[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

Powerful stuff, Rama Set and Ofcourseitsnotflat. Powerful stuff, indeed.

Yet another Flat Earth Victory

[BillO]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[BillO]

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”

[HorstFue]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[BillO]

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...

[edby]

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".

[Rama Set]

The link in reply #34 @edby

[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.

[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 .

[Rama Set]

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?

[edby]

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.

[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"?