29) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, this should somewhere somehow be seen, heard, felt or measured by someone, yet no one in history has ever experienced this alleged Eastward motion; meanwhile, however, we can hear, feel and experimentally measure even the slightest Westward breeze.
Interestingly, people have measured the rotation of the Earth from the surface of the Earth. If the author was interested in doing so, he could cheaply do so with a Foucault Pendulum.
The author envisions that the Earth moving at 1000 mph would be the same as a convertible moving at 1000 mph. First of all, the atmosphere close to the Earth moves along with the Earth. Second of all, the situation the author describes is a train moving 2000 mph on a surface moving at 1000 mph.
28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.
The author assumes that the air would not be moving with the Earth. Because of gravity and friction, the atmosphere in general moves with the Earth near Earth’s surface. This is no different than a previous proof.
27) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, landing airplanes on such fast-moving runways which face all manner of directions North, South, East, West and otherwise would be practically impossible, yet in reality such fictional concerns are completely negligible.
This is the same relative velocity argument that has been addressed several times (once, twice, thrice). The author likes to switch the reference frame when it is convenient for his argument. Switching the argument invalidates the argument though.
26) Quoting “Heaven and Earth” by Gabrielle Henriet, “If flying had been invented at the time of Copernicus, there is no doubt that he would have soon realized that his contention regarding the rotation of the earth was wrong, on account of the relation existing between the speed of an aircraft and that of the earth’s rotation. If the earth rotates, as it is said, at 1,000 miles an hour, and a plane flies in the same direction at only 500 miles, it is obvious that its place of destination will be farther removed every minute. On the other hand, if flying took place in the direction opposite to that of the rotation, a distance of 1,500 miles would be covered in one hour, instead of 500, since the speed of the rotation is to be added to that of the plane. It could also be pointed out that such a flying speed of 1,000 miles an hour, which is supposed to be that of the earth’s rotation, has recently been achieved, so that an aircraft flying at this rate in the same direction as that of the rotation could not cover any ground at all. It would remain suspended in mid-air over the spot from which it took off, since both speeds are equal.”
I do not see how quoting an article a book makes this argument any more valid than proof 25. The author uses the same velocities and switches reference frames during the thought process.
25) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph, then the average commercial airliner traveling 500mph should never be able to reach its Eastward destinations before they come speeding up from behind! Likewise Westward destinations should be arrived at thrice the speed, but this is not the case.
I addressed this before in one manner or another. It is described in greater detail by NASA. Essentially, once a person chooses a reference frame, that reference frame must be the same throughout the thought experiment. A ball thrown 10 miles per hour forward from a 60 mph car will hit a target at 70 miles per hour. In this case the reference frame is the car. If you selected the car as the reference frame, the person throws a ball forward at 10 mph from a car sitting at rest with a target moving at the car at 60 mph.
In the above scenario. The plane stationary plane is moving eastward on Earth’s surface at 1000 mph. It takes off and travels eastward at 500 mph; in the author’s logic, suddenly the Earth’s surface becomes stationary for this measurement. Lastly, the destination begins moving again at 1000 mph eastward.
The error is that the relative velocity of the flying plane is 1500 mph. The plane adds 500 mph to its 1000 mph initial velocity to take off and reach cruising altitude.
24) If Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning eastwards over 1000mph then North/South facing cannons should establish a control while East-firing cannonballs should fall significantly farther than all others while West-firing cannonballs should fall significantly closer. In actual fact, however, regardless of which direction cannons are fired, the distance covered is always the same.
This is the same inertia argument from before not once but twice.
The author is missing two points. First, the cannonball sitting in the cannon is moving at 1000 mph and the target is moving at 1000 mph. Therefore the cannonball will have no greater or lesser impact based on its direction of fire.
The second problem with the author’s logic is he constantly changes the reference frame. When measuring the resting cannonball that is about to fire east, it is moving at 0 mph. When the cannonball is fired it is moving at some velocity plus the velocity of the surface of the Earth. The target is also moving at 0 mph.
23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.
Atmospheric movements are more complicated than this. They require an understanding of fluid dynamics, thermal changes, and air density. This results in weather currents. In general though, this of course makes sense. The closer air is to the Earth, the more the things like trees, hills, and buildings will cause the air to move at the same velocity as the ground. Because of the air currents and lack of friction further up, the atmospheric winds are able to climb until air density and temperature decline to a level that causes the atmosphere’s movement to slow.
I’m honestly not sure how rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes, or projectiles behave differently. In fact, they behave precisely the way they should on a ball Earth. All of these things move with relative velocity the way they should on a ball Earth.