The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Gulliver on May 05, 2014, 06:11:59 AM
-
I thought it'd be enlightening to critique EnaG a part at a time. I'll try to critique a paragraph or several (up to a page), roughly in order, each day or so.
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; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.
This page fails quickly. Momentum is not a force. There is only one force acting on the falling ball. It's caused by gravity. Furthermore, R. forgets to specify vital assumptions. For example. he assumes that the ship's velocity is constant. And there's yet another level of error in this one paragraph. The observer's position (and motion) influences what path he (or she) perceives the ball takes. So this first page is riddled with errors. One has to start to wonder why FEers refer to this book at all.
-
This page fails quickly. Momentum is not a force. There is only one force acting on the falling ball. It's caused by gravity.
Was momentum often spoken of as a force as the typical lexicon in the 1800's? Newton spoke of momentum as a force.
Furthermore, R. forgets to specify vital assumptions. For example. he assumes that the ship's velocity is constant.
Why can't he assume the ship is traveling constantly in his own thought experiment? ???
And there's yet another level of error in this one paragraph. The observer's position (and motion) influences what path he (or she) perceives the ball takes.
Rowbotham is talking about a moving ship, and provides illustrations from an observer looking at it from the outside. The implications of what was meant is clear.
Next time please try to make your threads more interesting.
-
Newton spoke of momentum as a force.
Please provide objective, verifiable evidence of this outlandish claim.
ETA: Even if Newton made the same mistake, it's still a mistake invalidating this entire chapter. Are you really sure about referencing EnaG as accurate?
-
Furthermore, R. forgets to specify vital assumptions. For example. he assumes that the ship's velocity is constant.
Why can't he assume the ship is traveling constantly in his own thought experiment? ???
You're not paying attention. I've said nothing about R's inability to make assumption.
-
And there's yet another level of error in this one paragraph. The observer's position (and motion) influences what path he (or she) perceives the ball takes.
Rowbotham is talking about a moving ship, and provides illustrations from an observer looking at it from the outside. The implications of what was meant is clear.
Next time please try to make your threads more interesting.
How can you tell the position, motion, and acceleration of the observer? Surely a good scientist would provide those details as they influence his experiment.
-
The ball passing from A to C, by the force of gravity, and having, at the moment of its liberation, received a momentum . from the moving ship in the direction A, B, will, by the conjoint action of the two forces A, B, and A, C, take the direction A, D, falling at D, just as it would have fallen at C, had the vessel remained at rest.
It is argued by those who hold that the earth is a revolving globe, that if a ball is dropped from the mouth of a deep mine, it reaches the bottom in an apparently vertical direction, the same as it would if the earth were motionless. In the same way, and from the same cause, it is said that a ball allowed to drop from the top of a tower, will fall at the base. Admitting the fact that a ball dropped down a mine, or let fall from a high tower, reaches the bottom in a direction parallel to the side of either, it does not follow therefrom that the earth moves. It only follows that the earth might move, and yet allow of such a result. It is certain that such a result would occur on a stationary earth; and it is mathematically demonstrable that it would also occur on a revolving earth; but the question of motion or non-motion--of which is the fact it does not decide. It gives no proof that the ball falls in a vertical or in a diagonal direction. Hence, it is logically valueless. We must begin the enquiry with an experiment which does not involve a supposition or an ambiguity, but which will decide whether motion does actually or actually does not exist. It is certain, then, that the path of a ball, dropped from the mast-head of a stationary ship will be vertical.
No. the ball does not receive its momentum from the ship, or at the moment of its liberation. The ball has its horizontal momentum when it "went on board".
Since the ball, the top of the mine (or tower), and the bottom of the tower all are traveling horizontally at the same velocity (Technically the top of a one-mile-high tower travels 0.00000160868 mph faster) RET agrees with reality.
Finally, R. makes his all-too-typical error in reasoning. If he can't find evidence of RET, especially failing to do the math involved, RET must be false. Failing to find evidence to support a thesis does not disprove the thesis.
With yet another page destroyed with such little effort and demonstrating R.'s failure to reason, I increasingly have to wonder why FEers reference this text.
-
Failing to find evidence to support a thesis does not disprove the thesis.
This is not always true. A null result is what effectively disproved the luminiferous ether hypothesis.
-
Failing to find evidence to support a thesis does not disprove the thesis.
This is not always true. A null result is what effectively disproved the luminiferous ether hypothesis.
You're half right. If a theory makes a prediction and an experiment can measure whether it does or not, then a theory may be disproved by running that experiment. M&M did a great job of accounting for all the possibilities, such as seasonal and dragging. R. doesn't show that his experiment fits that category. He fails.
Confer: http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample2.html
-
It is also certain that, dropped down a deep mine, or from the top of a high tower, upon a stationary earth, it would be vertical. It is equally certain that, dropped from the mast-head of a moving ship, it would be diagonal; so also upon a moving earth it would be diagonal. And as a matter of necessity, that which follows in one case would follow in every other case, if, in each, the conditions were the same. Now let the experiment shown in fig. 46 be modified in the following way:--
Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now 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
No, a ball dropped from the masthead of a uniformly moving ship would NOT move on the diagonal, but in an arc prescribed by gravity's acceleration on the ball Through this page, R. fails to understand the difference between acceleration and uniform motion. Furthermore, R. fails to separate instantaneous acceleration, as in throwing the ball and constant acceleration when dropping a ball. So...no diagonal paths here, but plenty of R. failure.
Why do FEers revere this book?
-
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.
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
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.
The same phenomenon would be observed in a circus, during the performance of a juggler on horseback, were it not that the balls employed are thrown more or less forward, according to the rapidity of the horse's motion. 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.
Well, this page just continues the physics mistakes from the start of this chapter. But I can't help but point out that there's only one force and it's not "expended". Gravity still acts on the ball, even after it come to rest on the deck.
How can FEers reference EnaG when R. continues to make such sophomoric errors?
-
I totally appreciate what you are doing but perhaps you could critique larger passages at a time or even make each new critique a new post rather than a new thread? This is a little spammy.
Thanks!
-
I totally appreciate what you are doing but perhaps you could critique larger passages at a time or even make each new critique a new post rather than a new thread? This is a little spammy.
Thanks!
Good point. I've merged the threads. Gulliver, please try to contain your critique of ENaG to a single thread. Thanks.
-
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.
Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=scCKGWQrTYIC&lpg=PA311&ots=h8IjOkzg8F&dq=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&f=false):
"Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"
Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.
Yawn.
-
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.
Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=scCKGWQrTYIC&lpg=PA311&ots=h8IjOkzg8F&dq=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&f=false):
"Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"
Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.
Yawn.
So you're arguing the someone else made this mistake, so it's okay that R. did too. You really should choose your "scientist" better. If R. didn't study _Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_(first published in 1687, 196 years before EnaG), then I don't see why you'd rely on his understanding of kinetics in the first place. Oh, and remember you claimed that Newton used "force" incorrectly. We're still waiting on your answer to the challenge to provide evidence of your claim.
From a grade-school level text:
A straight line inside a shape that goes from one corner to another (but not an edge).
-
wouldn't it be instead of the ball falling in an arc it would fall straight and the ship would move giving the appearance of the ball falling on an angle
-
It is pretty well known that the usage of the word "force" was used differently in prior eras.
Thermal-Fluid Sciences: An Integrated Approach, Volume 1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=scCKGWQrTYIC&lpg=PA311&ots=h8IjOkzg8F&dq=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q=1800's%20%22the%20word%20force%22&f=false):
"Parenthetical material has been added; in the mid 1800s, the word force commonly meant energy [4, 5]"
Per falling in an arc, Rowbotham describes that the ball moved diagonally from point A to point B, which it does even when falling in an arc. Moving diagonally is an accurate description. A ball can fall in an arc diagonally. The subject of the ball's motion is not in scope of the text, or pertinent.
Yawn.
