The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: cracrat on February 02, 2009, 08:23:25 AM
-
How do aeroplanes work with UA?
In the gravity model the plane has a constant force (gravity) tugging it to the ground which the lift provided by the wings overcomes, keeping it in the sky.
In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude. But the ground is accelarating toward the plane so to remain at a constant altitude the plane must also be continuously accelarating upwards. In other words, the wings can provide infinite lift.
The only way around this I can think of is that at some point in the flight, the plane becomes another body subject to UA and begins to be propelled upward by the Dark Energy or whatever it is that causes UA. But if this were the case in order to land the plane would have to generate enough down force somehow to overcome UA upwards and move toward the ground.
Can someone explain this to me please.
-
But the atmoplane is being accelerated upward by the earth as well.
-
acceleration != velocity
In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.
Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.
Can we possibly have a more detailed description of this in the FAQ? It seems every week some newcomer asks the same question.
PS: I'm RE.
-
But the atmoplane is being accelerated upward by the earth as well.
This answered my quandry, thanks. I knew there must have been some part of it I was missing, but I just couldn't figure out what it was.
acceleration != velocity
In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.
Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.
Can we possibly have a more detailed description of this in the FAQ? It seems every week some newcomer asks the same question.
PS: I'm RE.
Of course the plane would have to generate lift. If there were no force pulling the plane upwards, the ground would catch up with it (UA model) or gravity would drag it down. Regardless of the source of the downforce, in order for the plane to stay in the sky this must be overcome.
-
In the UA model, the ground is moving upwards toward the plane. If the ground were moving at a constant rate, the plane would simply have to generate enough lift to match this to remain at a constant altitude.
Nope, the plane would not need to generate any lift. Remember, F=ma.
Of course the plane would have to generate lift. If there were no force pulling the plane upwards, the ground would catch up with it (UA model) or gravity would drag it down. Regardless of the source of the downforce, in order for the plane to stay in the sky this must be overcome.
"Constant rate" seems to mean "constant velocity", in which case I'm correct. Try to explicitly say whether you're talking about acceleration or velocity, a lot of people forget to and then arguments start going around in circles.
-
The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth.
-
that's not possible. If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground. Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second. Isn't this the reason that space travel isn't possible? If that's true, aviation wouldn't be possible either, because the plane couldn't out-accelerate the earth upwards.
-
that\'s not possible. If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground. Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second. Isn\'t this the reason that space travel isn\'t possible? If that\'s true, aviation wouldn\'t be possible either, because the plane couldn\'t out-accelerate the earth upwards.
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate. How can the plane take off?
-
that\'s not possible. If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground. Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second. Isn\'t this the reason that space travel isn\'t possible? If that\'s true, aviation wouldn\'t be possible either, because the plane couldn\'t out-accelerate the earth upwards.
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate. How can the plane take off?
The plane is accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth.
-
that's not possible. If the plane was accelerating at the same rate as earth, it would not be able to get off the ground. Plus, my understanding of UA means that the earth is increasing in acceleration every second. Isn't this the reason that space travel isn't possible? If that's true, aviation wouldn't be possible either, because the plane couldn't out-accelerate the earth upwards.
In order to take off, the plane must accelerate at a rate greater than that of the Earth. To maintain its altitude, it must only match the acceleration of the Earth. The acceleration of the FE is constant, not increasing.
-
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate.
Noobs. ::)
-
Sure the earth is accelerating at a constant speed, 9.8 m/s/s. But if it hasn't reached a terminal velocity, then it's still accelerating. Being around for as long as it has, it would be virtually impossible for a plane to accelerate up to get off the ground, right?
I believe i read it in this thread- page 2 3rd to last post, by trig.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26149.20
-
Also remember that airplanes are balanced with respect to the direction gravity is going at any given time. As the plane goes over the curvature of the earth, the gravitational pull should also change the angle at which the plane needs to be to stay balanced. In the case of planes which are naturally stable, like a Cessna 172, this could be considered a sort of pendulum effect, whereby the bulk of the plane's weight hangs below the wings which generate lift. As gravity changes going over the curvature of earth, the differing direction of gravity readjusts how this pendulum wants to hang. This, in turn, orients the plane automatically.
