The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: nickrulercreator on July 28, 2018, 04:12:06 AM
-
In Chapter III - THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm), Rowbotham proposes an experiment to test if the Earth is rotating. It goes like this:
Picture a ball on a ship. If you drop the ball from the top of the mast, and the ship is stationary, the ball will fall straight down. If the ship is in motion and you drop the ball, then the ball, relative to the mast, will still drop straight down. This is a result of the ball's momentum given to it by the ship. He relates this to the different models of the Earth. If the Earth was stationary and you dropped a ball, the ball will go straight down, and the same for a rotating Earth.
Rowbotham then proposes that to test whether Earth rotates, you must throw a ball straight up while the ship is in motion. He gives us this image:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig47.jpg)
His text goes as is:
put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.
Rowbotham then says that, because when we throw a ball into the air while standing on Earth's surface, and it does not stop at its peak altitude, this means Earth's surface is not moving under the ball, and thus it is stationary.
This makes no sense. What would cause the ball to lose all horizontal velocity at D? Why would the ball not continue in the horizontal direction as it falls, just as it moved in the horizontal direction as it rose? In real life, if you threw the ball upward while the ship was in motion, it would travel in a vertical line relative to the ship. It would not stop at its maximum altitude, like Rowbotham claims. That's pure nonsense.
This doesn't prove the Earth is flat or round, it just proves Rowbotham was very wrong in his experiment.
-
Yes, unless we're both missing the same thing, that does appear to be a particularly egregious misunderstanding of classical mechanics.
I mean, if the experiment were to be performed, we would indeed most likely see the ball lag behind the ship to some extent due to drag, but that's obviously not transferable to the scenario of the rotating round Earth.
In short, I agree that the triangular trajectory is nonsense - it should be a parabola, although it could still illustrate the point he's trying to make when corrected. Nonetheless, his point would still not be applicable here, and the experiment would not be conclusive.
-
One should not trust Rowbotham’s experiments as a general rule. They have pretty much all been shown to be badly conceived and/or executed.
-
Yes, unless we're both missing the same thing, that does appear to be a particularly egregious misunderstanding of classical mechanics.
If there anyone appears, to have a "particularly egregious misunderstanding of classical mechanics" than it's Mr. R..
I mean, if the experiment were to be performed, we would indeed most likely see the ball lag behind the ship to some extent due to drag, but that's obviously not transferable to the scenario of the rotating round Earth.
Momentum conservation: The ball initially has the same horizontal speed as the ship. This monument and thus the horizontal speed of the ball does not change, unless some other force would be applied to the ball. I see non, unless some tiny air friction.
As the ball has the same horizontal speed as the ship (and the ship does not change speed), it will always be exactly above the point, where it had been thrown vertically up in the air and when it comes down will nearly hit the same point.
The interesting thing is, that R. even described a separate "experiment" for that part, where the ball goes down again. And came to the conclusion, that ship's motion is not relevant:
IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow
In short, I agree that the triangular trajectory is nonsense - it should be a parabola, although it could still illustrate the point he's trying to make when corrected. Nonetheless, his point would still not be applicable here, and the experiment would not be conclusive.
If R. paints the course of the ball as a straight line, than "the triangular trajectory is nonsense - it should be a parabola" is another hint, that R. does not understand classical mechanics.
Nevertheless I agree, that this experiment does not proof anything.
-
Rowbotham is describing movement between points in space in his text and the illustrator from the book company, George Davies, drew lines between the points described. Rowbotham didn't draw that. Are you next going to tell us that Rowbotham is invalid because the illustrator drew the Round Earth more curvy than it is in some of the other illustrations?
The chapter has nothing to do with parabolic motion. Read: Nothing to do with it! It is not a tutorial on parabolic motion.
Also, where does it say in the chapter whether the ship is accelerating or moving at a constant speed?