So you're arguing the someone else made this mistake, so it's okay that R. did too. You really should choose your "scientist" better. If R. didn't study _Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_(first published in 1687, 196 years before EnaG), then I don't see why you'd rely on his understanding of kinetics in the first place. Oh, and remember you claimed that Newton used "force" incorrectly. We're still waiting on your answer to the challenge to provide evidence of your claim.
Words change meaning over time.
From a grade-school level text: A straight line inside a shape that goes from one corner to another (but not an edge).
One can move in a diagonal direction, or diagonally, without necessarily traveling in a straight line.
The prases 'moving diagionally', 'diagonal', and 'diagionally' != 'diagonal line'
For example, we have an empty chess board. If we place a rook on it, and use its L shaped moves to travel from one corner of the board to the other, it can be said to be moving diagonally across the chess board.
These arguments are incredibly weak. I would suggest coming up with something stronger, lest it further besmirch your character.
-
Words change meaning over time.
Yes, some do. But Newton wrote in terms that the scientific community had agreed upon, 200 years before EnaG. Also from context. R. clearly considers the ship motion's as imparting a force just like gravity.One can move in a diagonal direction, or diagonally, without necessarily traveling in a straight line.
The prases 'moving diagionally', 'diagonal', and 'diagionally' != 'diagonal line'
For example, we have an empty chess board. If we place a rook on it, and use its L shaped moves to travel from one corner of the board to the other, it can be said to be moving diagonally across the chess board.
These arguments are incredibly weak. I would suggest coming up with something stronger, lest it further besmirch your character.
So, if you're right about R. just using the term imprecisely, why did he draw straight lines and not arcs in his diagrams?
-
Yes, some do. But Newton wrote in terms that the scientific community had agreed upon, 200 years before EnaG. Also from context. R. clearly considers the ship motion's as imparting a force just like gravity.
Newton was speaking in the language of his day, just as Rowbotham was.
So, if you're right about R. just using the term imprecisely, why did he draw straight lines and not arcs in his diagrams?
Rowbotham did not draw anything in the book. They were provided by an illustrator for the publisher. This is indicated on the title page.
-
Yes, some do. But Newton wrote in terms that the scientific community had agreed upon, 200 years before EnaG. Also from context. R. clearly considers the ship motion's as imparting a force just like gravity.
Newton was speaking in the language of his day, just as Rowbotham was.
So since Newton won the community over with Principles and clearly define the scientific terms in his day, then R. failed by using sloppy terms. And you still want to listen to this guy? Heck,m he didn't even know that, as according to you, the FE has two poles.So, if you're right about R. just using the term imprecisely, why did he draw straight lines and not arcs in his diagrams?
Rowbotham did not draw anything in the book. They were provided by an illustrator for the publisher. This is indicated on the title page.
Are you saying that R., who was instrumental in publishing EnaG, did not review and approve the illustrations? If so, then you're impugning every illustration in EnaG as corrupt, right?
-
So since Newton won the community over with Principles and clearly define the scientific terms in his day, then R. failed by using sloppy terms. And you still want to listen to this guy? Heck,m he didn't even know that, as according to you, the FE has two poles.
Understandable, as the South Pole was not yet discovered.
Are you saying that R., who was instrumental in publishing EnaG, did not review and approve the illustrations? If so, then you're impugning every illustration in EnaG as corrupt, right?
As I recall, the old publishing monopolies (and many current ones) wouldn't publish your work unless you give them ownership of it, and accept their terms on residuals. The illustration, editing, marketing, etc, is provided by the publisher.
The extent Rowbotham worked with the publisher is unknown. But when he sent in his work to be published and signed the contract, it was no longer his decision. Even if Rowbotham made corrections or criticism to any part of it, the publisher had ultimate authority on whether it was within budget or time tables.
-
So... Do you therefore reject all EnaG illustrations, or is this just as excuse you use when you're caught in an error?
-
So... Do you therefore reject all EnaG illustrations, or is this just as excuse you use when you're caught in an error?
The illustrations exaggerate a number of things. I don't think any one takes them for much.
-
So... Do you therefore reject all EnaG illustrations, or is this just as excuse you use when you're caught in an error?
The illustrations exaggerate a number of things. I don't think any one takes them for much.
So, you reject all illustrations in EnaG, right? I'd hate to think that you reject the straight line on this page's illustration only because it demonstrates R.'s failing. I trust you'lll never use an illustration from EnaG to argue a point from now on, right?
-
Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.
-
back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.
Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.
The experiment shown in fig. 49, demonstrates, however, that these causes, or conditions, or motion in the earth, do not exist.
R. fails to understand Kinetics. An object in motion tends to remain in motion. No, a ball thrown from a moving object does not lose its motion just by being thrown. This knowledge was written down carefully and precisely over 190 years before the publication of EnaG. R. is out of step with our understanding of Kinetics and fails miserably on this page. Why do FEers point to a text with such clear mistakes?
[Given the decision to put all 346 pages in one topic, I ask that everyone carefully record about what page they're discussing with each post.]
[Based on Tom Bishop's claim that R. is not responsible for any illustration in EnaG, I'll ignore all illustrations as the publisher's fancy.]
-
Re: P. 66
Video demonstration the EnaG is incorrect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIW7msn5c7s
-
Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.
Who said anything about Mach?
back to his hands, the horse would have taken him in advance, and the whole would drop to the ground behind him. It is the same in leaping from the back of a horse in motion. The performer must throw himself to a certain degree forward. If he jumps directly upwards, the horse will go from under him, and he would fall behind.
Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown; and the distance at which it falls behind depends upon the time the ball has been in the air. As this is the result in every instance where the experiment is carefully and specially performed, the same would follow if a ball were discharged from any point upon a revolving earth. The causes or conditions operating being the same, the same effect would necessarily follow.
The experiment shown in fig. 49, demonstrates, however, that these causes, or conditions, or motion in the earth, do not exist.
R. fails to understand Kinetics. An object in motion tends to remain in motion. No, a ball thrown from a moving object does not lose its motion just by being thrown. This knowledge was written down carefully and precisely over 190 years before the publication of EnaG. R. is out of step with our understanding of Kinetics and fails miserably on this page. Why do FEers point to a text with such clear mistakes?
[Given the decision to put all 346 pages in one topic, I ask that everyone carefully record about what page they're discussing with each post.]
[Based on Tom Bishop's claim that R. is not responsible for any illustration in EnaG, I'll ignore all illustrations as the publisher's fancy.]
Re: P. 66
Video demonstration the EnaG is incorrect:
The RET is not a flat moving platform. It is a spinning sphere which exhibits centrifugal/centripital accelerations.
-
Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.
-
Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.
Who said anything about Mach?
You did in another thread.
-
Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.
What makes you think that he is describing a horse trotting at a static speed? This is not stated anywhere. That section is about acceleration. He describes an advancing, rapidly moving horse, to demonstrate that on an accelerating body a person juggling balls would experience them falling backwards.
Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.
Who said anything about Mach?
You did in another thread.
That thread is not this thread.
-
Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.
Who said anything about Mach?
I placed this post in a new topic as MP stands alone as a very important principle of FET that needs diverse and lengthy discussion IMHO. I guess you should address your concern about its being moved into this topic with the admins. I can't help you.
-
Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.
That makes you think that he is describing a horse trotting at a static speed? This is not stated anywhere. That section is about acceleration. He describes an advancing, rapidly moving horse, to demonstrate that on an accelerating body a person juggling balls would experience them falling backwards.
Yes, if R. did not specify an acceleration (backward, forward, left, right, up, down, and some combination), then he's been woefully imprecise and we must reject the page accordingly.
Why do you treat R.'s continued errors with such an effort to find an excuse? His illustrations were corrupted by the published. If he is wrong about something, it's only because we took him at his word.
Have you done the calculations based on RET about what imaginary forces the horseback rider would experience? If so, please present them; otherwise, you don't know about what you're talking. Also please do tell us what if any other forces the rider would experience akin to those you say the FE experiences as the Coriolis Effect.
