The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: FlatOrange on September 17, 2013, 11:39:02 PM
-
Check it out.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/18/1379463143795/Google-doodle-008.jpg)
From the Guardian:
"Google's latest doodle marks the birthday of Jean Bernard Léon Foucault, the French physicist and inventor of a pendulum that demonstrated the rotation of the earth.
Foucault is also credited with making an early measurement of the speed of light and with the discovery of eddy currents: electric currents induced within conductors by a changing magnetic field in the conductor, which are sometimes called Foucault currents.
The son of a publisher, Foucault was born in Paris in 1819, where he initially studied medicine but soon switched to physics. Initially, the primary focus of his research was into LJM Daguerre's photographic processes, while he was also an assistant to the bacteriologist Alfred Donne in the course of his work on microscopic anatomy.
After collaborating with his fellow physicist Hippolyte Fizeau on a series of investigations into the intensity of the light of the sun, he made his name at the Panthéon in Paris in 1851 with a demonstration that involved suspending a 67-metre, 28kg pendulum suspended from the building's dome.
The plane of its motion, with respect to the earth, rotated slowly clockwise. The experiment sparked a pendulum-mania across Europe and the United States, and crowds were attracted to observe so-called "Foucault pendulums" in major cities on both sides of the Atlantic.
Later achievements included devising a method of testing the mirror of a reflecting telescope to determine its shape, the so-called "Foucault knife-edge test".
By way of recognition for his achievements, Foucault was made a member of the Bureau des Longitudes, of the Royal Society of London and of the Legion d'Honneur.
The physicist, whose name is one of 72 French scientists, engineers, and mathematicians engraved on the Eiffel Tower, died in Paris in 1868."
-
I already posted this in the lounge with about 1% of your effort and minus the copy paste.
-
I for one, appreciate the extra effort. Thanks FlatOrange.
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
-
Just to complete this topic, this is what Voliva said about the Foucault pendulum as quoted by Martin Gardner in Fads and Fallacies in The Name of Science (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fads+and+Fallacies+in+the+Name+of+Science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8E43UuLIBcWphAeb3oGADg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) page 18:
One of the best known proofs of the earth's rotation makes use of a device called the Foucault pendulum. This consists of a heavy weight suspended on a long wire. As the weight swings back and forth, inertia causes it to stay in the same plane of swing while the earth turns beneath it. The result is that the plane of swing seems to rotate slowly. The article quoted above disposes neatly of this proof. "If the earth's motion has anything to do with the movement of the pendulum," the author asks, "why must you start it going? The real fact is, and everybody who gives it a serious thought must see, that if the earth were whirling around with the speed astronomers say it is, the pendulum would fly straight out in space and stay there."
-
Just to complete this topic, this is what Voliva said about the Foucault pendulum as quoted by Martin Gardner in Fads and Fallacies in The Name of Science (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fads+and+Fallacies+in+the+Name+of+Science&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8E43UuLIBcWphAeb3oGADg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) page 18:
One of the best known proofs of the earth's rotation makes use of a device called the Foucault pendulum. This consists of a heavy weight suspended on a long wire. As the weight swings back and forth, inertia causes it to stay in the same plane of swing while the earth turns beneath it. The result is that the plane of swing seems to rotate slowly. The article quoted above disposes neatly of this proof. "If the earth's motion has anything to do with the movement of the pendulum," the author asks, "why must you start it going? The real fact is, and everybody who gives it a serious thought must see, that if the earth were whirling around with the speed astronomers say it is, the pendulum would fly straight out in space and stay there."
That's ridiculous.
-
I know it is but that is what FEer would probably say.
-
Some would say AWT accounts for it.
-
Some would say AWT accounts for it.
Doesn't the precise oscillation rate as observed at different latitudes mean anything to FE'rs? Just put 2 + 2 together.
-
I believe I have also read magnetism proposed as one possibility, although it was thrown out as a remote possibility.
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
Yes. Celestial gravitation.
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
Yes. Celestial gravitation.
Well, how large and far away do you think all of the stars/planets are?
Most FE models have proven to fall short of celestial gravitation having any really significant effect on our planet.
Also, I love when a theory, like gravity, which is largely denied in FET is used to explain these types of things. Why do other planets and stars have gravity?
Why would that effect a flat, UA-propelled disk?
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
Yes. Celestial gravitation.
???
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
How can anyone take the wiki serious when this is all the information provided about some extra law for physics that must be applied for any of this FE stuff to work?
However far away the stars (we can at least assume they are relatively far away), imagine the size of these gravitational fields? Not to mention the seemingly selective quality of this type of gravitation. Celestial objects do it but Earth doesn't? The only zetetic observation to be made about how gravity works is the observation we see on earth, attributing it to the heavens is a whole lot of wishful thinking about something that FE'rs have no intention to verify.
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
Yes. Celestial gravitation.
???
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
How can anyone take the wiki serious when this is all the information provided about some extra law for physics that must be applied for any of this FE stuff to work?
Because these people have never heard of Occam's razor, apparently.
-
And if celestial objects could be responsible then why not the moon? Doesn't the moon look closer? So if gravity, to a FE'r is something that might exist, why not the moon? Yet, objects with distances (that in the FE mind) that you object to being knowable are causing it?
Why do we need to make up so much stuff to account for the Earth being flat without so much as your imagination to make up for it?
But RE has one anomaly that is admittedly peculiar by all of science and the FE side can just keep hammering on about how it's nothing but made-up magic?
Come on now.
-
Just curious if there is a FE explanation for this?
Yes. Celestial gravitation.
One liner like this is meaningless, so please elaborate. Don't just throw one liner without explaining.
-
The pendulum moves at the same speed as the sun I'd presume. And the sun is a celestial object. Some claim that gravitation pull gets weaker as you go higher. The theory is that the sun is pulling you slightly (as do the stars and moon too). This is celestial gravitation.
-
The pendulum moves at the same speed as the sun I'd presume. And the sun is a celestial object. Some claim that gravitation pull gets weaker as you go higher. The theory is that the sun is pulling you slightly (as do the stars and moon too). This is celestial gravitation.
My problem with this is that it entails selective gravitation.
The Earth has no gravity, rather it is simulated why whatever you choose to believe.
Yet, the Sun and moon and stars have gravity, and their gravity is effecting our non-existent gravity somehow?
Are we outside of the space-time continuum?
