Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2014, 02:46:02 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 68
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2014, 06:39:59 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 06:45:39 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2014, 06:46:40 AM »
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.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique p. 68
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2014, 07:10:17 AM »
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.
Quote

Quote
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?
Quote

Quote
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

Quote
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2014, 07:26:40 AM »
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html

Quote
"Newton's first law was actually discovered by Galileo and perfected by Descartes"
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:32:23 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2014, 08:03:00 AM »
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html

Quote
"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).
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2014, 08:11:28 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2014, 08:19:38 AM »
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html

Quote
"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

Quote
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.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2014, 08:22:18 AM »
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html

Quote
"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

Quote
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2014, 08:23:28 AM »
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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2014, 08:26:47 AM »
Newton's first law is plagiarized from earlier astronomers:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node43.html

Quote
"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

Quote
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?

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2014, 08:27:35 AM »
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
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2014, 08:30:24 AM »
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?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2014, 08:32:29 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 08:48:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2014, 08:37:19 AM »
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2014, 08:43:11 AM »
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:

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 07:29:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #56 on: May 09, 2014, 08:51:28 AM »
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:

Quote
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?
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
EnaG Critique p. 69
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2014, 11:35:53 AM »
Quote from: EnaG p. 69
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: So. R. is wrong and RET is further confirmed.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 01:22:36 PM by pizaaplanet »
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: EnaG Critique
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2014, 02:32:08 PM »
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
Quote
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
Quote
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?


I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
EnaG Critique p. 70
« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2014, 02:02:49 AM »
Quote from: EnaG p. 70
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.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.