-
Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.
What makes you think that he is describing a horse trotting at a static speed? This is not stated anywhere. That section is about acceleration. He describes an advancing, rapidly moving horse, to demonstrate that on an accelerating body a person juggling balls would experience them falling backwards.
So when R. says:
"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown;" (emphasis my own)
He does not mean "in all cases" ? Does he mean "in some cases"? Did "in all cases" mean somethign different in the 19th century? Or are his scientific writing unreliable? He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited. This is not a good sign.
That thread is not this thread.
A little charity goes a long way Tom.
-
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!
Of course, given Tom Bishop's advice that R. had no control over the illustrations, I ignore them.
R. fails to consider that the cannonball is already traveling at 600 mph before, during, and after the shot. He's not read Newton's _Principles_. He fails grade school physics.
So yet another clear case, where R. makes a sophomoric physics mistake.
-
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.
The reader is advised not to deceive himself by imagining that the ball would take a parabolic course, like the balls and shells from cannon during a siege or battle. The parabolic curve could only be taken by a ball fired from a cannon inclined more or less from the vertical; when, of course, gravity acting in an angular direction against the force of the gunpowder, the ball would be forced to describe a parabola. But in the experiment just detailed, the gun was fixed in a perfectly vertical direction, so that the ball would be fired in a line the very contrary to the direction of gravity. The force of the powder would drive it directly upwards, and the force of gravity would pull it directly downwards. Hence it could only go up in a right line, and down or back to its starting point; it could not possibly take a path having the slightest degree of curvature. It is therefore demanded that, if the earth has a motion from west to east, a ball, instead of being dropped down a mine, or allowed to fall from the top of a tower, shall be shot upwards into the air, and from the moment of its beginning to descend, the surface of the earth shall turn from under its direction, and it would fall behind, or to the west of its line of descent. On making the most exact experiments, however, no such effect is observed; and, therefore, the conclusion is in every sense unavoidable, that THE EARTH HAS NO MOTION OF ROTATION.
Well, R. reaches the conclusion without any argument surviving this critique. R. does not understand the science of moving objects, kinetics. He failed repeated here. His conclusion does not follow from his work. The main mistake, of which Rama Set so correctly provided video evidence, is that Newton's First Law must be applied in all the cases he explored in this chapter thus far. Rowbothan failed.
-
Why do you treat R.'s continued errors with such an effort to find an excuse? His illustrations were corrupted by the published. If he is wrong about something, it's only because we took him at his word.
Have you done the calculations based on RET about what imaginary forces the horseback rider would experience? If so, please present them; otherwise, you don't know about what you're talking. Also please do tell us what if any other forces the rider would experience akin to those you say the FE experiences as the Coriolis Effect.
Rowbotham uses the word 'rapidly' to describe the movement of the horse, as in 'a hurrying pace'. The horse was accelerating.
Rapid typically means to accelerate at a quick pace.
"He swung his fist rapidly into the punching bag"
"New report warns of rapidly increasing carbon emission levels"
"Rapidly rising food costs sting at supermarket"
So when R. says:
"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown;" (emphasis my own)
He does not mean "in all cases" ? Does he mean "in some cases"? Did "in all cases" mean somethign different in the 19th century? Or are his scientific writing unreliable? He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited. This is not a good sign.
"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown"
If the object is moving at right angles to a ball which is in the air, away from it, then the object is accelerating from the ball. I find nothing wrong with the sentence.
He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited. This is not a good sign.
Even the illustrations show accelerating bodies. Consider the train example from the chapter. The three images of it are not evenly spaced.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig48.jpg)
The ball falls behind because it is accelerating away.
-
Well, R. reaches the conclusion without any argument surviving this critique. R. does not understand the science of moving objects, kinetics. He failed repeated here. His conclusion does not follow from his work. The main mistake, of which Rama Set so correctly provided video evidence, is that Newton's First Law must be applied in all the cases he explored in this chapter thus far. Rowbothan failed.
Rowbotham never states, or suggests, that the various objects in the chapter are moving at a static pace. That is a figment of your imagination.
-
Why do you treat R.'s continued errors with such an effort to find an excuse? His illustrations were corrupted by the published. If he is wrong about something, it's only because we took him at his word.
Have you done the calculations based on RET about what imaginary forces the horseback rider would experience? If so, please present them; otherwise, you don't know about what you're talking. Also please do tell us what if any other forces the rider would experience akin to those you say the FE experiences as the Coriolis Effect.
Rowbotham uses the word 'rapidly' to describe the movement of the horse, as in 'a hurrying pace'. The horse was accelerating.
Rapid typically means to accelerate at a quick pace.
"He swung his fist rapidly into the punching bag"
"New report warns of rapidly increasing carbon emission levels"
"Rapidly rising food costs sting at supermarket"
So when R. says:
"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown;" (emphasis my own)
He does not mean "in all cases" ? Does he mean "in some cases"? Did "in all cases" mean somethign different in the 19th century? Or are his scientific writing unreliable? He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited. This is not a good sign.
"Thus it is demonstrable that, in all cases where a ball is thrown upwards from an object moving at right angles to its path, that ball will come down to a place behind the point from which it was thrown"
If the object is moving at right angles to a ball which is in the air, away from it, then the object is accelerating from the ball. I find nothing wrong with the sentence.
He also does not have illustrations that accurately depict his ideas in a book he edited. This is not a good sign.
Even the illustrations show accelerating bodies. Consider the train example from the chapter. The three images of it are not evenly spaced.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig48.jpg)
The ball falls behind because it is accelerating away.
Are you now saying that you rely on EnaG's illustrations sometimes? What are you using as criteria to decide whether the illustration is just what R. wanted? Is there some reason the EnaG doesn't make it perfectly clear that the horse is increasing the magnitude of its velocity in the same direction of its travels. Otherwise, how do we know that the horse's acceleration was turning left or even slowing down? You do have a firm grasp on what we mean by "acceleration", right? If not, take the time to read up on it.
-
Well, R. reaches the conclusion without any argument surviving this critique. R. does not understand the science of moving objects, kinetics. He failed repeated here. His conclusion does not follow from his work. The main mistake, of which Rama Set so correctly provided video evidence, is that Newton's First Law must be applied in all the cases he explored in this chapter thus far. Rowbothan failed.
Rowbotham never states, or suggests, that the various objects in the chapter are moving at a static pace. That is a figment of your imagination.
Speaking of imagination, where do you image that I said that R. suggested a static pace of any object? 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?
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.
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
Rama Set, Thank you for trying to educate Tom Bishop. Your links should help him a lot. Right now, I think, based on his posting especially involving 'rapid', that he doesn't even have a layman's misunderstanding of acceleration ("Duh, acceleration is when I make my car go faster, not when I brake, not when I turn, not when I go down a hill, etc.") I recall seeing on the old site, but I can't find it now, that even a supposed jet pilot thought you couldn't accelerate toward the RE center without travelling toward the RE center. I suspect we should assume even less of an understanding from Tom Bishop.
So let's try to get Tom Bishop to consider EnaG's example of the cannonball falling back within feet of its cannon. Since the cannon is embedded in the sand, we don't have any concern that it moved "rapidly". Thanks.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
Quick movement in 'a short period of time' sure sounds like an acceleration to me.
-
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.
-
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
-
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM).
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
Quick movement in 'a short period of time' sure sounds like an acceleration to me.
Wrong. That means only high speed, not acceleration. Do study grade school physics before posting on this topic again please. Thanks.
-
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM).
Galileo is famous for his concept of inertia, and changed the face of physics of the 1500's with his teachings. It's one of the main things he was known for. It is not a matter of his work not being published "far and wide" enough.
http://krisscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/galileos-concept-of-inertia-describing.html
Galileo’s Concept of Inertia | Describing Motion - Aristotle’s ideas were accepted as fact for nearly 2,000 years. Then, in the early 1500s, the Italian scientist Galileo demolished Aristotle’s belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. According to legend, Galileo dropped both heavy and light objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa (Figure 1). He showed that, except for the effects of air friction, objects of different weights fell to the ground in the same amount of time.