-
Rowbotham is describing movement between points in space in his text and the illustrator from the book company drew lines between the points. Rowbotham didn't draw that. Are you next going to tell us that Rowbotham is invalid because the illustrator drew the Round Earth more curvy than it really is in other illustrations?
The chapter has nothing to do with parabolic motion. Read: Nothing to do with it! It is not a tutorial on parabolic motion.
Also, where does it say in the chapter whether the ship is accelerating or moving at a constant speed.
What a nice cop-out, “I know it’s Rowbotham’s book, and he almost certainly had final say on the illustrations, but it’s not his fault!”
Tom literally thinks Rowbotham is perfect.
-
You apparently have never worked in a group project before. Interpretations don't always click, and you can't always make your coworkers re-do everything.
It is easily argued by the publisher that the lines between the points was good enough and parabolic motion complicates things. If Rowbotham objects and the illustrator puts this in the book:
(https://i.imgur.com/W9k67C2.png)
Then Rowbotham has to rewrite everything and explain what it is. A pointless exercise, considering the matter had nothing to do with what was being described. The publisher can easily veto pointless rewrites like that. There are such a thing as deadlines and budgets. The publisher is the one who is paying the illustrator, not Rowbotham.
-
You apparently have never worked in a group project before. Interpretations don't always click, and you can't always make your coworkers re-do everything.
It is easily argued by the publisher that the lines between the points was good enough and parabolic motion complicates things. If Rowbotham objects and the illustrator puts this in the book:
(https://i.imgur.com/W9k67C2.png)
Then Rowbotham has to rewrite everything and explain what it is. A pointless exercise, considering the matter had nothing to do with what was being described. The publisher can easily veto pointless rewrites like that. There are such a thing as deadlines and budgets. The publisher is the one who is paying the illustrator, not Rowbotham.
So you are saying R's argument would be perfectly valid, had he drawn a parabola instead of a triangle? But isn't the argument invalid under classical mechanics anyway? Classical mechanics says you cannot distinguish between a moving surface and a stationary one simply by throwing objects in the air.
-
If anyone wants to see this demonstrated, just look at the opening scene of the first episode of Young Sheldon.
Replace ship with model train. One carriage contains a vertical air-driven firing tube to fire a ball upward. Device fires ball up before train enters model tunnel. Ball continues moving at same rate as train, moves over tunnel as train moves under, and drops back into firing tube as train exits tunnel. The ball is not left behind by the train.
I would post a video if I could, but copyright seems to be preventing any appearances on YouTube or suchlike.
-
To the above posts:
Where does it say that the ship was moving at a constant speed?
From what I can see the ship was stationary and then put into motion; it accelerated. You are reading what you want to read.
-
Also, where does it say in the chapter whether the ship is accelerating or moving at a constant speed?
The text says "put the ship in motion", doesn't it?
Well, there's three alternatives;
Ship at constant speed
Ship accelerating (speeding up)
Ship decelerating (slowing down)
You appear to suggest neither of the first two apply; are you explicitly saying the ship was slowing down? Or are you merely accepting that the conditions of the experiment are badly or unclearly stated?
-
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration. The ship is accelerating, and leaves the ball behind. The same happens with the next example.
The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig48.jpg)
FIG. 48.
from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; but during the time of its fall from D to B, the carriage will have advanced to S, leaving the ball behind at B, as in the case of the ship in the last experiment.
Look at the spacing of the trains. Accelerating. The ball is left behind. True.
The illustrator also made it look like the ball hit the train again, but if you read the text it is clearly conveyed what Rowbotham is describing.
-
You apparently have never worked in a group project before. Interpretations don't always click, and you can't always make your coworkers re-do everything.
The illustrator was a co-worker? Or an employee? How do you even know?Either way, it’s very shoddy to put out a technical drawing that doesn’t describe what you want. It’s even worse if you don’t realize the drawing doesn’t describe what you want. Take your pick.
-
If anyone wants to see this demonstrated, just look at the opening scene of the first episode of Young Sheldon.