You could also say it's a pressure thing, whereby the minute pressure differences at x+1 feet vs x feet cause the plane to generate less lift, causing it to fall back to x feet.
-
Sure the earth is accelerating at a constant speed, 9.8 m/s/s.
9.8m/s^2 is not a speed, it's an acceleration.
But if it hasn't reached a terminal velocity, then it's still accelerating.
Right.
Being around for as long as it has, it would be virtually impossible for a plane to accelerate up to get off the ground, right?
No.
-
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.
-
Yeah, it\'s constantly accelerating at a faster rate.
Noobs. ::)
But if it wasn't going faster it wouldn't be accelerating.
-
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.
What? No! If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is (in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.
This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.
EDIT: Typos.
-
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.
What, no? If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.
This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.
No, you are thinking of a stationary object. The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration. Take a high school physics class sometime.
-
But the acceleration is increasing or it wouldn't be accelerating.
What, no? If the acceleration was zero (i.e. constant speed), it wouldn't be accelerating. Acceleration is in FE) constant, at 9.8 m/s/s.
This means speed is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second.
No, you are thinking of a stationary object. The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration. Take a high school physics class sometime.
Acceleration is defined as the rate of change in velocity. Constant acceleration means constantly changing velocity. Why is that so hard for you to understand? ???
-
The acceleration has to increase for it to have a constant acceleration.
self contradiction
-
Take a high school physics class sometime.
Been there, done that, got an A. I did an extension paper as well, I got a distinction. Now I'm doing Maths and Physics at Uni. We have engineers and scientists on these forums. This issue has been brought up hundreds of times by noobs.
Not to be too condescending, but I really think we know what we're talking about.
-
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).
My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.
For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.
Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
-
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).
My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.
For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correctin applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.
Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
Wow! That's an amazing second post. You falsified FE very well and very clearly. Good job.
-
Thank you, but that was not my intention. I enjoy a good debate and am here to make the FE'ers work hard to convince me that their theory is plausable.
I am applying the scientific method which most radical theorys seem to convieniently forget about.
This involves making or finding a theory and trying to disprove it. Failing to disprove it allows the theory to become fact until another, better theory supercedes it.
This is how Albert Einstein surpassed Issac Newton, how Issac Newton surpassed Galileo and how Galileo surpassed Aristotle.
-
Also lets not forget that the FE theory was replaced with the RE theory nearly 600 years ago
-
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).
My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.
For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.
Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.
-
Can we be clear here? Are the stars rotating the Earth? or rotating themselves?
If they are just rotating themselves they will have no effect on a gyroscope.
If they are rotating the Earth then the correction applied would not need to be reversed when passing over the georgraphical north pole
-
Not to get into the effect of vertical acceleration (I fully understand how an aircraft can fly under the FE theory).
My problem with aircraft in the FE theory is the widely used (by every aircraft in the world) IN (Inertial Navigation) system.
For correct use of the IN system corrections need to be inputted to the gyroscopes to compensate for Earth and Vehicle rates.
The Earth rates compensate for the spin of the Earth on its axis and this can be modified quite simply to fit the FE theory but Vehicle rates when travelling along a North-South flight path need a correcton applied to the East axis to keep the Vertical axis vertical in relation to the Earths surface.
Under the FE theory this would not be nessesary
It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.
Care to share the mathematics you did to reach that conclusion?
How did you get around the problem of the mystery force (centrifugal force in the RE model) being strongest on the equator?
What about the problem of the stars "gravity" not being an inverse square?
-
OK firstly: gravity has nothing to do with the gyroscopic effect. As for stars gravity being an inverse square, I have no idea what your talking about and will shortly research the sbuject.
