Mie, sincer imi este mila de tine; logica iti scapa de fiecare data.
Uite, daca vrei sa inveti filosofia de la cei mai buni, incearca The Ominous Parallels de L. Peikoff (cea mai buna carte de filosofie scrisa in ultimii 50 de ani), si daca vrei sa mergi mai departe, chiar si Cartea Secretelor (5 volume) de Acharya Rajneesh; altfel ne pierzi timpul cu tergiversari inutile.
Nu cred ca intelegi despre ce vorbim aici; Rowbotham chiar a realizat acele experimente (vas + tren + cannon-tun), vorbim aici de
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm ; si atunci ce spui tu nu are legatura cu ce scrie el.
In experimentul facut de el, piatra/bila nu a avut deloc miscare/traiectorie pe orizontala, si a executat miscarea descrisa deja: the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H.
Deci, in toate momentele dupa aceea, piatra/bila a cazut exact vertical cum a descris; engleza stim cu totii (cu exceptia lui Abel), tu stai cam prost la capitolul memorie/logica, dar eu sunt aici sa te readuc pe drumul cel bun, cel fara curbura.
Ar fi posibil ca intr-un anume experiment, facut pe vant puternic, pe un vas, ca o piatra/bila sa mai se deplaseze pe orizontala? Bineinteles, dar nu in experimentul facut de Rowbotham; a notat cu grija ce a vazut, daca ar fi existat asa ceva, ar fi scris despre asta.
Nu uita ca desenul reprezinta foarte corect ce descrie Rowbotham: 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. Este suficient pentru ceea ce descrie aici; nu uita argumentul facut de Rowbotham: SI ASTA VEI OBSERVA SI IN EXPERIMENTUL FACUT IN TREN - PIATRA/BILA ARUNCATA IN AER VA CADEA IN APA (SAU PE SINE DACA LUAM TRENUL IN CONSIDERARE), SI NU PE PUNTEA AMBARCATIUNII/TERASA TRENULUI.
Daca iti doresti sa SCHIMBI CITATUL ORIGINAL AL LUI ROWBOTHAM TREBUIE SA FACI URMATOAREA DECLARATIE:
Eu, electron, voi interpreta si reformula urmatorul citat: piatra va incepe sa cada, doar din cauza gravitatiei, in directie verticala, DBH (in original the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H) CU URMATOAREA AFIRMATIE: piatra va avea o viteza pe orizontala care se anuleaza exact in momentul in care ajunge la inaltime maxima, NU POTI SPUNE CONFORM LUI PARALLAX, ci conform gandirii tale, de acord?
electron, degeaba incerci sa dregi ce ai stricat deja; nu am comis nici un fel de greseala, sa revedem din nou dovezile.
Viteza de 444m/s este cea de la ecuator, se intelege implicit atunci cand vorbesti la modul general, exact ce faceai tu pe:
viteza de rotatie in jurul unei axe nu se poate exprima in m/s.DECI CEEA CE NE-AI SPUS TU AICI ESTE CA VITEZA NU SE POATE EXPRIMA DELOC IN M/S, SI ATUNCI CINE NU INTELEGE FIZICA SAU MECANICA? DACA STUDIAI MACAR LA NIVEL ELEMENTAR ACESTE DOUA DISCIPLINE AI FI VAZUT SI INTELES CA VITEZA SE POATE EXPRIMA SAU IN RADIANI/S (UNGHIULARA) SAU IN METRI/S - KILOMETRI/ORA (rotational velocity).
Pe
http://answerboard.cramster.com/physics-topic-5-248125-0.aspx vei gasi explicatia necesara, pe care am postat-o deja.
Orice site sau profesor care se respecta iti va spune: viteza rotationala a pamantului este de aproximativ 444 m/s in jurul propriei axe, daca doresti viteza unghiulara, exprimata in radiani, ai la dispozitie site-ul de mai sus.
http://www.thevlecks.net/rmj/earth.htmlhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/vel.html&edu=highhttp://calcme.com/calc/ff002ACUM, SA REVENIM LA EXPERIMENTUL FACUT DE ROWBOTHAM, CANNON BALL EXPERIMENT, CARE ITI VA DOVEDI, ODATA PENTRU TOTDEAUNA CA PAMANTUL ESTE ABSOLUT STATIONAR IN SPATIU, SI NU SE ROTESTE DELOC, NICI IN JURUL PROPRIEI AXE, SI NICI UN JURUL VREUNEI STELE.
Iata experimentul facut de S. Rowbotham in timp ce se afla in tren:
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.
Citeste cu atentie ce spune Rowbotham mai departe:
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.EXPERIMENTUL SENZATIONAL REALIZAT DE PROFESORUL S. ROWBOTHAM, PRECIZEZA CLAR ATAT VITEZA LA LATITUDINEA UNDE A FACUT EXPERIMENTUL (600 MILES/HR, VITEZA DE ROTATIE A PAMANTULUI IN JURUL PROPRIEI AXE), CAT SI TIMPUL PETRECUT DE PROIECTIL PE DIRECTIA VERTICALA (14 SECUNDE).
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! 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.
DACA AR FI EXISTAT VREO ROTATIE IN JURUL PROPRIEI AXE, ATUNCI PAMANTUL S-AR FI ROTIT CU 1,75 MILE SAU 2,8 KILOMETRI PE PARCURSUL TRAIECTORIEI PROIECTILULUI.
DACA LUAM IN CALCUL SI VITEZA DE ROTATIE DIN JURUL SOARELUI (ABSOLUT INEXISTENTA), PAMANTUL S-AR FI DEPLASAT PRIN SPATIU 812 KILOMETRI, IN 28 DE SECUNDE (VITEZA DE ROTATIE, 29 KM/S IN JURUL SOARELUI).
DECI, AVEM AICI EXPERIMENTUL CARE CONFIRMA DEMONSTRATIA DIN CARTEA GALILEO WAS WRONG:
If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.
Atmospheric circulation:
The conventional model
Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.
The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:
If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns?
It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.
If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens. 