... I would post a video if I could, but copyright seems to be preventing any appearances on YouTube or suchlike.
Found it. At 1min3secs approx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbS_hbc8vUA
-
The ship is accelerating, and leaves the ball behind. The same happens with the next example.
The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion
But there's no mention of acceleration in the text, just "motion" or "rapid motion" ... and no indication that the spacing between trains indicates differing rates of motion between them.
The spacing between ships, IF this is taken as an indicator, would seem to show the ship slowing down, wouldn't it?
-
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration.
(1) Rowbotham uses the term ‘rapid motion’, not ‘acceleration’. These have a different meaning. And (2) if he did mean acceleration, his argument would be valid only if the earth had an angular acceleration. Is that what Rowbotham’s argument is aimed against, i.e. an accelerating earth? Where does he say this?
-
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration.
(1) Rowbotham uses the term ‘rapid motion’, not ‘acceleration’. These have a different meaning. And (2) if he did mean acceleration, his argument would be valid only if the earth had an angular acceleration. Is that what Rowbotham’s argument is aimed against, i.e. an accelerating earth? Where does he say this?
Rotating bodies do exhibit acceleration on the surface.
-
The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him.
He does not say the horse is accelerating.
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.
He says ‘600 miles per hour’ and ‘velocity’, not ‘acceleration’. This is where he argues that if the earth were moving, a cannon ball fired absolutely vertically in the air, would land somewhat behind the mouth of the cannon. He seems not to have understood momentum.
-
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration.
(1) Rowbotham uses the term ‘rapid motion’, not ‘acceleration’. These have a different meaning. And (2) if he did mean acceleration, his argument would be valid only if the earth had an angular acceleration. Is that what Rowbotham’s argument is aimed against, i.e. an accelerating earth? Where does he say this?
Rotating bodies do exhibit acceleration on the surface.
This is entirely incorrect, unless there is angular acceleration. But there is no angular acceleration of the earth. It rotates at a constant angular velocity.
-
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration.
(1) Rowbotham uses the term ‘rapid motion’, not ‘acceleration’. These have a different meaning. And (2) if he did mean acceleration, his argument would be valid only if the earth had an angular acceleration. Is that what Rowbotham’s argument is aimed against, i.e. an accelerating earth? Where does he say this?
Rotating bodies do exhibit acceleration on the surface.
This is entirely incorrect, unless there is angular acceleration.
Get onto a merry-go-round that is rotating at a 'constant speed' and see if you can throw a ball up straight into the air and get it to fall back into its same position with you.
-
Get onto a merry-go-round that is rotating at a 'constant speed' and see if you can throw a ball up straight into the air and get it to fall back into its same position with you.
The ball has a tiny gravitational attraction to the merry-go-round.
[edit] Also, you are changing the subject. Rowbotham's examples are of objects moving with a constant velocity, and with no rotation. He seems to think you can tell whether you are on a moving earth or not just by throwing objects up in the air. This is entirely false.
-
Get onto a merry-go-round that is rotating at a 'constant speed' and see if you can throw a ball up straight into the air and get it to fall back into its same position with you.
The ball has a tiny gravitational attraction to the merry-go-round.
Now we are just introducing more things.
If the merry-go-round was in space, and the floor of the merry-go-round was as attractive as the earth would be, I don't see how the ball would behave any differently.
The merry-go-round is spinning beneath the ball. Why would the ball follow the spin rather than going in a straight path? The ball is equally attracted to the floor of the merry-go-round if it just travels in a straight path.
-
I repeat, please do not change the subject. Happy to discuss merry go rounds somewhere else, but R does not mention merry go rounds in that chapter.
Rowbotham's examples are of objects moving with a constant velocity, and with no rotation. He seems to think you can tell whether you are on a moving earth or not just by throwing objects up in the air. This is entirely false.
Again:
The juggler standing in the ring, on the solid ground, throws his balls as vertically as he can, and they return to his hand; but when on the back of a rapidly-moving horse, he should throw the balls vertically, before they fell back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him.
