An argument against the rotation of the earth

Arguments for the rotation of the earth necessitate a very considerable rotational speed. Most encyclopedia estimate the diameter of a spherical model of the earth at 40 000Km (ca 25000 Miles) which are alleged to complete a rotation in 24 hrs. This would correspond to an equatorial velocity of ca 1650 Km/H (1000 m.p.h).

At speeds of this order a strong wind is normally felt. For comparison, goggles are required when riding a motorcycle in excess of 80 Km/H (50 m.p.h) because the force of the wind makes it difficult to keep the eyes open. Clearly the wind velocity experienced at speeds of over 1600 Km/H would be an order of magnitude greater than this.

Another effect of winds at this velocity is heating and scouring of surfaces exposed to them. Aircraft lose paintwork and in Concorde, and other supersonic aircraft, the windows are, in fact, heated by the friction of air molecules. If the earth rotated this effect would, of course, be easily detectable by placing one's hand on the surface of the external windows of any building, and this experiment shows conclusively that no heating takes place. Additionally, at windspeeds of this velocity, roofs of buildings normally disintegrate and there is extensive structural damage.

If the earth was round and rotated it would be rather dusty, and in fact life would be unsustainable. Further if the earth rotated at 1650 Km/h, a supersonic aircraft travelling at this speed from Europe to America, against the supposed direction of rotation, for two and a half hours would not reach New York but would remain stationary above London.

Clearly, even the most dogmatic rotationist cannot argue that winds at anything like these speeds are experienced on the earth, even at the equator, and, if there is any evidence to the contrary, then they are urged to make it available for proper scientific scrutiny.