Speaking of imagination, where do you image that I said that R. suggested a static pace of any object?
That's your argument, isn't it? That the ball shouldn't fall behind because of conservation of momentum. They would only fall away if the bodies beneath them were accelerating. Your assumption is that the bodies are not accelerating in the description of the text. You are wrong.
Please show me where I made the argument that R. suggested a static pace of any object, repeated request! No, it's not conservation of momentum. It's Newton's First Law. If you can convince us that Rowbotham had the objects, including the cannon embedded in the sand, than you've convinced that R.'s experiment was meaningless by not blocking that important experimental variable.
I do maintain, and I suggest anyone interested in the Truth would agree that Rowbotham should make it quite clear in his examples the acceleration of all objects. Isn't the reader welcome to assume whatever acceleration comes to mind when the author elects to omit such details?
The examples are clear to me.
So, it's clear to you that the cannon embedded in the sand was accelerating? Really?
Just to be clear on this page, Rowbotham states explicitly that the cannonball should be travelling hundreds of miles slower than the cannon. Is Rowbotham telling us in EnaG what pace some objects are travelling? Do tell us how Rowbotham justifies his claim that cannonballs should be landing more than a mile away--without ignoring Newton's First Law.
Rowbotham is repeating the experiments of Tycho Bache and other famous astronomers.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1012/1012.3642.pdf
VIII. Tycho also argues that if the cannon experiment were performed at the
poles of the Earth, where the ground speed produced by the diurnal motion is
diminished, then the result of the experiment would be the same regardless of
toward which part of the horizon the cannon was fired. However, if the experiment
were performed near the equator, where the ground speed is greatest, the result
would be different when the ball is hurled East or West, than when hurled North or
South.
The form of the argument is thus: If Earth is moved with diurnal motion, a ball fired
from a cannon in a consistent manner would pass through a different trajectory when hurled
near the poles or toward the poles, than when hurled along the parallels nearer to the Equator,
or when hurled into the South or North. But this is contrary to experience. Therefore, Earth is
not moved by diurnal motion.
If Tycho is to be believed, experiments have shown this to be correct. Moreover,
if a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or
West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [i.e. the trajectory of the
ball is deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels nearer the poles, the ground
moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more
rapidly.7
The Copernican response to this argument is to deny it, or to concede it but claim
that the differences in trajectory fall below our ability to measure. But in fact the
argument is strong, and this response is not.
See the bolded above.
The year of publication of the work quoted in the linked article is
1651, Newton's _Principles_ was published on July 5,
1687. Riccioli died 6 years before he could have been enlightened about Newton's First Law. Please note, however, Rowbotham did not have the same excuse. He had over 190 years to learn about Newton's First Law before publishing the errors on these pages in EnaG.