-
The pendulum moves at the same speed as the sun I'd presume. And the sun is a celestial object. Some claim that gravitation pull gets weaker as you go higher. The theory is that the sun is pulling you slightly (as do the stars and moon too). This is celestial gravitation.
My problem with this is that it entails selective gravitation.
The Earth has no gravity, rather it is simulated why whatever you choose to believe.
Yet, the Sun and moon and stars have gravity, and their gravity is effecting our non-existent gravity somehow?
Are we outside of the space-time continuum?
Yes selective gravity. The concept of gravity, that same concept that gets condemned on these forums by the FE side, is now actually a thing that's acceptable but now with shiny brand new selective attributes!
It's real cute to give RE a hard time about gravity until the moment comes along when FE realizes they need it too. Only their version of it is even more magical.
-
The pendulum moves at the same speed as the sun I'd presume. And the sun is a celestial object. Some claim that gravitation pull gets weaker as you go higher. The theory is that the sun is pulling you slightly (as do the stars and moon too). This is celestial gravitation.
I think you need to understand how a Foucault pendulum works first:
- It rotates clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere
- Its rotational speed depends on its latitude. A Foucault pendulum at 30° latitude rotates 180° per day whereas that at poles (90°), rotates 360° per day
And this is regardless of where the sun is (summer solstice, winter solstice, equinox, or anywhere in between).
-
I don't need to learn to understand anything. I'm just telling you about FET. You guys are asking questions about it. No answer you get will be good enough because you just want to argue against it.
-
I don't need to learn to understand anything. I'm just telling you about FET. You guys are asking questions about it. No answer you get will be good enough because you just want to argue against it.
That kind of logic may work on children:
"Why can't I go outside daddy?"
"Because I said so."
Just trying to help you see, that these flat earth theories are nonsense. There are no decent explanations for a flat earth.
If you just try to consider that it is round, you'd realize how easy it is to make sense of stuff like:
Motion of celestial objects including stars, moon and sun, Foucault's pendulum, movement of cyclonic and anti-cyclonic storms, seasons and there are many more. Each one of these is explained by one thing:
The earth is round and it is spinning. It's so simple.
Occam's Razor at it's finest.
-
I don't need to learn to understand anything. I'm just telling you about FET. You guys are asking questions about it. No answer you get will be good enough because you just want to argue against it.
No.. no answer is good enough because the answers are inconsistent and in some situations demonstrably false.
If I just accept your answer with no questioning, what does that make me?
That's not very zetetic, now is it?
Now, the fact that we find your answer inadequate and preposterous should make you seek more answers and relay that information to us.
The fact that you are obviously unable to do this does not make me more willing to believe your theory.
In fact, it makes me want to do the opposite.
If you proposed a more plausible explanation, I might consider it.
The answer you proposed, however, just proves my point about inconsistencies and the like.
You can't come up with anything better than selective celestial gravitation?
Then this.
The earth is round and it is spinning. It's so simple.
Occam's Razor at it's finest.
-
Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)
-
Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)
"It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
Also, Mach's Principle says that the gravitational effect of the stars on the pendulum would be, and I quote Einstein, "with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity".
When a Foucault pendulum is suspended at the equator, the plane of oscillation remains fixed relative to Earth. At other latitudes, the plane of oscillation precesses relative to Earth, but slower than at the pole; the angular speed, ω (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude, φ:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/4/4/3441ef02f6d449060314ab6ee3fe5e99.png)
where latitudes north and south of the equator are defined as positive and negative, respectively. For example, a Foucault pendulum at 30° south latitude, viewed from above by an earthbound observer, rotates counterclockwise 360° in two days.
Seems pretty measurable to me.
Ergo, the Earth is a spinning spheroid.
-
Some would say AWT accounts for it.
Doesn't the precise oscillation rate as observed at different latitudes mean anything to FE'rs? Just put 2 + 2 together.
FErs haven't graduated from 1+1 addition yet; don't rush them!!
-
Look up Match's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
From Amir D. Aczel, Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the triumph of science (http://books.google.com/books?id=kvGt2OlUnQ4C&lpg=PA207&ots=wCVb9hZqLj&dq=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&pg=PA208#v=onepage&q=mach's%20principle%20foucault%20pendulum&f=false)
That's a major "if" considering the observations don't show the stars going around the earth, unless you assume the stars just all happen to be doing a seeming synchronous and strangely compatible motion with respect to earths poles. If that is the case then you have to explain many more things again such as why do the stars synchronously dance around the poles, why do the stars make such wild motions and why is the idea of a spinning globe such an easier example?
I can see how a spinning globe were a reasonable answer by simply standing in the center of a room, looking up and taking a spin.
Motion of celestial objects including stars, moon and sun, Foucault's pendulum, movement of cyclonic and anti-cyclonic storms, seasons and there are many more. Each one of these is explained by one thing.
Isn't it remarkable how one idea (earth spinning) can be the same explanation for all of these things? Why do you think it is better to make a generalization that the earth must be flat, then build upon that, even when a round earth seems so much more in tune with observations and continue to fit with each additional observation.
-
It has been requested that this thread be moved to FED. I am inclined to agree and am moving it.
-
Spheres are not the only shape capable of rotation.
-
Spheres are not the only shape capable of rotation.
Sure but you are ignoring the fact that Foucault's pendulum works in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Not possible on a plane.
-
Sure but you are ignoring the fact that Foucault's pendulum works in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Not possible on a plane.
The moon causes that, due to tidal gravitation.
-
Sure but you are ignoring the fact that Foucault's pendulum works in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Not possible on a plane.
The moon causes that, due to tidal gravitation.
So selective gravity again?
Poor Earth, she's so left out. Or maybe you are fine with gravity and are ignoring it's sphere making properties? Or, it's an infinite plane, I don't know.
If the pendulum and star rotation could both be caused by rotation and if going to the southern hemisphere produces nearly similar affects for two unrelated phenomena (one being inertia and the other being just the apparent movement of stars) then isn't this a great explanation?
-
Listen to how Rushy changes his position every time and how short his replies are. I doubt that he's really into a debate here.
Spheres are not the only shape capable of rotation.
... Not possible on a plane.
The moon causes that, due to tidal gravitation.
-
So selective gravity again?
A scientist speaks to a student, the scientist says "silver displays anti-bacterial properties, but helium does not" and the student replies "so selective atoms again?" in a childish sarcastic accent.