He does not say the horse is accelerating.
-
I see. Changing the topic when you have backed yourself into a corner on "rotating bodies don't cause acceleration." Good idea.
Horses can accelerate. What makes you think that they cannot?
Rowbotham's examples are of objects moving with a constant velocity
Then I expect that you will be able to quote where the horse, ship, or train are specified to be moving at a "constant velocity."
-
Horses can accelerate. What makes you think that they cannot?
Rowbotham's examples are of objects moving with a constant velocity
Then I expect that you will be able to quote where the horse, ship, or train are specified to be moving at a "constant velocity."
Very interesting. Let's suppose he does mean 'acceleration' rather than 'rapid motion', although he does not say so.
Then suppose R's arguments concern accelerating objects only? How is this relevant to the movement of the earth, then?
-
Then suppose R's arguments concern accelerating objects only? How is this relevant to the movement of the earth, then?
Rotating bodies exhibit acceleration. See the merry-go-round example.
-
Then suppose R's arguments concern accelerating objects only? How is this relevant to the movement of the earth, then?
Rotating bodies exhibit acceleration. See the merry-go-round example.
Why is the rotation of the earth relevant to the merry go round?
-
Then suppose R's arguments concern accelerating objects only? How is this relevant to the movement of the earth, then?
Rotating bodies exhibit acceleration. See the merry-go-round example.
Now slow the merry go round to making one rotation every day and see what the ball does. Do it again, but only throw the ball 1/100,000th of the diameter and see what happens.
-
If there anyone appears, to have a "particularly egregious misunderstanding of classical mechanics" than it's Mr. R..
You misunderstood literally every word of what I said. I agreed that Rowbotham is misunderstanding Newtonian mechanics, and yet you felt the need to try to explain the same to me.
You also proceeded to respond to my point on why we need to consider more than just the conservation of momentum... by stating what the conservation of momentum is.
Buddy. Take a deep breath. I already agreed with the RET side in this thread. There's no need for you to present bad arguments for RET.
-
Now slow the merry go round to making one rotation every day and see what the ball does. Do it again, but only throw the ball 1/100,000th of the diameter and see what happens.
But this is not a precise analogy. If I throw a ball into the air, I am throwing it along its radius. If I throw it up from a merry go round, I am throwing it perpendicular to the radius.
What you say is also true, of course.
-
Then suppose R's arguments concern accelerating objects only? How is this relevant to the movement of the earth, then?
Rotating bodies exhibit acceleration. See the merry-go-round example.
Now slow the merry go round to making one rotation every day and see what the ball does. Do it again, but only throw the ball 1/100,000th of the diameter and see what happens.
The earth should have some kind of measurable deflection. See the works of Tycho Brahe, an astronomer, one of the greatest in history in fact, who concluded with various cannon experiments that the earth was stationary.
The astronomer Giovanni Riccioli describes the experiments and agrees that astronomers who are trying to downplay or deny the results of such experiments are providing a weak explanation.
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.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less annual, motion.
-
The earth should have some kind of measurable deflection.
But not measurable by crude experiments with cannon balls and horses.
Riccioli concludes in the pdf with:
None of the above examples of what should happen if the Earth moves are in accord with what we see. Therefore, the Earth does not move with diurnal, much less annual, motion.
But Riccioli was wrong, correct?
-
Now, they were wrong about the effect not existing. The effect exists, but it is much harder to observe than one might expect. Indeed, even Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke in 1679-1680 tried, without success, to use the effect to prove Earth’s rotation. https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/frs-riccioli-dechales-science-shows-earth-rest-coriolis-effect/
I believe we have discussed this before, Tom.
-
Ah yes - before my time, but here we are:
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
So there is a small and very difficult to detect phenomenon, and it is caused by the stars. Why all the stuff about cannon balls and horses then?
-
Ah yes - before my time, but here we are:
The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.
