tellytubby

The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« on: June 04, 2019, 11:03:11 PM »
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za24.htm

Once again, SBR goes into a lot of detail describing what is an every day observation.  In order to satisfy his flat Earth belief he arbitrarily chooses to assign the Earth as his static point of reference and so placing the Sun in motion around it.

Not for the first time, SBR opens his description with a non-valid statement by saying
Quote
As the earth has been proved to be fixed, the motion of the sun is a visible reality
Not quite so. The motion of the Sun is a reality alright, but it is a perceived reality that is due in fact to the rotation of the Earth.

The rest of the description about variations in the azimuth of Sunrise and Sunset can be fully accounted for by the direction of the Earths polar axis tilt remaining constant through the year as it orbits the Sun.

So once again SBRs observations are accurate in their description of the apparent motion across the sky in a daily and seasonal basis. But his accounting for these observations is not accurate since he is assuming a flat, fixed Earth.

Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2019, 10:32:35 PM »
Yes, one should learn to state a declaration only with proven evidence, based on scientific facts, replicated if possible in a laboratory.
"As the earth has been proved to be fixed"
Who proved it? where? where are the physical tested and replicated evidences?
Can you imagine the difficulties to uncover evidences that prove Earth to be fixed?

Lawyers use this technique on court of law, they state as truth something yet to be found out and stated, the other lawyer immediately contest (Objection!) so the judge stops the first one to continue on that line, in some cases the judge even instructs the jury to disregard what the first lawyer was saying.
 
I see this kind of tactics all over Wiki.   
When you state something like that, you flat the idea and remove the doubt of the reader, just to use it as a base for the next statement that needs that "solid base" to stand up.  Lots of people fall for that.  A little bit of I.Q. normally cancels that approach.

It is necessary to everyone be alert in life against this kind of marketing flash out.  I heard on radio or TV someone saying "this is what everybody is talking about"... so, if the listener is not aware of the flash out, he will unconsciously think "oh, I am not talking about, so I need to pay attention on this ad"...   When TV shows a line at the door of the department store waiting for next day release of the next iPhone model, that is not only "news", that is a flash out into your brain saying "you see? you will be outdated with your old model, people are making lines to buy it..."

SBR used this technique, this is not new.
Brighton Sussex is 50.8°N, you can use https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/brighton to see the angles.
Again, playing with common people's mind, usually the ones that simply can't visualize Earth tilted against the orbit.
Even on June, Earth still tilted. Now, do it over the equator line.

Offline reer

  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2019, 05:05:41 AM »
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za24.htm
Not for the first time, SBR opens his description with a non-valid statement by saying
Quote
As the earth has been proved to be fixed, the motion of the sun is a visible reality

He claims to have "proven" that the earth does not move, starting on page 63 of Earth Noy A Globe, where he talks about the movement of a ball thrown up vertically from a moving ship. According to SBR and the drawing on page 65, the ball retains the horizontal movement of the ship until it reaches its highest point, and then it falls back down vertically. That reminds me of what happens to cartoon characters who run off a cliff: they keep moving horizontally until the horizontal movement "expends itself", and then they plummet vertically. For those who had any doubt, Mythbusters proved convincingly that gravitational and horizontal movement of a bullet are completely unrelated:

It's a very basic error that demolishes all the rest of his arguments about earth's lack of movement.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2019, 06:05:50 AM »
Another interesting Rowbotham assertion/experiment with projectiles regarding the stationary earth seemingly exposed as untrue way back in his time.

Taken from “The Plane Truth” by Bob Schadewald:

If the earth is a revolving globe, Rowbotham argued, the speed of its surface in England should be about 700 miles per hour.  To determine if this is true, he fastened an air-gun to a post and adjusted it to true vertical with a plumb-line:

On discharging the gun, the ball … invariably (during several trials) descended within a few inches of the gun. ….  [T]wice it fell back upon the very mouth of the barrel.  The average time that the ball was in the atmosphere was 16 seconds …

Dyer described Rowbotham’s famous air-gun experiment, quoting his account of it at length. [ref. 1.106]  As it happened, he was well-prepared to shed some light on this experiment.  He wrote:

The account of the air-gun experiment is not correct in its most essential part.  During his stay at Northampton, Parallax gave four lectures—two in the hall of the Mechanics’ Institute, and two in Milton Hall, then belonging to me.  In one of the lectures delivered in the latter place, he stated that “if bullets were propelled from an air-gun, fixed perpendicularly to a post or other suitable object, they would return to the barrel of the gun again.”

Dyer owned an air-gun, and at the end of the lecture, he publicly challenged Rowbotham to make the experiment, offering him five shillings for every ball of twenty that fell back into the barrel.  Rowbotham could hardly refuse, and a committee was selected from the audience to observe the experiment and make a report at the next lecture.  Dyer continued:

The experiment was carried out on a piece of land at the back of my house.  The twenty bullets were propelled from the gun, but in place of “invariably descending within a few inches of the gun,” or “back to the place of their detachment,” as stated by Parallax, they fell in all directions, and from ten to twenty feet from the gun.
You can therefore fancy my surprise and astonishment when I saw it stated in his book that “the balls invariably descended within a few inches of the gun,” and also “back to the place of detachment.” He likewise states that “twice it fell upon the very mouth of the barrel.” Not two of the twenty balls that were propelled from the gun and formed part of the experiment.