Secondly: The Earths centripetal force (centrifugal force is the imaginary force perceved because of centripetal force) would only apply a torque to an aircrafts gyros when its stationary and on the ground but still need to be compensated for whilst the aircraft is flying and changing time zones. Both these needs are met with the correction of Earth rates.
As for numbers:
Earth Rates
A torque is applied to the Vertical gyro to alter the platform and keep the north gyro pointing towards true north. This correction is 15o per hour (the rate of the earths rotation on its axis)
Another torque is applied to the North gyro. This corrects the platform as it moves around the earth (as the earth rotates) and keeps the platform horizontal RWT Earth. The value of this torque changes depending on the lattitude of the airraft. (present position must be inputted before the IN system will function)
Vehicle Rates
These, as the name suggests, are dependant on the velocity of the aircraft.
If the aircraft is moving north at a rate of 2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of 2o per hour needs to be applied to the east gyro to keep the platform horizontal.
If the aircraft is moving eastat a rate of2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of2o per hour needs to be applied to the vertical gyro to keep the platform facing north and correction torque dependant on the direction and current lattitude of the aircraft is applied to the north and east gyros to keep the platform horizontal.
Every aircraft in the world has this system. It uses accelerometers to detect the rate of change of velocity in the north east and vertical axis. The corrections are calculated and applied to the gyros to keep the accelerometers in line with their respective axis.
-
OK firstly: gravity has nothing to do with the gyroscopic effect. As for stars gravity being an inverse square, I have no idea what your talking about and will shortly research the sbuject.
Gravity follows an inverse square law, ie the force by an object due to gravity is proportional to 1/(r^2) where r is the distance of the affected body.
Secondly: The Earths centripetal force (centrifugal force is the imaginary force perceved because of centripetal force) would only apply a torque to an aircrafts gyros when its stationary and on the ground but still need to be compensated for whilst the aircraft is flying and changing time zones. Both these needs are met with the correction of Earth rates.
Centrifugal force is very much real when in a rotating frame of reference (which you and I are under the round earth model), and it causes the force holding us (and aeroplanes) on the earth to be weaker at the equator.
As for numbers:
Earth Rates
A torque is applied to the Vertical gyro to alter the platform and keep the north gyro pointing towards true north. This correction is 15o per hour (the rate of the earths rotation on its axis)
Another torque is applied to the North gyro. This corrects the platform as it moves around the earth (as the earth rotates) and keeps the platform horizontal RWT Earth. The value of this torque changes depending on the lattitude of the airraft. (present position must be inputted before the IN system will function)
Vehicle Rates
These, as the name suggests, are dependant on the velocity of the aircraft.
If the aircraft is moving north at a rate of 2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of 2o per hour needs to be applied to the east gyro to keep the platform horizontal.
If the aircraft is moving eastat a rate of2o per hour (thats 600NMph in a greater circle) then a correction torque of2o per hour needs to be applied to the vertical gyro to keep the platform facing north and correction torque dependant on the direction and current lattitude of the aircraft is applied to the north and east gyros to keep the platform horizontal.
Every aircraft in the world has this system. It uses accelerometers to detect the rate of change of velocity in the north east and vertical axis. The corrections are calculated and applied to the gyros to keep the accelerometers in line with their respective axis.
I was asking for numbers from Tom... I have no doubt that you are correct. ;)
-
It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.
Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?
-
Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?
Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows the direction and rate of the stars.
-
Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?
Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows he direction and rate of the stars.
Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.
I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?
-
Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?
Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows he direction and rate of the stars.
Nope. Patently false. You've once again confused correlation with cause. Furthermore your observation works only on the NP.
-
Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.
I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?
At the equator the stars overhead at the edges of the Northern celestial system are making such broad strokes across the sky that they appear to be traveling in straight lines.
-
Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.
I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?
At the equator the stars overhead at the edges of the Northern celestial system are making such broad strokes across the sky that they appear to be traveling in straight lines.
So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?
-
So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?
Have you tried it?
-
So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?
Have you tried it?
Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?
-
Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?
If you haven't tried it, or know of any references from anyone who has, I'm not sure how you can say what happens when you set up the pendulum in the way you described.