So there is a small and very difficult to detect phenomenon, and it is caused by the stars. Why all the stuff about cannon balls and horses then?
The Coriolis Effect is a slight effect, but it does not really describe what the rotating earth should predict.
Look into Airy's Failure, the Sagnac Experiment, et all. There are a ton of experiments which suggests that that the earth does not rotate.
Curious Squirrel posted a good link:
.
Try looking up any calculation of the matter. But in particular relevance I'll just link this again as perhaps you missed my edit earlier with it.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R
I read through this article. The commentary tends to assert that the object motion experiments did not perform so well in matching the predictions made by astronomers for their (downplayed) Copernican calculations of how the rotational force should operate.
The author even states that there has never been experimental proof for the theories on the meridional deviation of falling bodies:
(https://i.imgur.com/dqqWdFl.png)
"Universally admitted" but "never met with an experimental proof."
-
The Coriolis Effect is a slight effect, but it does not really describe what the rotating earth should predict.
OK we agree on that then. Phew. But this thread is about R's 'experiment in Zetetic Astronomy', which tried to measure the effect by throwing tennis balls in the air, jumping off horses or whatnot. He concluded there was no such effect, because he couldn't see one. But (a) the effect is 'so slight' that it could exist without him observing it through such crude experiments and (b) it does exist anyway, as we now both agree, as so he was wrong.
-
Rowbotham is describing movement between points in space in his text and the illustrator from the book company, George Davies, drew lines between the points described.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig47.jpg)
put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.
No, clearly he says: "but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D." This is why the illustrator drew it that way.
Next he states that the ball's forward motion will come to an abrupt stop at D: "the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H" and state this is because the: "two forces will have been expended". What is 'expending' the two forces? The force of gravity is always acting on the ball, the net force that launched it in the first place was done once the ball was in flight and traveling with momentum. What would suddenly reduce it's forward momentum to zero at D? This would and does not happen. Rowbotham is wrong!
Rowbotham is talking about acceleration. The ship is accelerating, and leaves the ball behind. The same happens with the next example.
The same result will be observed on throwing a ball upwards from a railway carriage, when in rapid motion, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 48. While the carriage or tender passes
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig48.jpg)
FIG. 48.
from A to B, the ball thrown upwards, from A towards (2, will reach the position D; but during the time of its fall from D to B, the carriage will have advanced to S, leaving the ball behind at B, as in the case of the ship in the last experiment.
Look at the spacing of the trains. Accelerating. The ball is left behind. True.
The illustrator also made it look like the ball hit the train again, but if you read the text it is clearly conveyed what Rowbotham is describing.
So, the illustrator can't get the other drawings right, but he get's this 'acceleration' (that is never mentioned by Rowbotham), just right perfect - maybe because now his ineptness supports your point? LOL!
Get onto a merry-go-round that is rotating at a 'constant speed' and see if you can throw a ball up straight into the air and get it to fall back into its same position with you.
...
If the merry-go-round was in space, and the floor of the merry-go-round was as attractive as the earth would be, I don't see how the ball would behave any differently.
A merry-go-round is not the same situation as throwing something up from the surface of the spherical earth, as you know well enough. However, it would be similar to what would happen on a flat earth (like in your 2nd comment above), and since what happens on a merry-go-round is not what we see when we toss a ball in the air form the surface, the the earth can't be flat, can it?
-
WhThe Coriolis Effect is a slight effect, but it does not really describe what the rotating earth should predict.
Look into Airy's Failure, the Sagnac Experiment, et all. There are a ton of experiments which suggests that that the earth does not rotate.
These are experiments looking for the Luminiferous Ether. What do they have to do with the Coriolis effect?
-
Experiments should have been able to pick it up. Did you think that measuring tools and math was invented in the last fifty years or something?
It says right there on the Harvard / NASA library link in my last post. The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof.
-
Experiments should have been able to pick it up. Did you think that measuring tools and math was invented in the last fifty years or something?
It says right there on the Harvard / NASA library link in my last post. The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof.
