-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:45:02 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth DeceptionNeville
I'll respond in teal.
Paul,
My response in red:-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:21:01 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth DeceptionNeville J, Bernie B
Sorry -- a day later than promised.
As I've already intimated to Bernie, I will not attempt to demonstrate that a "non-rotating Earth, non-rotating atmosphere, non-orbiting Earth, non-orbiting atmosphere" model doesn't fly. The idea is too firmly entrenched in your thinking for that. Besides, so long as Bernie is the sole arbiter of whether a given '...mechanical device...' is faulty or not, I'm sure that even a ride in a spaceship piloted by little grey men to a vantage point where the Earth's motions would be obvious to a man with one eye would be declared faulty and included with Foucault's Pendulum, spinning gyroscopes and all other 'inadequate' explanations and demonstrations, notwithstanding video tape supporting the eye witness accounts also being available.
Paul, if there is one thing that you have consistently demonstrated on this forum it is the fact that it is you who are entrenched in your thinking. To the point of clear arrogance I would say.
Yes, I admit that I am convinced in my position and I'll stay that way until I see credible evidence to the contrary -- which of course is the point in question -- I am challenging the credibility of your assertions.
I have no problem with that, if you are genuine. The problem is that your actions do not support these words, for even without seeing the Global Warming documentary you lambasted it. Hardly the true sign of someone who is looking for credible evidence to the contrary [of his current worldview], would you say?
And you would deny that you have similarly firm views? Firm views, no, I do not deny that, but I hope that I am open to new ideas. I'll take a guess here and suggest to you, that for all of your life, you have had a problem with anyone who dissagrees with you. You must surely know that I am educated and trained in mainstream physics, so your guess does not appear to be terribly well-founded.
However, drawing attention to contradictions in your own statements is another matter and is the reason for my probing in this matter of the trajectory of a thrown ball. One of the most irritating -- on account of its complete denial of observed fact -- 'proofs' that the Earth is not rotating, is that old saw of the hovering helicopter transporting you westard if the Earth were so rotating. Here I present the statement to which you both agreed, albiet with some urging -
Can I take you both at your word then, when you assert that a ball thrown vertically will return to your hands regardless of the velocity of whatever you are sitting/standing on providing only that the air is also moving with whatever you are sitting/standing on?
Here are two statements, one from each of you, that an aircraft while airborne would, in the case of a rotating Earth, exhibit a tendency to travel West. Emphasis added. Direction confusion as noted, present in original.
From Bernard Brauer Sun Apr 1 16:43:46 2007
Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and Deception
1. If you get onto a helicopter on the east coast of the USA, lift off vertically and hover above the ground for four hours, then set down on the ground again, you will be in the same location that you lifted off from. If the Earth were rotating then the helicopter should have set down on the west coast of the USA. Therefore the Earth is not rotating.
From Dr. Neville Jones Tue Mar 7 13:21:50 2006
A long winded question
I am intriged by your statement that, "We know from practical experiment that a satellite launch uses less energy by taking advantage of the equatorial rotation speed of the earth, than it would taking a polar orbit or a contra launch westward." If this were true, then aircraft taking off and going west to east [sic] would use less fuel than those going north to south and much less than those going east to west [sic]. Do airline prices reflect this?
From the point of view of physics, there is no fundamental difference between a ball being thrown upwards and a helicopter flying upwards. In each instance, any velocity inherited from its takeoff point in a horizontal plane will be conserved, thus the ball will return to your hand when sitting in a moving railway carriage and a helicopter flying strictly up and down will land in its takeoff position on a rotating Earth.
In the case of the fixed wing aircraft, the position is only slightly more complicated. The net velocity in the horizontal plane is now the sum of the inherited and imparted velocities; but the point is that the inherited velocity is still concerved.
Bernie, I understood your explanation even before you clarified your usage of rotate, revolve and orbit, however you may find it useful in future to abide by the quite specific usages of rotate and revolve in astronomy. A body rotates on its axis and revolves around its primary.
And Philip M, yes going around corners would complicate matters but I think I covered that with '... regardless of whether you are moving at constant velocity in a straight line (which probably deals with Neville's 'constraints') or if you are standing still.'
Comments?
Paul D
I tried to give you a little hint when I mentioned the fact that the trajectory of the ball that comes 'straight back down' was a parabola. Given the opportunity, I would have put money on that. Futhermore, my 'constraints', had you have bothered to ask, included the time that the ball was out of the thrower's hands. Well considering that it was only half way to the ceiling, I didn't consider this detail to be significant.
The helicopter has a particular tangential component of velocity, which does not increase during the time it is aloft. Depending on how high it goes and how long it is off the ground for, it will only traverse a vertical path in the geostationary case. In the heliocentric case it's tangential velocity would also need to increase as a function of altitude for it to appear to come straight back down. Well let's suppose that the helicopter rises 1000 m and that the time to ascend and descend is negligible, just how far West of the take off point do you estimate it will land if it stays aloft for four hours? I calculate about 802.2 m. That's a long way short of clear across the USA at 40 deg longitude and of course the altitude was not specified -- it might have been only one metre.
Your point is valid. I agree with you. But I never said that the chopper would touch down at the other side of America, did I?
By the way, if the Americans had landed on the Moon, and if they had deposited a laser reflector, and if we could hit it with 100% of a laser beam, then we could prove whether the universe was acentric or geostationary, based upon similar reasoning that you are exercising above.
Neville.
Paul D
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. Find out more.