Galileo made another discovery. He showed that Aristotle was wrong about forces being necessary to keep objects in motion. Although a force is needed to start an object moving, Galileo showed that, once it is moving, no force is needed to keep it moving except for the force needed to overcome friction. When friction is absent, a moving object needs no force to keep it moving. It will remain in motion all by it self. Rather than philosophizing about ideas, Galileo did something that was quite remarkable at the time.
-
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM).
Galileo is famous for his concept of inertia, and changed the face of physics of the 1500's with his teachings. It's one of the main things he was known for. It is not a matter of his work not being published "far and wide" enough.
http://krisscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/galileos-concept-of-inertia-describing.html
Galileo’s Concept of Inertia | Describing Motion - Aristotle’s ideas were accepted as fact for nearly 2,000 years. Then, in the early 1500s, the Italian scientist Galileo demolished Aristotle’s belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. According to legend, Galileo dropped both heavy and light objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa (Figure 1). He showed that, except for the effects of air friction, objects of different weights fell to the ground in the same amount of time.
Galileo made another discovery. He showed that Aristotle was wrong about forces being necessary to keep objects in motion. Although a force is needed to start an object moving, Galileo showed that, once it is moving, no force is needed to keep it moving except for the force needed to overcome friction. When friction is absent, a moving object needs no force to keep it moving. It will remain in motion all by it self. Rather than philosophizing about ideas, Galileo did something that was quite remarkable at the time.
About all I can do is repeat the challenge: And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM). Your kind attention to the details of my challenge would be appreciated by many I'm sure.
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
Quick movement in 'a short period of time' sure sounds like an acceleration to me.
Wrong. That means only high speed, not acceleration. Do study grade school physics before posting on this topic again please. Thanks.
If something achieves 'quick movement in a short amount of time', as Rama described, it implies that an object has accelerated. Please show us how it does not.
-
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM).
Galileo is famous for his concept of inertia, and changed the face of physics of the 1500's with his teachings. It's one of the main things he was known for. It is not a matter of his work not being published "far and wide" enough.
http://krisscience.blogspot.com/2012/04/galileos-concept-of-inertia-describing.html
Galileo’s Concept of Inertia | Describing Motion - Aristotle’s ideas were accepted as fact for nearly 2,000 years. Then, in the early 1500s, the Italian scientist Galileo demolished Aristotle’s belief that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. According to legend, Galileo dropped both heavy and light objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa (Figure 1). He showed that, except for the effects of air friction, objects of different weights fell to the ground in the same amount of time.
Galileo made another discovery. He showed that Aristotle was wrong about forces being necessary to keep objects in motion. Although a force is needed to start an object moving, Galileo showed that, once it is moving, no force is needed to keep it moving except for the force needed to overcome friction. When friction is absent, a moving object needs no force to keep it moving. It will remain in motion all by it self. Rather than philosophizing about ideas, Galileo did something that was quite remarkable at the time.
About all I can do is repeat the challenge: And on what date did either publish widely enough for Riccioli to have been corrected as to his error? Do you have any evidence that Riccioli read those publications? What difference does it make anyway? Rowbotham and Riccioli both erred (unless you're now arguing against NFLOM). Your kind attention to the details of my challenge would be appreciated by many I'm sure.
Galileo changed the entire educational system of his time. It's not a matter of his work not being published far and wide enough. Galileo performed his work in the early 1500's, as the article states.
Are you honestly arguing that Ricioli, Tacho, and Rowbohtam didn't know about Galileo?
-
Tom, the phrase "in all cases" must by definition include all cases, including non-accelerating ones. It is therefore demonstrable that Rowbotham does not fully understand the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum.
Also, I wholly disagree with your definition of rapid and so do dictionaries:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/rapid
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapid
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rapid
Every definition I see refers to something happening quickly, with great speed or in a short period of time. I see no reason to narrow its contextual meaning to acceleration. Your definition appears to be self-serving.
(I will add Tom's quotations later for clarity, I'm on my iPhone)
Quick movement in 'a short period of time' sure sounds like an acceleration to me.
Wrong. That means only high speed, not acceleration. Do study grade school physics before posting on this topic again please. Thanks.
If something achieves 'quick movement in a short amount of time', as Rama described, it implies that an object has accelerated. Please show us how it does not.
Sure. Look out a 1 ffoot by 1 foot window until you see a bird fly by left to right 1 foot from the window.. It made a quick movement. It made it in a short period of time. It did not necessarily accelerate. QED
-
Are you honestly arguing that Ricioli, Tacho, and Rowbohtam didn't know about Galileo?
Nope. I'm saying they erred in not properly applying Galileo's concept of momentum (or NFLOM). Can you explain how Rowbotham thought the cannonball should have traveled over a mile even with the cannon embedded in sand without making that mistake?
-
Sure. Look out a 1 ffoot by 1 foot window until you see a bird fly by left to right 1 foot from the window.. It made a quick movement. It made it in a short period of time. It did not necessarily accelerate. QED
The bird must have accelerated to make a quick rapid movement. Birds don't go flying around at 40 miles an hour all day.
The observer is in observation of the horse at all times. For the horse to make a 'quick movement for a short period of time', i.e. "move rapidly," it is implied that the horse is accelerating.
-
Sure. Look out a 1 ffoot by 1 foot window until you see a bird fly by left to right 1 foot from the window.. It made a quick movement. It made it in a short period of time. It did not necessarily accelerate. QED
The bird must have accelerated to make a quick rapid movement. Birds don't go flying around at 40 miles an hour all day.
The horse is in observation of the observer at all times. For the horse to make a 'quick movement for a short period of time', i.e. "move rapidly," it is implied that the horse is accelerating.
Please note that "must have accelerated" is past tense. A bird, or a horse, or a locomotive, or even a cannon can accelerate and then continue at a constant velocity. Indeed Rowbotham's experimental design required it. Again: Can you explain how Rowbotham came to believe that the cannonball should have traveled more than a mile without a error in forgetting Galileo's concept of momentum? Please study grade school physics.
-
Again, I direct you to read Tycho Bache and Riccioli. The experiments are nearly the same. Look up the cannon ball experiments and the maths surrounding them.
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.
-
Again, I direct you to read Tycho Bache and Riccioli. The experiments are nearly the same. Look up the cannon ball experiments and the maths surrounding them.
The 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.
I do understand what Riccioli misunderstood. Do you? The experiment showed that Galileo was right. There is momentum. Could you at least try to study the concept. Rama Set posted that great video. Newton wrote extensively. And you still won't answer the challenge: Can you explain how Rowbotham came to believe that the cannonball should have traveled more than a mile without a error in forgetting Galileo's concept of momentum?
-
EXPERIMENT 3.
When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter.
If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced.
Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is a globe, and moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen--many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude--have declared that no difference whatever is observable.
Alas Robotham is again imprecise. Motion is relative. But let's try to get through the confusion. Let's work only with the cannon example. It the cannon were mounted to the Earth and fired east and then west, we could measure the distance each cannonball traveled from the breech. Based on other comments here, I believe the R. is again forgetting that the cannonball had momentum (of its mass time the Earth's velocity) before, during, and after the firing. The effect of the RE's spinning would be measures in inches for drop times over 5 seconds. Since R. doesn't document that experiment well, omitting muzzle velocities, aiming, droop times, we can't peer review this experiment. We don't know what outcomes he expects, to what degree of accuracy he has built into the experiment and which results indicate failure of RET. I can say that there are many high-school-level rifle firing that confirm the RE's rotation. Here's a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs So. R. is wrong and RET is further confirmed.