If the pendulum and star rotation could both be caused by rotation and if going to the southern hemisphere produces nearly similar affects for two unrelated phenomena (one being inertia and the other being just the apparent movement of stars) then isn't this a great explanation?
If you take the pendulum experiment wholly unto itself, yes, but we don't live on an island of one experiment. FET is a theory, not a single hypothesis.
-
So selective gravity again?
A scientist speaks to a student, the scientist says "silver displays anti-bacterial properties, but helium does not" and the student replies "so selective atoms again?" in a childish sarcastic accent.
[/quote]
Are you implying there are different varieties of gravity that all coexist and display different properties based on some variation in how it is manifested? That is what I am gathering from your analogy. Please correct any misconceptions I may have.
-
So selective gravity again?
A scientist speaks to a student, the scientist says "silver displays anti-bacterial properties, but helium does not" and the student replies "so selective atoms again?" in a childish sarcastic accent.
Stunning, after all why should I assume that there is gravity on earth? Just because there is gravity elsewhere shouldn't mean it's here, right? However, apparently there is some force here on earth that does fit that description.
... and your logic is, let's assume there is gravity everywhere else except the place where we can observe the described properties first hand?
We're both assuming, but only one of us is backing their assumptions up with observations.
Also, your atoms example is a great analogy until you realize that atoms can be demonstrated to have selective properties.
If the pendulum and star rotation could both be caused by rotation and if going to the southern hemisphere produces nearly similar affects for two unrelated phenomena (one being inertia and the other being just the apparent movement of stars) then isn't this a great explanation?
If you take the pendulum experiment wholly unto itself, yes, but we don't live on an island of one experiment. FET is a theory, not a single hypothesis.
One experiment? There are 100's of ways to demonstrate Coriolis. Similarly there are many ways to demonstrate rotating stars but the explanation is the same: A spinning ball.
How many ways does FET have to demonstrate Coriolis causing this in the northern hemisphere while tides cause it in the south, as you put it?
-
Some would say AWT accounts for it.
Doesn't the precise oscillation rate as observed at different latitudes mean anything to FE'rs? Just put 2 + 2 together.
FErs haven't graduated from 1+1 addition yet; don't rush them!!
I don't know whether you are referring to the fact 1+1 = 1 has been proven true given proper circumstance or not? It is true REers have to reconcile that reality and have previously displayed difficulty doing as such. Carry on...
-
Some would say AWT accounts for it.
Doesn't the precise oscillation rate as observed at different latitudes mean anything to FE'rs? Just put 2 + 2 together.
FErs haven't graduated from 1+1 addition yet; don't rush them!!
I don't know whether you are referring to the fact 1+1 = 1 has been proven true given proper circumstance or not? It is true REers have to reconcile that reality and have previously displayed difficulty doing as such. Carry on...
The reality that 1+1=1 huh?
In any case, I extend all arguments.
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
Is it not obvious that this is a relatively weak force? Any other force would completely take the pendulum off track. Just as tropical cyclone is free to deflect to the right when there is not another force to stop it as its dissipation begins. As newton said, "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force."
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
Are you talking about the 1,000 mph wind which you expect to feel due to the rotation of the earth? The slow rotation of a Foucault pendulum is not due to wind, it's due to the Coriolis effect. There are other things which are affected by the Coriolis effect like the trajectories of very long-range artillery shells or sniper bullets.
-
Stunning, after all why should I assume that there is gravity on earth? Just because there is gravity elsewhere shouldn't mean it's here, right?
Actually, it's the other way around. Since no one has been to the moon, or any other celestial object, then that means that no one has confirmed that celestial gravitation exists. If it is known that gravity does not exist on earth, what reason does anyone have to assume that it does exist anywhere else in the universe?
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
Are you talking about the 1,000 mph wind which you expect to feel due to the rotation of the earth? The slow rotation of a Foucault pendulum is not due to wind, it's due to the Coriolis effect. There are other things which are affected by the Coriolis effect like the trajectories of very long-range artillery shells or sniper bullets.
If FP was affected by the Earth's spin, everything else would be too. Why don't we see swings on swingsets moving in circles and tires hanging from trees moving in circles and my bird feeder moving in a circle?
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
Are you talking about the 1,000 mph wind which you expect to feel due to the rotation of the earth? The slow rotation of a Foucault pendulum is not due to wind, it's due to the Coriolis effect. There are other things which are affected by the Coriolis effect like the trajectories of very long-range artillery shells or sniper bullets.
If FP was affected by the Earth's spin, everything else would be too. Why don't we see swings on swingsets moving in circles and tires hanging from trees moving in circles and my bird feeder moving in a circle?
Because FP has such low friction that it isn't affected by other forces as much. FP requires a thin long string to be attached to a high ceiling to work. The idea of the experiment is to remove forces that would otherwise cause the string to be affected by other forces.
-
In addition to Rottingroom's good points it takes 24 hours for a FP to complete a circle. There is no reason why it would be evident in system's that, as Rottinroom pointed out, are susceptible to a large number if other influences.
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
-
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html (http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/n2k/visibility/Alison_Errico/Soft%20Moon/pendulum.html)
Gives one method of starting a pendulum swinging. Feel free to research your own!
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
It isn't always 24 hours. It is entirely dependent on the latitude.
Of course they initially move it, Coriolis' effects need some momentum to be seen.
For instance a sniper bullet dropped wouldn't have any noticeable Coriolis effect but one with momentum can be seen to move due to Coriolis.
A hurricane is another momentous object with low friction that is seen to be affected by it.
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
It isn't always 24 hours. It is entirely dependent on the latitude.
Of course they initially move it, Coriolis' effects need some momentum to be seen.
For instance a sniper bullet dropped wouldn't have any noticeable Coriolis effect but one with momentum can be seen to move due to Coriolis.
A hurricane is another momentous object with low friction that is seen to be affected by it.
Hurricanes have nothing to do with the Earth spinning. That's another really bad scientific conclusion or just another lie. They spin in opposite hemi"spheres" because of the heat generated as the sun travels through the Equinox. Air moves in opposite directions just like it does behind a jet plane. The fact is, Coriolis is an effect caused by a force upon it, from ANY direction. It is not definitive proof that the Earth spins.
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
It isn't always 24 hours. It is entirely dependent on the latitude.
Of course they initially move it, Coriolis' effects need some momentum to be seen.
For instance a sniper bullet dropped wouldn't have any noticeable Coriolis effect but one with momentum can be seen to move due to Coriolis.
