg = 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.pdfOne 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...