-
Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.' For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face. This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accelerate
ac·cel·er·ate verb \-lə-ˌrāt\
: to move faster : to gain speed
: to cause (something) to happen sooner or more quickly
But let's assume for the moment that Rowbotham actually meant 'accelerate' instead of 'rapid.' He performed an experiment to prove that if one object accelerates away from another, that object will accelerate away from the other. Wow. Brilliant.
What does that have to do with a round Earth?
-
observable. That in charging and pointing their guns, no, difference in the working is ever required, notwithstanding that the firing is at every point of the compass. Gunners in war ships have noticed a considerable difference in the results of their firing from guns at the bow, when sailing rapidly towards the object fired at, and when firing from guns placed at the stern while sailing away from the object: and in both cases the results are different to those observed when firing from a ship at perfect rest. These details of practical experience are utterly incompatible with the supposition of a revolving earth.
During the period of the Crimean War, the subject of gunnery, in connection with the earth's rotation, was one which occupied the attention of many philosophers, as well as artillery officers and statesmen. About this time, Lord Palmerston, as Prime Minister, wrote the following letter to Lord Panmure, the Secretary for War:--
"December 20th, 1857.
"My dear Panmure.
"There is an investigation which it would be important and at the same time easy to make, and that is, whether the rotation of the earth on its axis has any effect on the curve of a cannon-ball in its flight. One should suppose that it has, and that while the cannon-ball is flying in the air, impelled by the gunpowder in a straight line from the cannon's mouth, the ball would not follow the rotation of the earth in the same manner which it would do if lying at rest on the earth's surface. If this be so, a ball fired in the meridional direction--that is to say, due south or due north--ought to deviate to the west of the object at which it was.
Nothing new here. Rowbotham continues his failure in that he does not understand kinetics, forgetting to apply NFLOM. By the way, there is a detectable acceleration of the Earth's surface that can be detected (and in situations involving long drop times and high accuracy corrected for). I've linked to an example in the critique of another page above.
-
Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
[paragraph continues] But as no such difference in the direction of the tube B, C, is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.
Rowbotham fails to consider that the star might be so far away that its light travels to the Earth in the same direction, within the measurement error of this sloppy experiment. See: The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec
ETA: I thought I should continue to make the point that R. has a poor understanding of Science. First, consider the record keeping of this experiment. From the phrasing, we have no reason to believe that he ever did this experiment. He fails to present the times of the observations, the name of his accomplice, or even the name of the star observed. Furthermore, if we guess that "its meridan time" means when it's directly overhead, then we know there is no star directly overhead visible at six months intervals. So we know Rowbotham lied about the results of this experiment. Once we know that a researcher has faked at least one result and published the fictitious results as real, we must forevermore reject his results without extraordinary scrutiny. Rowboatham's fraud is harming. See:The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence.
-
Every point Rowbotham makes in this chapter fails for one of three reasons.
- He forgets (or does not understand momentum, more specifically Newton's First Law of Motion
- He fails to describe his experiment's conditions, results, or both completely.
- He lies about performing experiments. Some that he claims to have performed at impossible even on an FE!
Also of concern here is the the Wiki tells the Lady Blount "peer reviewed' this chapter and did not report any problem.
So EnaG Chapter 3 fails. Rowbotham fairs even worse as his scientific dishonesty recorded in this chapter causes doubt about any result that he claims ever.
-
CHAPTER IV.
THE TRUE FORM AND MAGNITUDE OF THE EARTH.
THE facts and experiments already advanced render it undeniable, that the surface of all the waters of the earth is horizontal; and that, however irregular the upper outline of the land itself may be, the whole mass, land and water together, constitutes an IMMENSE NON-MOVING CIRCULAR PLANE.
If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth. If from this central region we trace the outline of the lands which project or radiate from it, and the surface of which is above the water, we find that the present form of the earth or "dry land," as distinguished from the waters of the "great deep," is an irregular mass of capes, bays, and islands, terminating in great bluffs or headlands, projecting principally towards the south, or, at least, in a direction away from the great northern centre.
Rowbotham, after telling us in Chapter 1 of his superior method, which ensures that nothing he claims can be contradicted--even with new evidence, tells up the NP is the center of the world and surrounded by an ice wall in Antarctica. While Tom Bishop maintains that Rowbotham is wrong in the Earth has two poles and the ice wall is not in the South, we'll continue the critique on what EnaG contends. If Tom Bishop (or some team of FEers) ever does document their model and the reason to prefer it to Rowbotham's, I'll deal with it then.
-
How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.
The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10° 30´ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53° 30´ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43°, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360°. Hence if 43° are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360° will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.
Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--
The difference of longitude between Heart's Content Station, Newfoundland, and that at Valencia or, in other words, between the extreme points of the Atlantic) Cable--has been ascertained
Rowbotham makes four grade-school-level geometry errors.- He did not consider the north-south component of the measurement and subtract it accordingly in estimating the east-west component
- He did not consider that latitude effects the result. Surely measuring within the Arctic Circle would always lead to a smaller result than near the Equator.
- He forgot that the east-west measure would be curved.
- IN the most obvious error, he multiplies the result based on 360o to convert radius to diameter--even though he already had the full circle measure.
Why didn't Lady Blount catch these errors in the peer review that Tom Bishop claims see did? How can we trust any mathematics the Rowbotham does now without careful review? He failed miserably on this page, for sure!
ETA: I should have pointed out that Rowbotham failed to mention a source of error in his technique. An increase in the variability of the depth of the cable increases the length of the cable. So the cable will be longer than the distance between the two surface along the FE's surface.
-
This page is just another example of the same errors as page 92, with the added unknown of the distance of the detour of which Rowbotham guesses.
-
The chapter contimues Rowbotham follies as with the early pages. I do now see enough documentation that Rowbotham means the locus of all imaginary points at the same latitidue for "this ciccumference", without regard for the arbitrary choice of the more northern or more southern endpoint.
He continues the errors of applying the diagonal distance rather than the distance along the latitude line, not considering that the latitude line is curved in FET, and more.
He in these pages produces two new errors. He accepts the number of miles a steamer traveled based on its log entry, which was surely estimated by RET maps since there was no odometer. He also all but disproved FET finding that the latitude line at Sydney's latitude is shorter that the Equator.
Rowbotham does convince the careful reader that the Earth is a globe. I have to wonder why the FES even references him or this work.
-
IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences. The principle involved in the process may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 56.
Click to enlarge
FIG 56.
Let A be an object, the distance of which is desired, on the opposite side of a river. Place a rod vertically at the point C, and take a piece of strong cardboard, in the shape of a right-angled triangle, as B, C, D. It is evident that placing the
p. 100
triangle to the eye, and looking along the side D, B, the line of sight D, B, H, will pass far to the left of the object A. On removing the triangle more to the right, to the position E, the line E, F, will still pass to the left of A; but on removing it again to the right, until the line of sight from L touches or falls upon the object A, it will be seen that L, A, bears the same relation to A, C, L, as D, B, does to B, C, D: in other words, the two sides of the triangle B, C, and C, D, being equal in length, so the two lines C, A, and C, L, are equal. Hence, if the distance from L to C is measured, it will be in reality the same as the desired distance from C to A. It will be obvious that the same process applied vertically is equally certain in its results.
First, and I do repeat myself, I wish that the illustrations had not been corrupted by the publishing process of the EnaG, as Tom Bishop pointed out. I could really use an accurate drawing to aid in understanding about what Rowbotham is carrying on about. I think he's trying to use the ASA similar triangles theorem of plane geometry. There are several problems here.- He must ensure that the side of the larger triangle is indeed a line.
- He must ensure that the nearer acute angle of the larger triangle is indeed 45o.
- He must ensure that the right angle of the larger triangle is indeed 90o
- He should also realize that he's measured the "through the air" distance, not the walking distance to the far object. That is as a high velocity bullet would fly.