A hurricane is another momentous object with low friction that is seen to be affected by it.
Hurricanes have nothing to do with the Earth spinning. That's another really bad scientific conclusion or just another lie. They spin in opposite hemi"spheres" because of the heat generated as the sun travels through the Equinox. Air moves in opposite directions just like it does behind a jet plane. The fact is, Coriolis is an effect caused by a force upon it, from ANY direction. It is not definitive proof that the Earth spins.
The strong rotating winds of a tropical cyclone are a result of the (partial) conservation of angular momentum imparted by the Earth's rotation as air flows inwards toward the axis of rotation. As a result, they rarely form within 5° of the equator.[1] Tropical cyclones are typically between 100 and 4,000 km (62 and 2,500 mi) in diameter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone) if you'd like to read more.
-
Of course Wikipedia is going to say they are caused by Earth's rotation. It's the accepted mainstream model.
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
It isn't always 24 hours. It is entirely dependent on the latitude.
Of course they initially move it, Coriolis' effects need some momentum to be seen.
For instance a sniper bullet dropped wouldn't have any noticeable Coriolis effect but one with momentum can be seen to move due to Coriolis.
A hurricane is another momentous object with low friction that is seen to be affected by it.
Hurricanes have nothing to do with the Earth spinning. That's another really bad scientific conclusion or just another lie. They spin in opposite hemi"spheres" because of the heat generated as the sun travels through the Equinox. Air moves in opposite directions just like it does behind a jet plane. The fact is, Coriolis is an effect caused by a force upon it, from ANY direction. It is not definitive proof that the Earth spins.
Well that certainly does not work. The sun is only above the equator during fall and spring. During summer the sun is over the northern hemisphere and during winter it is over the south. The coriolis effect always causes cyclone rotation to occur over the equator. Its safe to say that we can rule out the sun being the cause of this effect.
-
Well there you go, you said it yourself. When the sun is in the Northern hemisphere, hurricanes spin in one direction and when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere, hurricanes spin the opposite direction.
-
Well there you go, you said it yourself. When the sun is in the Northern hemisphere, hurricanes spin in one direction and when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere, hurricanes spin the opposite direction.
No you are incorrect. Can you please try to have a real discussion? The coriolis effect has rotations going in opposite directions. The dividing line is always the equator. Therefore it is not caused by the sun. Comprehension, aka some basic reading skills would help you a lot.
-
Well there you go, you said it yourself. When the sun is in the Northern hemisphere, hurricanes spin in one direction and when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere, hurricanes spin the opposite direction.
Typical you to result to cutdowns and sarcasm. Please read the BOLD print above. Yes they are caused by the sun...changing the temperature of the atmosphere.
-
Well there you go, you said it yourself. When the sun is in the Northern hemisphere, hurricanes spin in one direction and when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere, hurricanes spin the opposite direction.
Typical you to result to cutdowns and sarcasm. Please read the BOLD print above. Yes they are caused by the sun...changing the temperature of the atmosphere.
I did it because you obviously didn't understand a word. Nor do you have a clue where cyclonic and anti-cyclonic rotations occur. The sun is in the southern hemisphere in the winter and the north in the summer, yet these opposite rotations happen on opposite sides of the equator year round. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the sun. This is what I already said and yet you wanted to try and say that I was admitting you were right! This led me to believe that you can't read properly.
-
rottingroom, stop it with the personal attacks in the upper fora. Consider this a warning.
-
When the sun is in the Northern hemisphere, hurricanes spin in one direction and when the sun is in the Southern hemisphere, hurricanes spin the opposite direction.
If you are that certain with your claim then I am sure you are able to provide us with two aerial photos of hurricanes taken from the same hemisphere showing two different spinning direction. It has to be from the same hemisphere. We also need to see the source of your pictures just to verify that both pictures are indeed from the same hemisphere.
-
I guess I should've been clearer. I didn't mean they spin opposites directions in the same hemisphere. I meant they spin in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres only because the sun MOVES closer to one hemisphere than the other, depending on the season. The weather channel is always saying "hurricane season" so naturally, I figured they only occur in the given hemisphere at the given season. Am I wrong?
-
I guess I should've been clearer. I didn't mean they spin opposites directions in the same hemisphere. I meant they spin in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres only because the sun MOVES closer to one hemisphere than the other, depending on the season. The weather channel is always saying "hurricane season" so naturally, I figured they only occur in the given hemisphere at the given season. Am I wrong?
Cyclone development is dependent on the temperature of water, yes. They develop all year along the equator, but as far as N. America is concerned, those same cyclone's usually only reach our coasts during the summer months because it is during that time that it is warm enough for those cyclone's to be sustained. During the winter, they still develop near the equator and work their way up toward our east coast but simply dissipate before ever reaching land.
-
I guess I should've been clearer. I didn't mean they spin opposites directions in the same hemisphere. I meant they spin in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres only because the sun MOVES closer to one hemisphere than the other, depending on the season. The weather channel is always saying "hurricane season" so naturally, I figured they only occur in the given hemisphere at the given season. Am I wrong?
The Philippines, in the northern hemisphere, can have hurricanes all year. This happened on December 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Bopha_(2012) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Bopha_(2012)).
-
Late to this thread, but here is further experimental evidence that verifies the original findings of Foucault Pendulum.
PS Move detects Earth's rotation (http://#)
Is the data from this experiment also subject to the spectre of celestial gravitation?
-
How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS? I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth. HAHAHA!
Wow you're as thick as ten flat earths put together!
Old thread but - Many things are effected by the spinning earth WEATHER Systems being a biggy... its why Tornadoes in the northern hemi spin to the right, and cyclones in the south spin to the left.
-
Oh GOD! You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you? Did you even read the whole thread? I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work. My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc.. And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement. CONTRADICTORY!
-
Oh GOD! You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you? Did you even read the whole thread? I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work. My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc.. And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement. CONTRADICTORY!
wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?
-
I really need to work on a script to place a facepalm graphic below everyone of EarthIsASpaceship's posts....
-
Come on, now. Let's not be rude.
-
wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?
No YOU are wrong. The Earth does NOT move. It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable. It has to be set in motion to get it to swing. BASIC FACT.
-
wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?
No YOU are wrong. The Earth does NOT move. It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable. It has to be set in motion to get it to swing. BASIC FACT.
Does it move in that it swings back and forth? yes.
Does the direction of the swing move? no. The ground and room rotate around it.