-
Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?
If you haven't tried it, or know of any references from anyone who has, I'm not sure how you can say what happens when you set up the pendulum in the way you described.
I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.
-
Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?
Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows the direction and rate of the stars.
Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.
For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
-
I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.
How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?
Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.
Nope.
-
I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.
How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?
I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.
-
I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.
How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?
Fallacy.
It doesn't matter where Foucault Pendulums are. They all work as defined, and are underpinned by a rotating spherical earth.
-
I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.
If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.
I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.
-
I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.
If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.
I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?
-
I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.
If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.
I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction.
All I want to know is, do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
-
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?
Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?
-
I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.
If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.
I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction.
All I want to know is, do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
Then the answer 'yes' should sate your curiosity.
-
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?
Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?
GOOGLE is your friend.
-
GOOGLE is your friend.
No google is TBs enemy. Its a tool of the conspiracy after all.
The lovely warm feeling from a 1st edition ENaG is all he needs. Awww.
-
Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?
Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?
GOOGLE is your friend.
So no studies then?
-
I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.
How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?
Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.
Nope.
If your answer to doing research is "nope" then you are too rigid for proper debate. You refuse to do research even though the appropriate links were handed to you.
-
If your answer to doing research is "nope" then you are too rigid for proper debate. You refuse to do research even though the appropriate links were handed to you.
What links? I keep asking for the studies you keep referencing, but I keep getting none.
-
For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
Please read all of my posts before responding
-
For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
Please read all of my posts before responding
Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?
-
For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
Please read all of my posts before responding
Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?
3 paragraphs down. Under the heading "Does The Earth Move For You Too?"
The observation of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that one cannot feel the rotation of the earth is correct. However, the rate of rotation required for the heliocentric picture (0.0007 revolutions per minute) is so slow that one would not expect to feel it. How can one measure such a slow rotation? In 1851, Jean-Bernard-Leon Foucault suspended a 67 metre, 28 kilogram pendulum from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. The plane of its motion, with respect to the earth, rotated slowly clockwise. This motion is most easily explained if the earth turns.
1st paragraph under "Why Does The Orbit Of Foucault's Pendulum Precess?"
Suppose* someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc. To someone directly above the Pole and not turning with the earth, the pendulum would seem to trace repeatedly an arc in the same plane while the earth rotated slowly clockwise below it. To someone on the earth, however, the earth seems to be stationary, and the plane of the pendulum's motion would seem to move slowly anticlockwise, viewed from above. We say that the pendulum's motion precesses. The earth turns on its axis every 23.93 hours, so to the terrestrial observer at the pole, the plane of the pendulum seems to precess through 360 degrees in that time.
For any more...read the f*****g page!
-
3 paragraphs down. Under the heading "Does The Earth Move For You Too?"
The observation of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that one cannot feel the rotation of the earth is correct. However, the rate of rotation required for the heliocentric picture (0.0007 revolutions per minute) is so slow that one would not expect to feel it. How can one measure such a slow rotation? In 1851, Jean-Bernard-Leon Foucault suspended a 67 metre, 28 kilogram pendulum from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. The plane of its motion, with respect to the earth, rotated slowly clockwise. This motion is most easily explained if the earth turns.
1st paragraph under "Why Does The Orbit Of Foucault's Pendulum Precess?"
Suppose* someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc. To someone directly above the Pole and not turning with the earth, the pendulum would seem to trace repeatedly an arc in the same plane while the earth rotated slowly clockwise below it. To someone on the earth, however, the earth seems to be stationary, and the plane of the pendulum's motion would seem to move slowly anticlockwise, viewed from above. We say that the pendulum's motion precesses. The earth turns on its axis every 23.93 hours, so to the terrestrial observer at the pole, the plane of the pendulum seems to precess through 360 degrees in that time.
For any more...read the f*****g page!
Where's the proof that it's the earth is moving and not the pendulum as directly observed?
-
OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.
-
OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.
Where's the evidence for that?
-
OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.