That's not what it says and unfortunately for you, the rotation of the earth needs no experiment to show its existence, it has been observed directly.
-
I see. In the face of a medley of researchers and astronomers telling you that no rotational evidence has been detected, the response is "nah uh".
Powerful.
-
It says right there on the Harvard / NASA library link in my last post. The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof.
.. but there's all manner of observational proofs.
-
I see. In the face of a medley of researchers and astronomers telling you that no rotational evidence has been detected, the response is "nah uh".
Powerful.
You haven't presented that at all. I find the direct observation of a rotating earth, on the other hand, to be very powerful.
-
Powerful stuff, Rama Set and Ofcourseitsnotflat. Powerful stuff, indeed.
Yet another Flat Earth Victory
-
I see. In the face of a medley of researchers and astronomers telling you that no rotational evidence has been detected, the response is "nah uh".
Powerful.
Oh get off it. He is right, that is not what it says. Eastern deviation was clearly found and verified in several of the experiments. That is enough to verify the rotation of the earth unequivocally . What it does say is that the southern deviation has never been verified, but the stated reason is that the measurement was smaller than the experimental error - not that it's not there, just that no experiment has been sensitive and precise enough to show it. However, it's not required to demonstrate the eath's rotation.
I don't know what to think about you Tom, because that article is well and clearly written and damnably difficult not to understand.
-
I see. In the face of a medley of researchers and astronomers telling you that no rotational evidence has been detected, the response is "nah uh".
Powerful.
Oh get off it. He is right, that is not what it says. Eastern deviation was clearly found and verified in several of the experiments. That is enough to verify the rotation of the earth unequivocally . What it does say is that the southern deviation has never been verified, but the stated reason is that the measurement was smaller than the experimental error - not that it's not there, just that no experiment has been sensitive and precise enough to show it. However, it's not required to demonstrate the eath's rotation.
I don't know what to think about you Tom, because that article is well and clearly written and damnably difficult not to understand.
Read what edby is talking about in my response to him.
Slight eastern deviation is due to the Coriolis Effect. It is also seen in Focault's Pendulum. We call it Celestial Gravitation.
The Round Earth Theory predicts more than that; and the paper shows that it fails.
It doesn't say anything about "no experiment is sensitive enough" in the quote I provided. You are just making things up.
-
No it says clearly that they measured southern deviation, but that it was bigger than their probable error. But you know what, it’s moot since the Earth has been directly observed as rotating.
-
Read what edby is talking about in my response to him.
Slight eastern deviation is due to the Coriolis Effect. It is also seen in Focault's Pendulum. We call it Celestial Gravitation.
Which is only seen with rotation. As I said that is enough to verify the rotation of the earth unequivocally.
The Round Earth Theory predicts more than that; and the paper shows that it fails.
It doesn't say anything about "no experiment is sensitive enough" in the quote I provided. You are just making things up.
Now you're just being obtuse again. From the article you quoted: “Laplace and Gauss declared it (the southern deviation) to be practically insensible, and Bertram says that in latitude 45 degrees with a ten second fall it would not be more than the one-hundredth of a millimeter”
Laplace and Gauss come right out and say it - Bertram's comment, taken together with the errors in results mentioned in the article make it plain - to those who can read anyway.
-
Read what edby is talking about in my response to him.
Slight eastern deviation is due to the Coriolis Effect. It is also seen in Focault's Pendulum. We call it Celestial Gravitation.
Which is only seen with rotation. As I said that is enough to verify the rotation of the earth unequivocally.
The Round Earth Theory predicts more than that; and the paper shows that it fails.
It doesn't say anything about "no experiment is sensitive enough" in the quote I provided. You are just making things up.
Now you're just being obtuse again. From the article you quoted: “Laplace and Gauss declared it (the southern deviation) to be practically insensible, and Bertram says that in latitude 45 degrees with a ten second fall it would not be more than the one-hundredth of a millimeter”
Laplace and Gauss come right out and say it - Bertram's comment, taken together with the errors in results mentioned in the article make it plain - to those who can read anyway.