-
wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?
No YOU are wrong. The Earth does NOT move. It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable. It has to be set in motion to get it to swing. BASIC FACT.
Does it move in that it swings back and forth? yes.
Does the direction of the swing move? no. The ground and room rotate around it.
Thanks I guess for some people it really does need to be simplified to that level :)
-
wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?
No YOU are wrong. The Earth does NOT move. It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable. It has to be set in motion to get it to swing. BASIC FACT.
The only basic fact here is that you still fail to understand the very basics of this experiment. The earth moving is the very thing this experiment proves.
-
Whatever dude. Keep believing the lies. Your brain is very clean.
I am curious as to what your take is on the device and how its movement fit in with a flat earth theory. And please don't just go into one of your vitriol soaked rants and throw upper case ad hominems at me please. Thanks.
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
If you had read through the entire thread, you would have seen that. ::)
-
I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs. They DO initially move it, don't they? It doesn't just start moving on it's own.
If you had read through the entire thread, you would have seen that. ::)
was that in response to me? If so I still dont understand your argument for the rotation of the earth being clearly displayed.
-
Physics Rule: An object at motion will move more easily when external force is applied then the same object at rest.
So to determine if Foucault's Pendulum is moving in relation to Earth moving underneath it or to determine if it's the force of the Celestial sphere moving around we must observe physics.
Physics Rule: If Earth is moving underneath our feet it must be uniform in percentile. No matter if you are on the equator or on the poles the rules of a moving underneath Earth doesn't change in percentile. Thus it should be known that if Earth was moving under your feet it would move 100% in 1 day the same as it would move 100% at the poles.
Following the above rule we must know that if Earth was rotating underneath our feet there would be no observable force upon the pendulum as the pendulum would always rotate at the same exact speed as the Earth underneath it which is 1 day for 1 rotation.
Following the above statement we know that : Earth moving under our feet cannot be a mechanism to explain the pendulums movement as if the above was true the pendulum would never rotate.
So we are left with two possibilities:
1) Earth is wobbling slightly every day creating the pendulums motion.
2) the Celestial Sphere is rotating above a Concave Earth.
This picture determines the answer:
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1920269_583521208398595_1587395302_n.jpg)
-
Physics Rule: An object at motion will move more easily when external force is applied then the same object at rest.
Ok. This does apply to some thing.
So to determine if Foucault's Pendulum is moving in relation to Earth moving underneath it or to determine if it's the force of the Celestial sphere moving around we must observe physics.
Ok
Physics Rule: If Earth is moving underneath our feet it must be uniform in percentile. No matter if you are on the equator or on the poles the rules of a moving underneath Earth doesn't change in percentile. Thus it should be known that if Earth was moving under your feet it would move 100% in 1 day the same as it would move 100% at the poles.
This is not a physics rule. You made it up. But yes, the whole earth does rotate though once per day.
Following the above rule we must know that if Earth was rotating underneath our feet there would be no observable force upon the pendulum as the pendulum would always rotate at the same exact speed as the Earth underneath it which is 1 day for 1 rotation.
No. Your made up rule doesn't apply here. The axis of rotation is at the north and south pole. This is where the pendulum rotates once in 24 hours. Everywhere else is not at the axis of rotation and therefore cannot have the same properties as the axis has. The equator is the furthest point from the axis of rotation. This is why there is no rotation.
Following the above statement we know that : Earth moving under our feet cannot be a mechanism to explain the pendulums movement as if the above was true the pendulum would never rotate.
This follows nothing as you said the pendulum should rotate once in 24 hours. Now you are saying it shouldn't rotate at all. Which is it?
So we are left with two possibilities:
1) Earth is wobbling slightly every day creating the pendulums motion.
2) the Celestial Sphere is rotating above a Concave Earth.
No wobble is detected.
Celestial sphere inside a concave earth goes against all of astronomy. That is another topic.
This picture determines the answer:
(https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1800482_583518875065495_1516185340_n.jpg)
[/quote]
Earth is a sphere. You cannot graph a sphere with a linear equation. Equations relating to it's properties would also not be linear. Nor is it a perfect sphere. So part one is wrong in your picture. Part two is just made up. No credibility yet you call the rotating earth idea dumb. And then a conclusion based on your opinion.
Once again, another post with zero evidence.
-
The Pendulum would not rotate at all in the heliocentric model as there would be no uneven force to press against it to make it rotate because the platform would always be forced to rotate at the same rate as the Pendulum so even though force would be present it would always be equal to the platform so there wouldn't be any differences so the object would always rotate exactly with Earth which means it wouldn't move in a visible circle.
As for your astronomy comment the sky can be perfectly mapped perfectly to a sky sphere. (which matches perfectly with all observations aka science by the way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere)
-
Oh GOD! You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you? Did you even read the whole thread? I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work. My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc.. And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement. CONTRADICTORY!
You're a unique one aren't you.. I can't imaging such a lack of knowledge to would come close to replicating your idiocy.
-
The Pendulum would not rotate at all in the heliocentric model as there would be no uneven force to press against it to make it rotate because the platform would always be forced to rotate at the same rate as the Pendulum so even though force would be present it would always be equal to the platform so there wouldn't be any differences so the object would always rotate exactly with Earth which means it wouldn't move in a visible circle.
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
As for your astronomy comment the sky can be perfectly mapped perfectly to a sky sphere. (which matches perfectly with all observations aka science by the way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere)
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
Everything after first grade is still left for you.
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
Everything after first grade is still left for you.
I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
Everything after first grade is still left for you.
I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?
That you think a GED makes you smarter than scientists, which you are not. You can't even keep a straight argument. First it was everything wants to turn clockwise. Then it was everything turns better left(counter-clockwise). You said a Foucault pendulum should rotate more at the equator then at the poles. Then you said a Foucault pendulum shouldn't rotate. Then you say it should rotate in a linear fashion. You make up math equations just to retract them. You can't keep a straight answer for how many degrees makes up a circle.
So what does it say to me? You are foolish.
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
Everything after first grade is still left for you.
I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?
That you think a GED makes you smarter than scientists, which you are not. You can't even keep a straight argument. First it was everything wants to turn clockwise. Then it was everything turns better left(counter-clockwise). You said a Foucault pendulum should rotate more at the equator then at the poles. Then you said a Foucault pendulum shouldn't rotate. Then you say it should rotate in a linear fashion. You make up math equations just to retract them. You can't keep a straight answer for how many degrees makes up a circle.