Other than those, I would have no issue with this technique. This technique, thought, does not seems to have an immediate application in determining the distance to the Sun.
-
It will be obvious that the same process applied vertically is equally certain in its results. On one occasion, in the year 1856, the author having previously delivered a course of lectures in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, and this subject becoming very interesting to a number of his auditors, an invitation was given to meet him on the sea-shore; and among other observations and experiments, to measure, by the above process, the altitude of the Nelson's Monument, which stands on the beach near the sea. A piece of thick cardboard was cut in the form of a right-angled triangle, the length of the two sides being about 8 inches. A fine silken thread, with a pebble attached, constituted a plumb line, fixed with a pin to one side of the triangle, as shown at P, . The purpose of this plumb line was to enable the observer to keep the triangle in a truly vertical position; just as the object of the rod C, in fig. 56 was to enable the base of the triangle to be kept in one and the same line by looking along from E and L towards C. On looking over the triangle held vertically, and one side parallel with the plumb line P, from the position A, the line of sight fell upon the point B; but on walking gradually backwards, the top of the helmet D, on the head of the figure of Britannia, which surmounts the column, was at length visible
p. 101
from the point C. On prolonging the line D, C, to H, by means of a rod, the distance from H to the centre of the Monument at O, was measured, and the altitude O, D, was affirmed to be
FIG. 57.
Click to enlarge
FIG. 57.
the same. But of this no proof existed further than that the principle involved in the triangulation compelled it to be so. Subsequently the altitude was obtained from a work published in Yarmouth, and was found to differ only one inch from the altitude ascertained by the simple operation above described. The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory.
With the same caveats as the previous example, this seems adequate.
-
The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
Rowbotham continues to make errors. Let's consider some of them in this passage.
Let's start with a physics mistake. Rowbotham claims that refraction is present when the Sun's rays pass through a mediu, is false. The Sun's rays "bend" according to Snell's Law went going between media, for example from a vacuum to air.
Next, let's consider the distance to where the Sun is directly overhead on the day in question. No, it's not only 400 miles. The Sun was at 21o North. London is roughly 51o North, a difference of 30o, or a third of the distance from the NP to the Equator along the Prime Meridian, or 2000 miles. He's made an error of 500%!
Next let's consider the technique. His rudimentary attempt at trig is laughable. The definition of the tangent, gives us two equations and one unknown, here x as the distance to the Sun from the spot directly below it. tan 64o = x/2000 and tan 61o = (x-50)/2000. So we get the following two answers:(http://i.imgur.com/qcrdoOQ.png)
Since the answers are not consistent, Rowbotham's data leads to the conclusion that his assumption of FE must be wrong. Again, Rowbotham demonstrates that the Earth is not flat.
So tell me the reason FEers continue to reference this work please.
-
The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles. From which it unavoidably follows that the magnitude of the sun, moon, stars, and comets is comparatively small--much smaller than the earth from which they are measured, and to which, therefore, they must of necessity be secondary. and subservient. They cannot, indeed, be anything more than "centres of action," throwing down light, and chemical products upon the earth.
Since the technique is flawed, this conclusion is not supported. Rowbotham has not presented any reason for the reader to believe that the stars are within one thousand miles and small. Furthermore, his argument that and close objects can have only a very limited influence is flawed as irrational. The size of an object is not directly related to its effect. The Moon raises the tides, for example. Chapter 5 has done nothing to determine the distance to the Sun. Rowbotham has failed again.
-
CHAPTER VI.
THE SUN'S MOTION, CONCENTRIC WITH THE POLAR CENTRE.
As the earth has been proved to be fixed, the motion of the sun is a visible reality. If it be observed from any latitude a few degrees north of the line called the "Tropic of Cancer," and for any period before or after the time of southing, or passing the meridian, it will be seen to describe an arc of a circle. The following simple experiment will be interesting as demonstrating the fact that the sun's path is concentric with the centre of the earth's surface. Let the observer take his stand, half-an-hour before sunrise (in the month of June, or any of the summer months will be better than winter, as the results will be more striking), on the head of either the old or the new pier at Brighton, in Sussex. Let him draw a line due north and south; and a second line due east and west, across the first. Now stand with his back to the north. Being thus at his post and ready for observation, let him watch carefully for the sun's first appearance above the horizon; and he will find that the point where the sun is first observed is considerably to the north of east, or the line drawn at right angles to north and south. If he will continue to watch the sun's progress until noon, it will be seen to ascend in a curve southwards until it reaches the meridian; and thence to descend in a westerly curve until it arrives at the horizon, and to set considerably to the north of due west, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 59. An object which moves in an arc of a circle, and returns to a given point in a given time, as the sun does to the meridian, must, of necessity, have completed a circular path in the twenty-four hours which constitute a solar day. To place the matter beyond doubt, the observations of Arctic navigators may be referred to. Captain Parry and several of his officers, on ascending high land near the arctic circle repeatedly saw, for twenty-four hours together, the sun describing a circle upon the southern horizon. Captain Beechy writes
"Very few of us had ever seen the sun at midnight; and this night happening to be particularly clear, his broad red disk, curiously distorted by refraction, and sweeping majestically along the northern horizon, was an object of imposing grandeur, which rivetted to the deck some of our crew, who would perhaps have beheld with indifference the less imposing effect of the icebergs. The rays were too oblique to illuminate more than the irregularities of the floes, and falling thus partially on the grotesque shapes either really assumed by the ice, or distorted by the unequal refraction of the atmosphere, so betrayed the imagination, that it required no great exertion of fancy to trace in various directions, architectural edifices, grottos, and caves, here and there, glittering as if with precious metals.
In July, 1865, Mr. Campbell, United States Minister to Norway, with a party of American gentlemen, went far enough north to see the sun at midnight. It was in 69 degrees north latitude, and they ascended a cliff 1000 feet above the arctic sea. The scene is thus described:--
"It was late, but still sunlight. The arctic ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet: the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy look-out. Away in the north the huge old sun swung low along the horizon, like the slow beat of the tall clock in our grandfather's parlour corner. We all stood silently looking at our watches. When both hands stood together at twelve, midnight, the full round orb hung triumphantly above the wave--a bridge of gold running due north,, spangled the waters between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty which knew no setting. We involuntarily took off our hats--no word was said. Combine the most brilliant sunrise you ever saw, and its beauties will pall before the gorgeous colouring which lit up the ocean, heaven, and mountains. In half an hour the sun had swung up perceptibly on its beat; the colours had changed to those of morning. A fresh breeze had rippled over the florid sea; one songster after another piped out of the grove behind us--we had slid into another day."
Except for two issues, this chapter is correct.
First, from the analysis of other chapters, we know that Rowbotham has no basis to claim the the Earth doesn't more, his failure to consider momentum paramount. Without that assumption, his conclusion here falls without support.
Second, he fails to consider the observer in the southern mid-latitudes. If he had, he would have seen that the Sun also appears to move about the SP as well. The only configuration allowing both is RET. (Yes, Tom Bishop, even the "bi-polar" model can't explain how the Sun appears in the North's winter to move about the NP.)
-
CHAPTER VII.
THE SUN'S PATH EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS DAILY FOR SIX MONTHS ALTERNATELY.
Tins is a matter of absolute certainty; proved by what is called, in technical language, the northern and southern declination, which is simply saying that the sun's path is nearest the polar centre in summer, and farthest away from it in winter.
At noon, on the 21st of any December, let a rod be so fixed that on looking along it, the line of sight touches the lower edge of the sun. For several days this line of sight will continue nearly the same, showing that the sun's path for this period is little changed; but on the ninth or tenth day to touch the sun's lower edge, the rod will have to be lifted several degrees towards the zenith. Every day afterwards until the 22nd of June, the rod will have to be raised. On that date there will again be several days without any visible change; after which, day by day, the rod must be lowered until the 21st December. In this simple way it may be demonstrated that the sun's path gets larger every day from December 21st to June 22nd; and smaller every day from June 22nd to December 21st, of every year.