Two balls did strike the barrel, however, after the experiment.  When Dyer was letting the remaining air out of the gun, Rowbotham brought him two balls and asked him to try them again.  There was barely enough air pressure to pop them out of the barrel, and they rose a few inches and fell back onto the muzzle!
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2019, 09:02:03 AM »
On discharging the gun, the ball … invariably (during several trials) descended within a few inches of the gun. ….  [T]wice it fell back upon the very mouth of the barrel.  The average time that the ball was in the atmosphere was 16 seconds …
Yeah. I call bullshit on that. Even without anyone repeating that and finding it to not be true, the idea that a bullet would be in the air for 16 seconds and then plop back into the barrel has to be nonsense.

The initial speed of the bullet can be calculated with:
v = u + at

v = 0, that's the final speed of the bullet at the top of its path. u = the initial speed. a = 9.8, acceleration due to gravity, t = 8 seconds (the bullet is in the air 16 seconds so takes 8 seconds to get to the top of its parabola and then falls for 8 seconds)

0 = u + -9.8 x 8

u = 9.8 x 8 = 78.4m/s (175mph)

So that's the initial speed of the bullet. What height does it reach? This is given by:

r = r0 + vt - 1/2at2 (r0 is 0, it starts at ground level. v is 78.4 from above, t is 8 seconds. a is 9.8, the gravity again:

r = 0 + 78.4 x 8 - 0.5 x 9.8 x 8 x 8
= 0 + 627.2 - 313.6
= 313.6m

Are we seriously expected to believe that a bullet fired directly upwards - even if the gun was perfectly aligned - at a velocity of 78.4m/s and reaching a height of 313.6m (please someone check my maths!) would plop back into the barrel of the gun? If there were no atmosphere maybe, but there is.

If you're doing simple mechanics then you ignore the atmosphere, in that simple model then yes, the bullet would plop back into the barrel if the gun was perfectly aligned upwards and stationary (with a rotating earth I'm not sure how to calculate it, obviously the initial rotational momentum is a factor but how that changes as the bullet rises and descends and the earth rotates is a bit beyond my maths/physics ability). In the real world though it's incredibly unlikely. I don't understand why Rowbotham's accounts of experiments are taken at face value where other experiments are scrutinised to within an inch of their lives.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2019, 09:20:25 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2019, 03:22:50 PM »
The human ignorance goes very far.  The year is 2019, we split atom 70 years ago, we went to the Moon, robots on Mars, we develop cell phones and GPS, still there are people asking about two things: 

a) If the Earth's surface speed is 1600km/h eastward on equator, why when I jump for 1 second I don't fall 444 meters to the West? 
b) Why I am not projected to the space by tangencial centrifugal force of this speed?

The funny thing is, they are not joking about ignorance, they are serious, their brain is really limited.   

I really don't know what they are teaching at school nowadays, it seems humanity just stop evolving, falling in the abyss of "technology will solve it all for me".

Common simple knowledge, including science, chemical, optics, simple physics laws, playing chess, trigo formulas (not even talking calculus), knowing "URUiLiURiUiL" by muscle memory, should be a funny thing to know for regular teenagers, why not?

Playing with other people's ignorance is a pastime for some nasty creatures.  We always need to remember that ignorance has a cure based on knowledge. By other side, bad character has no cure, it is a defective mental state.   

If I could vote for the biggest demonstration of this issue, would be the image below.  For that picture to have an effect, it must flip several switches of ignorance at the same time, considering atmosphere pressure, wing airlift, engine performance, auto-pilot (auto leveling), flight plan, auto-guidance based on GPS or star tracking, and so many others, that at first one could think it would be impossible to convince any human being, but surprisingly, it happens, since most people understand "air lift" as much as they understand that black is not a color.  What really cough my attention on that picture, is the forced bad marketing with the clouds way over the planet, trying to impose that the airplane could fly anywhere it wants (clouds, right?), and the "actual path of the plane" wording, again, as an unquestionable truth.   A normal school educated person would immediately understand the atmosphere layer where airplane engines can work is below 35000 ft, even if the pilot wants, the airplane will not go above that, engines will fail, perform badly, by itself the airplane would level at the ceiling altitude. Piston prop airplanes are limited way below that.  The point here is, the person who created such drawing knew it, and even so produce it, willing to confuse the all levels ignorant persons, but for what intent? what is the gain?  Profuse stupidity? To promote wrong bases for even greater anomaly?   

But we are distancing from the subject of this thread, and even so, if I would be forced at gunpoint to assume a flat concentric solar motion, would be around the South Pole, I love penguins, they love summer time.