So what does it say to me? You are foolish.
The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.
To clarify those points you brought up here are my official answers, I just don't think you understood me properly.
1) From a Northbound observer everything does move clockwise including that which is in the southern hemisphere.
2) Everything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.
3) Foucault's pendulum shouldn't rotate on a rotating Earth but if it did rotate it would rotate anti-clockwise in a linear fashion, if a force that I imagined was also coming from the Earth it would push it in a curve opposite to what the graph shows, however since I would have to make up laws of physics that don't exist lets just say Foucault's Pendulum would only rotate as much and not more or less then a rotating Earth making it look like it's not moving side to side from the Earth's frame of reference. Hope that clears up my seemingly double-talk.
4) Depends on how you are traveling the circle. At perimeter a circle is 314 degrees, from the inside of a circle travelling in one complete motion inside of another object you will move 360 degrees. A Square's perimeter is 400 degrees. Other conditions also can modify degrees and the way you calculate the numbers as they aren't exactly static and they can fit together in many different possible ways depending on the situation.
5) My ways seem foolish to you but my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts...
-
The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.
I asked you to explain it and you just shrugged it off.
To clarify those points you brought up here are my official answers, I just don't think you understood me properly.
1) From a Northbound observer everything does move clockwise including that which is in the southern hemisphere.
Define everything because that makes no sense.
2) Everything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.
How do you even come about making up such foolish claims. There is not one shred of evidence that suports this claim.
3) Foucault's pendulum shouldn't rotate on a rotating Earth but if it did rotate it would rotate anti-clockwise in a linear fashion, if a force that I imagined was also coming from the Earth it would push it in a curve opposite to what the graph shows, however since I would have to make up laws of physics that don't exist lets just say Foucault's Pendulum would only rotate as much and not more or less then a rotating Earth making it look like it's not moving side to side from the Earth's frame of reference. Hope that clears up my seemingly double-talk.
A Foucault Pendulum seems to rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. There is no arguing this. It will not rotate in a linear fashion based on latitude because the earth is a sphere. Spheres are made up of linear equations. Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of Foucault Pendulum.
4) Depends on how you are traveling the circle. At perimeter a circle is 314 degrees, from the inside of a circle travelling in one complete motion inside of another object you will move 360 degrees. A Square's perimeter is 400 degrees. Other conditions also can modify degrees and the way you calculate the numbers as they aren't exactly static and they can fit together in many different possible ways depending on the situation.
A circle is always 360 degrees or 2 pi radians. A square contains four 90 degree angles. What is 90 x 4?
5) My ways seem foolish to you but my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts...
Just because they are your thoughts, that doesn't make them correct.
-
You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.
I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.
I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.
If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes)
However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.
Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.
So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.
Everything after first grade is still left for you.
He's got a LOT to look forward too! lol
-
Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle. If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.
I say everything because if you turn upside down clockwise motion turns to counter-clockwise motion, so therefore everything from a northbound observer is determined to be clockwise motion. It's not like the motion ever changes it's just your relative angle to the motion. And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions. An object in motion will more easily follow motion, if I drop a ball into river the ball will flow with the river, not against it!
You should be happy I'm explaining this to you. This forever means that since Northbound observers are standing opposite directions from Southbound observers this itself proves that the Earth is not flat! However what they also fail to mention is it also proves without any doubt that the Earth is not rotating and the celestial sphere and not the Earth is moving inside the Earth.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp, very easy in fact. Read this write-up if you are still in doubt. (And also note that I think the Author of this is really silly in some of his ideas but spot on regarding the shape of the Earth)
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/)
-
Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle. If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.
Nope
I say everything because if you turn upside down clockwise motion turns to counter-clockwise motion, so therefore everything from a northbound observer is determined to be clockwise motion. It's not like the motion ever changes it's just your relative angle to the motion. And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions. An object in motion will more easily follow motion, if I drop a ball into river the ball will flow with the river, not against it!
So my car only goes clockwise? Also while you are ignoring everything important. Care to explain how my car's tires know when it is turning counter-clockwise and to have more traction?
You should be happy I'm explaining this to you. This forever means that since Northbound observers are standing opposite directions from Southbound observers this itself proves that the Earth is not flat! However what they also fail to mention is it also proves without any doubt that the Earth is not rotating and the celestial sphere and not the Earth is moving inside the Earth.
OMG south is the opposite of north so the earth is flat. Who would have guess south is the opposite of north? Not me.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp, very easy in fact. Read this write-up if you are still in doubt. (And also note that I think the Author of this is really silly in some of his ideas but spot on regarding the shape of the Earth)
http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/)
I have read some of that the last time it was posted and some of the other links that have been posted. Now all you have to do is disprove all of astronomy.
-
So my car only goes clockwise? Also while you are ignoring everything important. Care to explain how my car's tires know when it is turning counter-clockwise and to have more traction?
Your taking what I said out of context. However some cars do independently track each wheel electronically and adjust the spin to better match the road these days. Good suspension also helps to even out this leaning effect to also make your car more stable so overall unless you are really pushing your car to the limits you will not notice the effect in every day life. I specifically brought up NASCAR because the track is slanted to the right to make turning left even more stable as their cars are specially designed with really stiff suspension and really grippy tires to get the most traction. Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more. And yes turning right would net them less grip and less control but faster spin, however spin is about the last thing you want when racing at speeds close to 200 mph.
-
Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle.
Sorry, but this is totally erroneous. A "square" and a "circle" are geometric figures. Neither can be defined by the term 360º or of any other angular description. The specific difference in their forms has nothing at all to do with angular measurement.
If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.
This makes absolutely no sense at all to anybody who understands geometry or trigonometry. I'm guessing you're just making this stuff up on the trot—or pissing yourself laughing at us poor saps trying to make sense of it all.
And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions.
One of us is seriously losing the plot here, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.
;D
-
sculelos can i suggest you make an FAQ or maybe even a bullet point list of the key parts of your model of the universe, such as we are locked out of 10 percent of the universe, a square has 400 degrees etc. It would aid immeasureably in deciphering your posts and you could even refer to it yourself so you dont trip yourself up contradicting your own theory.
-
The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.
-
The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.
As long as the math contains no variables it can be considered exact. As for the other post, I may work on clarifying my model sometime.
-
Your taking what I said out of context.
No, you are just realizing what you said is stupid when put into context.
You said this BTWEverything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.
