- #1
Gabe911
- 4
- 0
the other day i read this argument for the idea that the Earth doesn't rotate upon its axis. the argument goes like this:
“Two birds fly from a branch of a tree with equal speed to that of the earth’s rotation which is 1036 mph and one flies to the east and the other to the west. The one flying to the west will reach a distance of 2072 miles because as much as it went to the west, this branch went to the east due to the earth’s rotation. And the one going to the east will not move a hair’s length from the branch because as he is flying with the same speed the branch of the tree too, is going along with it. But we practically observe that both of them have equal speed going opposite to each other, and go to the same distance. If their speed of flying is less than that of the earth, for example 1035 mph, then the west-bound one will reach a distance of 2071 miles to the west. And its opponent, the east bound having toiled for an hour and having traversed 1035 miles will find itself only a mile away from the branch of that tree and that too, to its west. Isn’t it awkward that he just flew to the east direction and found himself to the west of the place? All this is absurd, false and contrary to observation.”
how would one respond to this argument?
“Two birds fly from a branch of a tree with equal speed to that of the earth’s rotation which is 1036 mph and one flies to the east and the other to the west. The one flying to the west will reach a distance of 2072 miles because as much as it went to the west, this branch went to the east due to the earth’s rotation. And the one going to the east will not move a hair’s length from the branch because as he is flying with the same speed the branch of the tree too, is going along with it. But we practically observe that both of them have equal speed going opposite to each other, and go to the same distance. If their speed of flying is less than that of the earth, for example 1035 mph, then the west-bound one will reach a distance of 2071 miles to the west. And its opponent, the east bound having toiled for an hour and having traversed 1035 miles will find itself only a mile away from the branch of that tree and that too, to its west. Isn’t it awkward that he just flew to the east direction and found himself to the west of the place? All this is absurd, false and contrary to observation.”
how would one respond to this argument?