Laplace and Gauss declared the results of the experiment to be practically insensible, because they say that a southerly deviation must exist.
Why the flip would they do an experiment looking for southerly deviation if the expected results were that it was unable to be measured?
Your interpretation of this is very poor. Bertram tries to trivialize the matter, as Riccoli explained that they try to do. Laplace and Gauss know how to do math. They say that the results were insensible. We know why.
-
Laplace and Gauss declared the results of the experiment to be practically insensible, because they say that a southerly deviation must exist.
NO They were talking about the southerly deviation.
Read:
“This much-discussed meridional deviation of a falling body is nothing but the the effect of the earth’s centrifugal force, which has driven its surface fluids towards the equator and made the equatorial diameter about 26 miles longer than the polar. While the existence of this force is universally admitted, it has, however, never met with experimental proof. Laplace and Gauss declared it to be practically insensible, and Bertram says that in latitude 45 degrees with a ten second fall it would not be more than the one-hundredth of a millimeter”
-
What are the next theories for debating this topic? Kepler's and Newton's laws, "Celestial mechanics", N Body problem, Chaos Theory, ...
Sorry, what are you debating here? I call this distraction!
The OP was a question regarding a experiment based on simple mechanics.
And the question or claim was not, if earth is rotating or not. Just a query, if anyone could give an explanation for these in-comprehensive conclusions from Mr. R..
And I too cannot follow Mr. R.'s conclusions. I doubt, that he even tried to perform this experiment with the ship by himself, in real world.
-
Laplace and Gauss declared the results of the experiment to be practically insensible, because they say that a southerly deviation must exist.
NO They were talking about the southerly deviation.
Read:
“This much-discussed meridional deviation of a falling body is nothing but the the effect of the earth’s centrifugal force, which has driven its surface fluids towards the equator and made the equatorial diameter about 26 miles longer than the polar. While the existence of this force is universally admitted, it has, however, never met with experimental proof. Laplace and Gauss declared it to be practically insensible, and Bertram says that in latitude 45 degrees with a ten second fall it would not be more than the one-hundredth of a millimeter”
It's still talking about the ten second fall experiment. The sentences you quoted are from that section. Laplace and Gauss call the results 'practically insensible' and Bertram tries to trivialize away the ten second fall experiment.
Reading Comprehension
"Laplace and Gauss declared it to be practically insensible, and Bertram says that in latitude 45 degrees with a ten second fall it would not be more than the one-hundredth of a millimeter"
This sentence is either talking about the idea of southerly deviation altogether or the results of the ten second fall experiment.
Are they talking about Southerly Deviation?
What, the first part of the sentence is talking about southerly declination and then the second part of the sentence is talking about the results of the ten second experiment?
No. Stop being dishonest. It's talking about the same thing: The results of the ten second experiment.
-
I agree, they are both talking about the same thing. The southerly deviation.
Laplace and Gauss say it is "insensible"
in·sen·si·ble
adjective
3. too small or gradual to be perceived; inappreciable.
Bertram says if you do an experiment at 45 degree latitude (I assume he means north) that has a 10 second fall it would amount to not more than one-hundredth of a millimeter.
You are the one displaying intellectual dishonesty. Their meaning is obvious.
I have said my piece on this. Have the last word...
-
Experiments should have been able to pick it up. Did you think that measuring tools and math was invented in the last fifty years or something?
It says right there on the Harvard / NASA library link in my last post. The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof.
That's not what it says and unfortunately for you, the rotation of the earth needs no experiment to show its existence, it has been observed directly.
Which paper is this? There are a few old papers on the subject I found. None claim that "The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof".
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
-
Here is a good article on the history https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7922.pdf of the subjest. There are many proofs of the earth’s rotation. The one of Foucault is perhaps the best known. The article discusses an different proof by Bravais.