However some cars do independently track each wheel electronically and adjust the spin to better match the road these days. Good suspension also helps to even out this leaning effect to also make your car more stable so overall unless you are really pushing your car to the limits you will not notice the effect in every day life.
Which has nothing to do with your claim.
I specifically brought up NASCAR because the track is slanted to the right to make turning left even more stable as their cars are specially designed with really stiff suspension and really grippy tires to get the most traction.
Which has nothing to do with turning left being better for traction.
Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.
A east-west perfect oval track would have no effect from it's location in the way you say it does. If a driver started out going east hewould make a turn north and then to west. Then he would go down the straight and then turn south and then east. It would simple be the opposite if he was turning right. Where does the way he is turning matter?
And yes turning right would net them less grip and less control but faster spin, however spin is about the last thing you want when racing at speeds close to 200 mph.
OK so because the NASCAR is made to turn left it will turn left better. Once again, it has everything to do with the car and nothing to do with being in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore this actually goes against your first claim that all cars turn left better.
If your in the Northern Hemisphere you will notice that taking right handed turns is easier then left handed turns however with a faster weight shift you will lose traction more easily when taking a right handed turn at the same speed as left handed turns.
So now you say it's only NASCAR.
But wait there is more.
Everything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.
Turning left is slower in the North but gives you more traction which would be more desirable for high speed velocities such as NASCAR (as their speed is primarily limited by traction).
So everything has more friction when turning left. Traction limits NASCAR's speed, yet when they turn left they have more traction but somehow lower speed. But when turning right they have more momentum (momentum is mass times velocity). I'm assuming their mass doesn't change so there velocity must go up according to you. So... traction goes down but velocity goes up when turning right? Or is it traction goes up and speed goes down when turning left?
You really need to take glokta's advice and make a list of what you believe so you don't argue with yourself.
See also your circle degree claims.
-
Physics is complicated. But yes they will have more momentum when turning right and more traction when turning left (from a northbound observer). However the force added to them is not pushing them but it's changing their arc angle in relation to the shift of direction.
Don't believe my fine, but if you live in the north hemisphere (at least 30 degrees North) try spinning around clockwise then try to spin around counter clockwise and see which you can do faster more easily. If you live 30 degrees South or more like in Australia try it counter-clockwise then clockwise and see if you notice any difference.
-
Physics is complicated. But yes they will have more momentum when turning right and more traction when turning left (from a northbound observer).
Once again, this goes against what you have said in other posts. I don't think you even know what momentum is.
However the force added to them is not pushing them but it's changing their arc angle in relation to the shift of direction.
Where did force come from? If you mean centrifugal force, please note that it is not a real force.
Don't believe my fine,
You don't even believe yourself.
but if you live in the north hemisphere (at least 30 degrees North) try spinning around clockwise then try to spin around counter clockwise and see which you can do faster more easily. If you live 30 degrees South or more like in Australia try it counter-clockwise then clockwise and see if you notice any difference.
The pinnacle of your argument, spin in circles.
BTW for anyone playing the home game. All this talk about clockwise versus counterclockwise one works for a round earth that is spinning. As you see, Sculelos believes there will be a difference in spinning and turning. He believes is a round earth, not his concave stationary earth.
-
The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.
I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.
As long as the math contains no variables it can be considered exact. As for the other post, I may work on clarifying my model sometime.
And once again you are wrong. Variables can relate to one another in exact ways. By continuing down this path you are embarrassing yourself.
-
Check it out.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/18/1379463143795/Google-doodle-008.jpg)
Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
-
Check it out.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/18/1379463143795/Google-doodle-008.jpg)
Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Please define 'heavens'.
-
Heavens is defined by the celestial sphere above the Earth's Atmosphere.
The #1 rule to remember when describing Foucault's Pendulum is motion will always follow motion therefore if Earth was a proverbial treadmill and the atmosphere was moving with the Earth even if you were above the Earth you would still be following the Earth's momentum, therefore the Pendulum would always be in perfect harmony with the rotation of Earth and therefore you would never see it rotate neither clockwise nor counter-clockwise. The simple fact that the Pendulum does in fact rotate is proof that the Earth is stationary and the celestial orb is moving in the center of the Earth and that the Earth is concave and also hollow, however just because it's hollow doesn't mean the ground doesn't have thickness, by all scientific calculations we can determine the Earth to be about 800 miles thick ground-wise. (And about 7.8 light days thick sky-wise)
-
It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Go on then, explain it.
-
Check it out.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/9/18/1379463143795/Google-doodle-008.jpg)
Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Please define 'heavens'.
Things in or above the sky ???
-
It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Go on then, explain it.
Inertia is imparted by celestial bodies.
-
It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Go on then, explain it.
Mach's Principle is basically from a fixed Earth reference frame the stars rotate around us so they would create momentum in the direction of their rotation separate and apart from Earth so if you use Mach's principle even if Earth was rotating counter-clockwise in relation to outer-space from a northbound observer the outer-space would be rotating in a clockwise motion and sense Earth any objects in Earth's atmosphere would be fixed to Earth it would be impossible for any object or pendulum to get any motion separate from the Earth so if you understand Mach's principle then you would understand that the Celestial Sphere is the only possible explanation for the movement of Foucault's Pendulum. Therefore Foucault's Pendulum proves these things definitively.
1. If Earth is rotating, it's force is not observable nor is it's force effecting anything in the atmosphere which means in layman's terms that Earth's alleged rotation or wobble could NOT be a factor in determining why the pendulum was rotating clockwise from a northbound observer.
2. Because Earth is from Mach's principle definitively omitted as a cause of the pendulum's rotation we must assume that it is the Celestial sphere that is directly responsible and for all practical physics test because the Celestial sphere is much more massive then Earth it's pull is slightly stronger then Earth's when it comes to objects in constant movement. So the celestial sphere is most definitively responsible for the pendulums rotation throughout a day.
3. However this causes a definitive problem for the model of gravity since two forces of gravity should not be pulling on each other simultaneously and if one is pulling it should cancel the other's pull out completely since if the sky and the earth really attracted heavy objects stronger then lighter objects then heavier objects would fall faster then lighter objects but this is never observed unless of course the objects have significant air drag like a parachute or feather and that can be attributed to air resistance, same concept if your body is parallel to the ground while skydiving you will fall slower then if you are vertical in relation to the ground.
