the jewish so-called "earth's rotation"

[Hugues de Payns]

If I stand in the courtyard surrounded by walls from all sides then according to the jewish so-called "earth's rotation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation#Angular_speed

"Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth's equatorial radius of 6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2? radians needed by both cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.10 meters per second (1,674.4 km/h).[38] Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.[39]"

if I jumped vertically up one of the walls would kill me.

Taking the above speed into consideration then if I stood in an open field and depending on the height at which I would jump vertically up, I would find myself in other places on the earth (of course I do not mean short distances caused different putting legs on the earth). Does it happen ? Of course not.

[aquinas138]

Imagine you are standing in a moving train at speed. If you want to take a seat to the rear of the car, do you just jump vertically and allow the back of the car to come to you? No, that would not happen—you would land right where you jumped from, even though the train is moving.

Everything on earth is moving with the earth in the direction of rotation. So your forward velocity is the same as the earth's, and you are still carried in that direction when you leave the ground. So you are in reality jumping up and FORWARD at the speed of the earth's rotation at your location. To be hit by the wall, you would somehow have to stop your forward motion, which would be equivalent to jumping backward at the speed of the earth's rotation.

A description of an object's motion is dependent on the frame of reference. When you jump straight up, from the perspective of someone on earth, moving with the earth, it appears you are jumping straight up (because the observer is moving with the earth, too). However, if an observer were to stand somewhere in space and observe the situation, your motion would be more complex, some sort of arc determined by the vectors of your jump's vertical velocity, the earth's rotation, etc.

That the observer matters is clearly seen from the train example. When you jump up and land in the same spot, that is with the train as the frame of reference; with the ground as the frame of reference, though, and observer watching the train go by would see you land further along the track with respect to the ground.

[Daniel]

Aquinas138 is right.

But whether or not the earth is rotating is another matter entirely.

[Hugues de Payns]

Imagine you are standing in a moving train at speed. If you want to take a seat to the rear of the car, do you just jump vertically and allow the back of the car to come to you? No, that would not happen—you would land right where you jumped from, even though the train is moving.

Everything on earth is moving with the earth in the direction of rotation. So your forward velocity is the same as the earth's, and you are still carried in that direction when you leave the ground. So you are in reality jumping up and FORWARD at the speed of the earth's rotation at your location. To be hit by the wall, you would somehow have to stop your forward motion, which would be equivalent to jumping backward at the speed of the earth's rotation.

A description of an object's motion is dependent on the frame of reference. When you jump straight up, from the perspective of someone on earth, moving with the earth, it appears you are jumping straight up (because the observer is moving with the earth, too). However, if an observer were to stand somewhere in space and observe the situation, your motion would be more complex, some sort of arc determined by the vectors of your jump's vertical velocity, the earth's rotation, etc.

That the observer matters is clearly seen from the train example. When you jump up and land in the same spot, that is with the train as the frame of reference; with the ground as the frame of reference, though, and observer watching the train go by would see you land further along the track with respect to the ground.

And in your opinion is this evidence for the so-called "earth's rotation" ?

[aquinas138]

Imagine you are standing in a moving train at speed. If you want to take a seat to the rear of the car, do you just jump vertically and allow the back of the car to come to you? No, that would not happen—you would land right where you jumped from, even though the train is moving.

Everything on earth is moving with the earth in the direction of rotation. So your forward velocity is the same as the earth's, and you are still carried in that direction when you leave the ground. So you are in reality jumping up and FORWARD at the speed of the earth's rotation at your location. To be hit by the wall, you would somehow have to stop your forward motion, which would be equivalent to jumping backward at the speed of the earth's rotation.

A description of an object's motion is dependent on the frame of reference. When you jump straight up, from the perspective of someone on earth, moving with the earth, it appears you are jumping straight up (because the observer is moving with the earth, too). However, if an observer were to stand somewhere in space and observe the situation, your motion would be more complex, some sort of arc determined by the vectors of your jump's vertical velocity, the earth's rotation, etc.

That the observer matters is clearly seen from the train example. When you jump up and land in the same spot, that is with the train as the frame of reference; with the ground as the frame of reference, though, and observer watching the train go by would see you land further along the track with respect to the ground.

And in your opinion is this evidence for the so-called "earth's rotation" ?

No, but it is an explanation for why you aren't killed by the walls.

[Markus]

Excellent argument.

[Hugues de Payns]

Imagine you are standing in a moving train at speed. If you want to take a seat to the rear of the car, do you just jump vertically and allow the back of the car to come to you? No, that would not happen—you would land right where you jumped from, even though the train is moving.

Everything on earth is moving with the earth in the direction of rotation. So your forward velocity is the same as the earth's, and you are still carried in that direction when you leave the ground. So you are in reality jumping up and FORWARD at the speed of the earth's rotation at your location. To be hit by the wall, you would somehow have to stop your forward motion, which would be equivalent to jumping backward at the speed of the earth's rotation.

A description of an object's motion is dependent on the frame of reference. When you jump straight up, from the perspective of someone on earth, moving with the earth, it appears you are jumping straight up (because the observer is moving with the earth, too). However, if an observer were to stand somewhere in space and observe the situation, your motion would be more complex, some sort of arc determined by the vectors of your jump's vertical velocity, the earth's rotation, etc.

That the observer matters is clearly seen from the train example. When you jump up and land in the same spot, that is with the train as the frame of reference; with the ground as the frame of reference, though, and observer watching the train go by would see you land further along the track with respect to the ground.

When I will jump vertically up, I am detached from the train, then what do you think drives me then to the same speed which the train hath ? Air on the train ?

First of all, the train moves slower than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed" ammount to, and secondly, one hath to jump vertically up high enough to be enough quantity of time (enough long) in the air to see the effect beacuse of the lesser train speed than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed".