Foucault type oscillations are obtained when the bob is moved away from the equilibrium position and then released with zero initial velocity. In an inertial reference frame the pendulum would oscillate in a fixed plane. Due to the Earth’s rotation, we observe this plane to rotate. Thus the trajectory followed by the bob produces the well-known beautiful patterns, which are the proof of Earth’s rotation. Instead, Bravais pendulum refers to conical oscillations of the bob. To this end, the bob is released from a non equilibrium point with a precise tangential speed in such a way that the projection of the trajectory on the horizontal plane describes simply a circumference. What renders Bravais pendulum interesting is that the trajectories are not invariant under sign reversal in the initial tangential velocities, as a consequence of Earth’s rotation. It is just this phenomenon that led Bravais to propose the pendulum as an experimental demonstration of Earth’s rotation.
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
You were the one who wanted to know where it is. Am I missing something?
-
Some of the arguments in this thread are interesting.
Rowbotham's examples are of objects moving with a constant velocity
Then I expect that you will be able to quote where the horse, ship, or train are specified to be moving at a "constant velocity."
Tom is right. There is nowhere in Rowbotham where he says that the objects are specified to be moving at a "constant velocity."
I was using what logicians call ‘argument from silence’, i.e. if Rowbotham had meant to say the objects were accelerating, he would have said so, rather than remaining silent.
There is also the Maxim of Quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more, https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html. Since we would need the information that acceleration was an important assumption, and since Rowbotham did not provide it, the Maxim of Quantity says assume no acceleration.
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
You were the one who wanted to know where it is. Am I missing something?
Possibly I am being very stupid. I didn't want to know where the link was. Why did you post "The link in reply #34 @edby"?
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
You were the one who wanted to know where it is. Am I missing something?
Possibly I am being very stupid. I didn't want to know where the link was. Why did you post "The link in reply #34 @edby"?
Because I thought you wanted to know where the link was. And so the cycle continues....
-
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
You were the one who wanted to know where it is. Am I missing something?
Possibly I am being very stupid. I didn't want to know where the link was. Why did you post "The link in reply #34 @edby"?
Because I thought you wanted to know where the link was. And so the cycle continues....
Ah this link http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R ? Rigge.
Right. And as you say, Rigge never says ""The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof". Rather, he discusses the most famous proof (Foucault) and mentions some others.
Yet according to Tom, the paper says "The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof". Why would Tom say that?
-
Because Tom literally writes in headlines. If it is bold and attention-seeking then he will write it, he literally could care less if he is right.
-
I agree, they are both talking about the same thing. The southerly deviation.
Laplace and Gauss say it is "insensible"
in·sen·si·ble
adjective
3. too small or gradual to be perceived; inappreciable.
You cut out the first two definitions of insensible. The fact that the scientists of the time were looking for this "undetectable" thing shows that the matter was not agreed upon.
The link in reply #34 @edby
Just click on the link in the quote, but here it is https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27395#msg27395 .
You were the one who wanted to know where it is. Am I missing something?
Possibly I am being very stupid. I didn't want to know where the link was. Why did you post "The link in reply #34 @edby"?
Because I thought you wanted to know where the link was. And so the cycle continues....
Ah this link http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1913PA.....21..208R ? Rigge.
Right. And as you say, Rigge never says ""The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof". Rather, he discusses the most famous proof (Foucault) and mentions some others.
Yet according to Tom, the paper says "The rotation of the earth has never been met with an experimental proof". Why would Tom say that?
Focault's Pendulum is explained by Mach's Principal. It is not enough to demonstrate that the earth rotates.
Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
A rotating earth must do specific things, and this was addressed by Tycho Brahe, whose organization demonstrated that the earth did not rotate.
-
Focault's Pendulum is explained by Mach's Principal. It is not enough to demonstrate that the earth rotates.
Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
A rotating earth must do specific things, and this was addressed by Tycho Brahe, whose organization demonstrated that the earth did not rotate.
Where does it say this in the paper you quoted?