You know, it's one explanation for pendulum movement but Tom prefers not to accept that but explain it with some other unexplainable phenomenon.
-
OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.
Where's the evidence for that?
The evidence is on the page! Yes it assumes a round earth, but that's the point!
The experiment assumes a round earth and applies an experiment to either prove or disprove its theory. That's called the scientific method. Viewing the results without bias.
You won't even trust the results, let alone view them without bias.
-
The evidence is on the page! Yes it assumes a round earth, but that's the point!
The experiment assumes a round earth and applies an experiment to either prove or disprove its theory. That's called the scientific method. Viewing the results without bias.
You won't even trust the results, let alone view them without bias.
What evidence on that page proves that the earth is spinning and that the pendulum is affected by nothing else?
-
The Foucault Pendulum at the School of Physics of The University of New South Wales is a "hands-on" version. There is no electromagnetic drive but, because of its size once it is started it will swing for several hours. Visitors are invited to start it swinging in a plane that is accurately defined by a fixed vertical wire and a vertical line on the wall. (See the animation above) The pendulum takes seven minutes to precess one degree, but even smaller angles than this can be seen by sighting along the reference plane.
This is another excerpt from that site.
Sometimes reading it isn't enough, understanding is required
-
So where's the evidence that the rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the earth and no other phenomenon?
-
What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?
-
So where's the evidence that the rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the earth and no other phenomenon?
Tom, you are familiar with that kind of logic. It's easier to explain it with rotation of earth than with any other phenomenon.
-
Occam's razor
Google it!
-
For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html
Please read all of my posts before responding
Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?
Tom, again, please listen. The scientific method does not work the way you wish. Here's the the outline of the scientific method as applied to FPs.
Hypothesis: The RE rotates. The amount of rotation of an FP can be predicted by formula based on the FP's latitude.
Design: With FPs in both NH and SH, measure the amount (and direction) of the FPs's rotation.
Result: FPs sweep out the expected amounts with the direction in the NH opposite of the SH.
Conclusion: The hypothesis has predictive merit.
Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.
RET is the better model in regards to FPs.
-
I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces. I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons. These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force. The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.
Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.
-
What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?
The rotational pull of the stars overhead.
-
What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?
The rotational pull of the stars overhead.
Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.
-
I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces. I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons. These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force. The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.
Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.
This is becoming tiresome. An "FE theorist" invents a cute name for the phenomenon that would fake the evidence that bugs him, tells everyone that he is working on the model, and then starts using the model as truth, without ever showing a number, a formula, a prediction, or anything else resembling science. Then, when somebody asks for any substance, they say they have no budget or time. But the theory has become accepted fact anyway.
Finally, bad use of Occam's Razor and requirements towards others to prove them wrong convert a totally useless hypothesis into a subject of debate. Before inventing "coriolons" why don't you use some of your time working on:
- bendy light
- aether
- gravitational pull from stars
- multiple southern poles
- UA
- Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
- bowshocks
- ... and many more.
They all started like your "coriolons" are still in need of the "maths".
-
I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces. I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons. These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force. The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.
Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.
This is becoming tiresome. An "FE theorist" invents a cute name for the phenomenon that would fake the evidence that bugs him, tells everyone that he is working on the model, and then starts using the model as truth, without ever showing a number, a formula, a prediction, or anything else resembling science. Then, when somebody asks for any substance, they say they have no budget or time. But the theory has become accepted fact anyway.
Finally, bad use of Occam's Razor and requirements towards others to prove them wrong convert a totally useless hypothesis into a subject of debate. Before inventing "coriolons" why don't you use some of your time working on:
- bendy light
- aether
- gravitational pull from stars
- multiple southern poles
- UA
- Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
- bowshocks
- ... and many more.
They all started like your "coriolons" are still in need of the "maths".
Tip of the hat...
-
I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces. I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons. These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force. The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.
Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.