And as I will slowly jump out from the train then why does this force, speed not carry me (I did not jump back in the opposite to it direction with its speed) ? It probably should carry me at least in an arc and I will land on the length of the place in which I jumped out.

[aquinas138]

When I will jump vertically up, I am detached from the train, then what do you think drives me then to the same speed which the train hath ? Air on the train ?

First of all, the train moves slower than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed" ammount to, and secondly, one hath to jump vertically up high enough to be enough quantity of time (enough long) in the air to see the effect beacuse of the lesser train speed than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed".

And as I will slowly jump out from the train then why does this force, speed not carry me (I did not jump back in the opposite to it direction with its speed) ? It probably should carry me at least in an arc and I will land on the length of the place in which I jumped out.

You are detached from the train, but you are still leave the train's floor with the forward velocity of the train. Your jump has both a vertical vector and the forward vector. You are considering only the vertical vector.

In the case of jumping out of the train, you are still jumping with the earth's rotational velocity in this case, too. In this situation, if you are jumping out of the side of the train, perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation, then your jump has both the vector out of the train and the vector in the direction of rotation, so you are still carried by the earth's rotation. Along that vector, you are moving in the same direction at the same speed as the earth; that is why the earth does not race past you while you are in the air.

[Hugues de Payns]

When I will jump vertically up, I am detached from the train, then what do you think drives me then to the same speed which the train hath ? Air on the train ?

First of all, the train moves slower than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed" ammount to, and secondly, one hath to jump vertically up high enough to be enough quantity of time (enough long) in the air to see the effect beacuse of the lesser train speed than ammount to the supposed "earth's rotation speed".

And as I will slowly jump out from the train then why does this force, speed not carry me (I did not jump back in the opposite to it direction with its speed) ? It probably should carry me at least in an arc and I will land on the length of the place in which I jumped out.

You are detached from the train, but you are still leave the train's floor with the forward velocity of the train. Your jump has both a vertical vector and the forward vector. You are considering only the vertical vector.

In the case of jumping out of the train, you are still jumping with the earth's rotational velocity in this case, too. In this situation, if you are jumping out of the side of the train, perpendicular to the direction of earth's rotation, then your jump has both the vector out of the train and the vector in the direction of rotation, so you are still carried by the earth's rotation. Along that vector, you are moving in the same direction at the same speed as the earth; that is why the earth does not race past you while you are in the air.

The train is going at a speed of 40 km/h. I am jumping out from it perpendicularly to its movement on length A. Will I land more or less on length A', which is its lengthening on the earth or on length B' distant about some distance from length A' ?

[Daniel]

The train is going at a speed of 40 km/h. I am jumping out from it perpendicularly to its movement on length A. Will I land more or less on length A', which is its lengthening on the earth or on length B' distant about some distance from length A' ?

You'd land perpendicular to the point on the train that you jumped from (relative to the train's new location). Most likely you'd land slightly behind that though, because of air resistance.

If you don't believe the theoretical prediction, you could just test it. (Though I'd recommend testing it in a way that isn't so dangerous.)

[Gardener]

The OP might wish to look up the Coriolis Effect and its use in aerial navigation, artillery fire, and long range precision shooting.

[Heinrich]

The OP might wish to look up the Coriolis Effect and its use in aerial navigation, artillery fire, and long range precision shooting.

Doesn't that afflict snipers' backs who lie prone for too long a time over the years?

[Hugues de Payns]

The train is going at a speed of 40 km/h. I am jumping out from it perpendicularly to its movement on length A. Will I land more or less on length A', which is its lengthening on the earth or on length B' distant about some distance from length A' ?

You'd land perpendicular to the point on the train that you jumped from (relative to the train's new location). Most likely you'd land slightly behind that though, because of air resistance.

If you don't believe the theoretical prediction, you could just test it. (Though I'd recommend testing it in a way that isn't so dangerous.)

This is more or less on length A'. I do not know whether I understand correctly.

This would mean that I did not have the train speed before the jump out when I stood on it and during the jump vertically up on the train when I was in the air, that when I stand on the train it is moving, I am not moving at its speed (I am not propelled by it), I am carried by it, that when I am in the air, the train is propelled but I do not.

[Daniel]

This is more or less on length A'. I do not know whether I understand correctly.

This would mean that I did not have the train speed before the jump out when I stood on it and during the jump vertically up on the train when I was in the air, that when I stand on the train it is moving, I am not moving at its speed (I am not propelled by it), I am carried by it, that when I am in the air, the train is propelled but I do not.

Without a diagram, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by A' and B'.

What I'm saying is, if the train is moving forward 40 mph, and you jump off of it sideways at e.g. 1 mph, then you are still moving forward 40 mph even when you're in the air. (Because when you're "connected" to the train, you're going forward at 40 mph. And that speed doesn't just disappear the moment you disconnect.)
So, relative to the train's new location, you'd land perpendicular. But the train has moved forward, so, relative to the ground, you don't land perpendicular from where you jumped off. (From a bird's eye view, you're moving on a diagonal. Mostly forward, but a little to the side.)

[Hugues de Payns]

Without a diagram, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by A' and B'.

What I'm saying is, if the train is moving forward 40 mph, and you jump off of it sideways at e.g. 1 mph, then you are still moving forward 40 mph even when you're in the air. (Because when you're "connected" to the train, you're going forward at 40 mph. And that speed doesn't just disappear the moment you disconnect.)
So, relative to the train's new location, you'd land perpendicular. But the train has moved forward, so, relative to the ground, you don't land perpendicular from where you jumped off. (From a bird's eye view, you're moving on a diagonal. Mostly forward, but a little to the side.)

Will I be losing the train speed after the jump out from this train ?