From a number of observations made by the author during the last twenty-five years, it is certain that both the minimum or June path of the sun, and maximum or December path have been gradually getting farther from the northern centre. The amount of expansion is very small, but easily detected; and if it has been going on for centuries, which seems consistent with known phenomena, it explains at once and perfectly, the fact that England as well as more northern latitudes have once been tropical. There is abundant evidence that the conditions and productions now found within the tropics, have once existed in the northern region, which is now so cold and desolate, and inimical to ordinary animal and vegetable life. Hence it is a proper and logical conclusion that the sun's path was once very near to the earth's arctic or polar centre.
The following diagram, fig. 60, will show the sun's peculiar path, N represents the polar centre, A the sun in its path in June; which daily expands like the coils of the mainspring of a watch, until it reaches the outer and larger path B, in December, after which the path gradually and day by day con-tracts until it again becomes the path A, on the 21st of June.
That such is the sun's annual course is demonstrable by actual observation; but if it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."
There several mistakes herein. First, Rowbotham incorrectly assumes that only the Sun's path, closer to the NP, could have caused prehistoric warming in England. Second, he fails to take any observations south of the Equator. While the observations in England do demonstrate that Tom Bishop is still wrong in support a "bi-polar" model, only paired observations in the SH can support Rowbotham's claim in the chapter's title. If Rowbotham had made the missing observations, he would have seen the Sun's arc points to the SP and increases in the SH's summer and decrease in SH's winter, just as RET predicts.
-
CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.
IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.
Rowbotham is just setting up for his failure. Perspective does not, indeed cannot, explain the "sinking ship" effect. Indeed, it not even just confined to out-bound ships. For example: (http://i.imgur.com/iv8ial4.jpg)from: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php
-
Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.
In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant.
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
Aside from applying these two pages to expose Tom Bishop's lie about seeing people entering the water across Monterey Bay, California with just binoculars. (http://i.imgur.com/zagp4MI.jpg), these pages are irrelevant to Rowbotham's argument.
-
The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.
The first and second of the above propositions are self-evident. The third may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 73.
Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.
Rowbotham has confused resolution with perspective. While the cross-section of an object, it's magnification (by telescope, microscope, human eye, or combination thereof, and its distance determines what the observer can resolve, it does not predict at what distance an observer can see an object. Tom Bishop's sophomoric claim that you can't see satellites in the night sky, for example, relies on this confusion. You can see an object as long as photons can travel from the object to the observer. For the RET Andromeda Galaxy for example that's 2,538,000 light years. Since there is a threshold and an issue of contrast, some smaller objects more readily more visible than larger ones.
Next Rowbotham makes a dishonest (from a scientific sense) claim. There is no reason that the effect he exposes needs to have the lower portion disappear. He is just setting up his forthcoming lie that perspective causes hulls to disappear before mastheads.
-
The erroneous application of perspective already referred to is the following:--It is well known that on looking along a row of buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye appears to ascend towards the eye-line; and every thing above the eye appears to descend towards the same eye-line; and an artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the following rule:--draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other lines above and below it, irrespective of their distance, as in the diagram 75.
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equi-distant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B, as H is the vanishing point of C, D, and G, H, because these two lines are equidistant from the eye-line.
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.
The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature. In the pictures which abound in our public and private collections, however, it may too often be witnessed, giving a degree of distortion to paintings and drawings--otherwise beautifully executed, which strikes the observer as very unnatural, but, as he supposes, artistically or theoretically correct.
Based on Tom Bishop's post, we continue to ignore all illustrations as corrupt.
Even without the illustrations, Rowbotham commits an "appeal to nature" fallacy with the unsupported claim that his writing here is a "law of nature". If he wishes to discuss the science of the shape of the Earth, then he should eschew the art of illustration and return to the books of science, which he's already demonstrated he does not understand.
-
Since we've already reviewed Rowbotham's folly, applying a drawing technique to reality, let's just sum up with one last obvious failing of this chapter.
That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.
Of course, I continue to take Tom Bishop's advice not to heed any illustration.
Let's review that errors in this sentence.
- The body need not be receding for the effect. The skyline of Toronto from the shore of New York state presented earlier in the thread, shows a still object with the effect.
- Nothing contracts, either physically or visually. As the Toronto example shows, the bottom portion disappears.
Historically, Rowbotham struggled mightily with this RET physical proof, and the EnaG attempt fails completing his folly.
Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG?
-
Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG?
Because, it is a reference for people to start learning about the FET. If you go through any scientific book from that time period, you are bound to find mistakes. Not because the author was stupid, but because everyone in those times was ignorant compared to today. They did not even know much about the Germ Theory of Disease when that book was written.
-
Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG?
Because, it is a reference for people to start learning about the FET. If you go through any scientific book from that time period, you are bound to find mistakes. Not because the author was stupid, but because everyone in those times was ignorant compared to today. They did not even know much about the Germ Theory of Disease when that book was written.
I believe that the thread makes it perfectly clear: Rowbotham was both stupid and a liar. There is no reason to refer to such horrible example. It's like pointing someone to the movie "Apollo 18" as a reference documenting the NASA cover-up. Oh, and just for the record, Pasteur demonstrated his anthrax vaccine the same year Rowbotham published EnaG.
ETA:
A more comprehensive list of problems with EnaG
- Pretends to have gathered all relevant data, but did not.
- Claims to reason perfectly, but does not.
- Does not properly record and present its data
- Fails to apply current state of knowledge, such as Newton's First Law of Motion
- Accepts at times anecdotal evidence, a mileage in a ship's log for example.
- Rejects at times opposing evidence due to its "second-hand" nature, similar to Tom Bishop's rejection of daylight in Australia because poster wasn't in Australia at the time.
- No record of a contemporary peer review catching even one of the obvious errors presented in this thread
-
Most of the science being applied had been around for over a century, in some cases much more, when EnaG was written as well.
-
For especially the noobs, I wanted to take the time to post my sense of what a victory looks like. In this thread, we demolished EnaG. Especially successful was showing the Rowbotham did not understand the concept of momentum and his incorrect application of it to the cannon shooting straight up experiment. He then based later chapters on this erroneous result, and the entire EnaG falls for want of support.
Tom Bishop, an FEer, seemed to be the only one coming to the aid of Rowbotham. Unfortunately, Tom Bishop chose two very wrong approaches. First, he threw the baby out with the bathwater when he withdrew support for any illustrations in EnaG. Rowbotam did some excellent work on the illustrations, but rather than admit the Rowbotham did not under momentum, Tom Bishop said that the publisher had simply not been true in reproducing Rowbotham's illustrations.
Second, Tom Bishop tries to redefine acceleration in vain This results in a great parallel with Thork's recent refusal to accept that the ISS accelerates.
Now, how do we know when an FEer has admitted defeat? I hope that every good scientist admits his or her error; however, we don't see that very often from an FEer. Here it's clear that a cannon set deep in sand is not accelerating, so Tom Bishop is wrong, so Rowbotham is wrong, and EnaG is worthless. Rather than post his admission of defeat, Tom Bishop just stopped posting, but keeps visiting the forums. We need to learn to take the "disappearance" from a thread as resignation. (We will hear from both Tom Bishop and Thork excuses from illness to being busy to allegations of already demonstrating their success. Don't let FEers bait you with those excuses.)
-
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.
Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.' For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face. This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly
Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.
But let's assume for the moment that Rowbotham actually meant 'accelerate' instead of 'rapid.' He performed an experiment to prove that if one object accelerates away from another, that object will accelerate away from the other. Wow. Brilliant.
What does that have to do with a round Earth?
It has more to do with improper tarnishing of a work beyond your reading level.
-
EXPERIMENT 3.
When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter.
If a person leaps backwards from a horse in full gallop, he cannot jump so great a distance as he can by jumping forward. Leaping from a moving sledge, coach, or other object, backwards or forwards, the same results are experienced.
