[Gulliver]

So... Do you therefore reject all EnaG illustrations, or is this just as excuse you use when you're caught in an error?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Gulliver]

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?

[Gulliver]

Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.

[Gulliver]

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.]

[Rama Set]

Re: P. 66

Video demonstration the EnaG is incorrect:

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

Rowbotham is still ignoring the conservation of linear momentum in his horse thought experiment.

[Rama Set]

Einstein eventually abandoned Mach's Principle with some reservations.

Who said anything about Mach?

You did in another thread.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.



The ball falls behind because it is accelerating away.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.



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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Rama Set]

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)