This is becoming tiresome. An "FE theorist" invents a cute name for the phenomenon that would fake the evidence that bugs him, tells everyone that he is working on the model, and then starts using the model as truth, without ever showing a number, a formula, a prediction, or anything else resembling science. Then, when somebody asks for any substance, they say they have no budget or time. But the theory has become accepted fact anyway.
Finally, bad use of Occam's Razor and requirements towards others to prove them wrong convert a totally useless hypothesis into a subject of debate. Before inventing "coriolons" why don't you use some of your time working on:
- bendy light
- aether
- gravitational pull from stars
- multiple southern poles
- UA
- Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
- bowshocks
- ... and many more.
They all started like your "coriolons" are still in need of the "maths".
Well done...
-
Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.
Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?
-
Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?
How does the periodic comets and meteor showers fit into the gear system?
-
How does the periodic comets and meteor showers fit into the gear system?
They're periodic and come through our system from the unobservable stellar plane every now and then.
-
How does the periodic comets and meteor showers fit into the gear system?
They're periodic and come through our system from the unobservable stellar plane every now and then.
Do you care to explain a little. Do we for example have every year different Perseids every time or are they fixated somehow to some plane which rotates? If they are not fixed then how they come toward us and not away from us. UA must push them also like it pushes earth. If they are fixed to some plane then how do you picture hundred of solid planes rotating up there and going through others?
-
Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.
Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?
Tom, you are so entertaining sometimes. I can almost hear your fellow FEers crying out loud. No, the stars rotate in the SAME direction on either side of the Equator. Thanks for the fun though.
-
Do you care to explain a little. Do we for example have every year different Perseids every time or are they fixated somehow to some plane which rotates? If they are not fixed then how they come toward us and not away from us. UA must push them also like it pushes earth. If they are fixed to some plane then how do you picture hundred of solid planes rotating up there and going through others?
They're not coming from "up above" they're coming in from the side, making a big loop around the Northern Hub and leaving whence they came to return again some other day.
-
I would have thought that they spontaneously start appearing and falling at a certain point in the sky with respect to the background of stars at the same time each year. At least, that's what appears to happen. I don't know what all this looping round the Northen hub stuff is about
-
Do you care to explain a little. Do we for example have every year different Perseids every time or are they fixated somehow to some plane which rotates? If they are not fixed then how they come toward us and not away from us. UA must push them also like it pushes earth. If they are fixed to some plane then how do you picture hundred of solid planes rotating up there and going through others?
They're not coming from "up above" they're coming in from the side, making a big loop around the Northern Hub and leaving whence they came to return again some other day.
Okay, from side. But I kind of interested now what the meteors are. Are they just some blinking lights on solid plane which are turned on for a second if they are above earth and because of movement of plane we see not blink but a line across the sky?
And still how many planes there are and how do you explain different meteor directions. One goes to six o'clock, other to nine o'clock, yet another to four o'clock and occasionally some goes to twelve o'clock.
And why they return? I guess if they are fixed on solid planes then I can understand it but if there are no solid planes then why?
-
I don't know what all this looping round the Northen hub stuff is about
I wonder to where Tom's post disappeared which said that they are attracted to Northern something. But anyway, if meteoroids are attracted to earths northern pole then it raises the question why they all don't fall there and how come that the ones that fall don't go all in direction of north. Also it predicts the phenomenon where you let object fall at great high and it must deviate slightly from straight path to the north. Because if north can attract objects from high sky then it must attract all other things on earth.
-
What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?
The rotational pull of the stars overhead.
Where is your evidence that this exists?
IMPORTANT: a Foucalt pendulum id not evidence for this because it can also be explained by a rotating Earth. I want some evidence for this magical and never-before-seen phenomenon that can't be explained by RET.
-
What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?
The rotational pull of the stars overhead.
What is this "rotational pull"? Are you talking about gravity? If so, just say "gravity by means of attraction between masses exists uniformly in FE Theory" and we can all go home.
Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?
I like it how he says it like it was a first year uni course that you flunked.
If the stars rotated in opposite directions, there would be an observable "shear" at the equator. (and probably shearing your gears too... eeeek!)