Many other practical cases could be cited to show that any body projected from another body in motion, does not exhibit the same behaviour as it does when projected from a body at rest. Nor are the results the same when projected in the same direction as that in which the body moves, as when projected in the opposite direction; because, in the former case, the projected body receives its momentum from the projectile force, plus that given to it by the moving body; and in the latter case, this momentum, minus that of the moving body. Hence it would be found that if the earth is a globe, and moving rapidly from west to east, a cannon fired in a due easterly direction would send a ball to a greater distance than it would if fired in a due westerly direction. But the most experienced artillerymen--many of whom have had great practice, both at home and abroad, in almost every latitude--have declared that no difference whatever is observable.
Alas Robotham is again imprecise. Motion is relative. But let's try to get through the confusion. Let's work only with the cannon example. It the cannon were mounted to the Earth and fired east and then west, we could measure the distance each cannonball traveled from the breech. Based on other comments here, I believe the R. is again forgetting that the cannonball had momentum (of its mass time the Earth's velocity) before, during, and after the firing. The effect of the RE's spinning would be measures in inches for drop times over 5 seconds. Since R. doesn't document that experiment well, omitting muzzle velocities, aiming, droop times, we can't peer review this experiment. We don't know what outcomes he expects, to what degree of accuracy he has built into the experiment and which results indicate failure of RET. I can say that there are many high-school-level rifle firing that confirm the RE's rotation. Here's a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs So. R. is wrong and RET is further confirmed.
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
-
Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
[paragraph continues] But as no such difference in the direction of the tube B, C, is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.
Rowbotham fails to consider that the star might be so far away that its light travels to the Earth in the same direction, within the measurement error of this sloppy experiment. See: The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec
ETA: I thought I should continue to make the point that R. has a poor understanding of Science. First, consider the record keeping of this experiment. From the phrasing, we have no reason to believe that he ever did this experiment. He fails to present the times of the observations, the name of his accomplice, or even the name of the star observed. Furthermore, if we guess that "its meridan time" means when it's directly overhead, then we know there is no star directly overhead visible at six months intervals. So we know Rowbotham lied about the results of this experiment. Once we know that a researcher has faked at least one result and published the fictitious results as real, we must forevermore reject his results without extraordinary scrutiny. Rowboatham's fraud is harming. See:The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence.
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."
A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!
See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf
-
CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.
IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.
Rowbotham is just setting up for his failure. Perspective does not, indeed cannot, explain the "sinking ship" effect. Indeed, it not even just confined to out-bound ships. For example: (http://i.imgur.com/iv8ial4.jpg)from: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php
Read the Chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
As sea the effect is primarily due to the waves building up at the eye-level horizon.
-
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly
Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.
Something happening quickly in a short period of time does not necessitate acceleration. You are taking shoe-horning to dizzying heights. Although rapidity may have acceleration as an element in it, it is neither the only nor the defining characteristic.
It has more to do with improper tarnishing of a work beyond your reading level.
Personal attacks are against the rules as I am sure you know.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."
A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!
See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf
Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?
-
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
Irrelevant. Robotham erred in claiming that the cannonball should have travelled more than a mile because the RE is spinning. He forgot about the concept of momentum. He failed. His conclusion that the Earth doesn't spin based on the cannon experiment is without merit.
Since you've failed for days to address this obvious and clear failure and now dodge it with distractions, I'm sure everyone is convinced by now that you're not able to assist Rowbotham survive this critique.
-
Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.' For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face. This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accelerate
ac·cel·er·ate verb \-lə-ˌrāt\
: to move faster : to gain speed
: to cause (something) to happen sooner or more quickly
Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.
Accelerate does not mean 'to happen quickly in a short amount of time.' Read the definitions of those two words. Notice that they have different meanings.
In physics, acceleration is a change in velocity. 'Rapidly' does not mean 'a change in velocity.' If Rowbotham wanted to say that the horse is accelerating away from the rider, then he should have used that word instead of rapidly, because 'rapidly' does not mean 'to accelerate.' Equivocate all you like. Those two words are not synonyms.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.
??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom? Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."
A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!
See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf
Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?
Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.
Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.
Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.
??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom? Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.
This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.
??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom? Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.
This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the articles and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply some citations.
-
As sea the effect is primarily due to the waves building up at the eye-level horizon.
And just what does the purported "sea the effect[sic]" have to do with a lake? You just argued in another thread that the wind blows only east to west or west to east, so a south-to-north view as photographed would not have waves in the needed direction. Also shouldn't you be able to predict seeing less of the Toronto when the winds are higher? Have you been to New York to verify the cause of the photograph effect matches your claim?
-
...
Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
I just had to quote this to highlight such a stupid error. Redshift is not about a color change. It's about a spectrum shift. For example the lines for the calcium atom's state changes move towards the red in a "red-shifted" observation. Please pay attention. Thanks.
You might need to reread "Stellar Atmospheres". I already pointed you to that remarkable work, but here's another link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925PhDT.........1P
-
Wind travels East to West or West to East, so of course shooting from North to South would be more accurate than shooting East to West.
First, no, wind does not always travel east to west or west to east.
Second, as the narrative explains and the video shows, they adjust for wind.
Third, you've confused accuracy with repeatability.
Please study the Scientific Method. For a start, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability Until you understand the Scientific Method, you will continue to post only foolish claims. Please take the time, so we may have an intelligent discussion. Thanks!
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away.
??? What the Th*rk are you talking about, Tom? Annual parallax has been observed for well over 150 years.
Annual parallax is normally measured by observing the position of a star at different times of the year as the Earth moves through its orbit. Measurement of annual parallax was the first reliable way to determine the distances to the closest stars. The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 for the star 61 Cygni using a heliometer.
This is addressed in Earth Not a Globe and the articles and the last pdf I posted about terrestrial motion. These claims were not able to be replicated.
Then perhaps you would be kind enough to supply some citations.
I second markjo's polite request. Why would having to consider the stats, excluding the Sun, to be farther away be of any concern? Are you so biased for your notion of the size of the Galaxy that facts are too inconvenient? Please be as open minded as you suggest noobs should be. Thanks.
-
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the stars immeasurable distances away. It is the only way to make sense of the Copernican model. There is no other evidence that the stars are extremely far away, except that anything otherwise would break their model. The evidence for a big universe is based on nothing more than "well, assuming that the Copernican model is true, that's the only way it could work -- so therefore the universe is immeasurably big and the stars are light years away."
A major point of astronomy is based on a failure of the Copernican model to predict!
See Riccioli's points on annual parallax here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3778.pdf
Might I ask why you are ignoring redshift?
Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.
Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.
Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
When would any heavenly bodies be at superluminal speeds?
-
I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.
Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.' For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face. This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid
rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly
Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.
No.
Something can move rapidly and yet, do have a constant speed. Rapid, doesn't imply that you must chage your velocity.
Photons move rapidly when they cross the air in my telescope's tube, are them accelerating? Please, explain.
Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the [...]
I can easily observe star parallax. Anyone can.
Also, paralax is not predicted, it is demonstrated.
Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.
Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.
Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.
With all respect, and without trying to insult you at all, you really need to learn a lot more about physics and astronomy.
Firstly, redshift implies speed and relative distance. There can't be redshift if those two bodies are always at the same distance (i.e. not moving one respect another). Redshift becomes stronger the farther the objects are from each other. And Redshift becomes stronger the faster the objects are moving away from each other. So your first conclussion is just the opposite as how doppler's effect work.
Secondly, bodies moving at superluminal speeds? I bet you (or anyone in this planet) can't show me any photo of such bodies!!!
Thirdly, again, please study Doppler's Effect and basic astrophysics. You have here a serious concept error. You are confusing and mixing concepts, as well as ignoring and unknowing a lot important ones.
When would any heavenly bodies be at superluminal speeds?
When/where gravitational force is infinite.