4. Last problem is if space is really attracting objects in motion on Earth then it would be sufficient to say that if you gained any sort of speed you should fly into outer-space by force of vector acceleration but that is never observed.
Myth of Gravity: BUSTED.
-
Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.
Sure, this makes perfect sense. Some screwball might suggest they race counterclockwise because in stock cars the driver is on the left and if he loses control and crashes into a wall the right side will absorb most of the impact.
He might also suggest that the driver is on the left because it's North America, where cars drive on the right side of the road and place the steering wheel on the left so that drivers have a better view of the entire road.
But that's crazy talk... right?
-
Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.
Sure, this makes perfect sense. Some screwball might suggest they race counterclockwise because in stock cars the driver is on the left and if he loses control and crashes into a wall the right side will absorb most of the impact.
He might also suggest that the driver is on the left because it's North America, where cars drive on the right side of the road and place the steering wheel on the left so that drivers have a better view of the entire road.
But that's crazy talk... right?
Not really, all those are pretty good points.
-
It is explained best by Mach's Principle.
Go on then, explain it.
Inertia is imparted by celestial bodies.
Inertia? Do you need a dictionary by any chance?
All I can say is, if Foucault's pendulum were influenced by anything other than the rotation of a spherical earth, then it's rotational period would not be proportional to the sine of the latitude at which it is placed.
-
Mach's Principle is basically from a fixed Earth reference frame the stars rotate around us so they would create momentum in the direction of their rotation separate and apart from Earth so if you use Mach's principle even if Earth was rotating counter-clockwise in relation to outer-space from a northbound observer the outer-space would be rotating in a clockwise motion and sense Earth any objects in Earth's atmosphere would be fixed to Earth it would be impossible for any object or pendulum to get any motion separate from the Earth so if you understand Mach's principle then you would understand that the Celestial Sphere is the only possible explanation for the movement of Foucault's Pendulum.
This is one sentence. And, no, Mach's Principle does not say stars rotating create momentum on earth.
Therefore Foucault's Pendulum proves these things definitively.
1. If Earth is rotating, it's force is not observable nor is it's force effecting anything in the atmosphere which means in layman's terms that Earth's alleged rotation or wobble could NOT be a factor in determining why the pendulum was rotating clockwise from a northbound observer.
Incorrect. It is the opposite. Because the earth rotating does not act on the pendulum when can assume the pendulum's swing does not change. That is how we know the earth is rotating under it.
2. Because Earth is from Mach's principle definitively omitted as a cause of the pendulum's rotation we must assume that it is the Celestial sphere that is directly responsible and for all practical physics test because the Celestial sphere is much more massive then Earth it's pull is slightly stronger then Earth's when it comes to objects in constant movement. So the celestial sphere is most definitively responsible for the pendulums rotation throughout a day.
Still not even close to what Mac's Principle is. Plus by Celestial Sphere pull is slightly stronger you are saying gravity exists.
3. However this causes a definitive problem for the model of gravity since two forces of gravity should not be pulling on each other simultaneously and if one is pulling it should cancel the other's pull out completely since if the sky and the earth really attracted heavy objects stronger then lighter objects then heavier objects would fall faster then lighter objects but this is never observed unless of course the objects have significant air drag like a parachute or feather and that can be attributed to air resistance, same concept if your body is parallel to the ground while skydiving you will fall slower then if you are vertical in relation to the ground.
Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.
4. Last problem is if space is really attracting objects in motion on Earth then it would be sufficient to say that if you gained any sort of speed you should fly into outer-space by force of vector acceleration but that is never observed.
It is never observed because you made it up.
Myth of Gravity: BUSTED.
Yet you and ski think the Celestial gears can affect stuff on earth. Sounds like gravity to me.
So once again, you can't make a post without contradicting yourself in it.
Not really, all those are pretty good points.
Are you sure it's not because tires magically know when they turn left to have more traction?
Glad to see you didn't respond to my post calling out all your inconsistency.
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.
1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.
1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.
1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.
-
gravity does exists you twit.
Stand under something heavy.. make it drop - and see what happens.
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.
1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.
1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.
1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity. See what I mean when I call you clueless?
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.
1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.
1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.
1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity. See what I mean when I call you clueless?
1. A Car with skidding tires will be able to change it's direction 180 degrees much faster then a car with no skidding tires.
2. Gravity is only a concept that we imagined to be, there is zero proof for it's existence.
3. There is different air densities but obviously unless you were higher then 22,236 miles in the atmosphere you wouldn't just float off into space. However if you jumped out of a space-craft at 30,000 miles high you would just be swept away with the celestial current unless you got close enough to be pushed into another object.
-
Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.
Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.
1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.
1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.
1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity. See what I mean when I call you clueless?
1. A Car with skidding tires will be able to change it's direction 180 degrees much faster then a car with no skidding tires.
2. Gravity is only a concept that we imagined to be, there is zero proof for it's existence.
3. There is different air densities but obviously unless you were higher then 22,236 miles in the atmosphere you wouldn't just float off into space. However if you jumped out of a space-craft at 30,000 miles high you would just be swept away with the celestial current unless you got close enough to be pushed into another object.
1. Glad to see you were too scared to answer my questions.
2. Different masses fall with the same acceleration. This cannot be explained by a force, gravitation explains it just fine.
3. Once again, air density has nothing to do with pressure. Is it so hard to just look up stuff before you post so you don't look like an idiot?
-
Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.
Are you sure that you meant to say that gravity is not a force, or did you really mean that gravity is not considered by many to be a fundamental force?
-
Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.
Are you sure that you meant to say that gravity is not a force, or did you really mean that gravity is not considered by many to be a fundamental force?
Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.
-
Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.
Gravity is defined by its acceleration. Now, you are saying that because it has a constant acceleration, that means it is not a force?
Your post is very confusing. Is gravity a fundamental force, but not a force? That seems to be what you are trying to say.
-
Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.
Gravity is defined by its acceleration. Now, you are saying that because it has a constant acceleration, that means it is not a force?
Your post is very confusing. Is gravity a fundamental force, but not a force? That seems to be what you are trying to say.
Newtonian gravity was thought of as a force, general relativity gravitation is thought of as bent spacetime. It causes objects to accelerate without a force. This is why different masses have the same acceleration and why light(massless) can be accelerated.
-
That's odd, as there are a lot of physicists who claim gravity to be an Entropic Force. I did not realize that one set of beliefs defined the beliefs of all physicists.
-
That's odd, as there are a lot of physicists who claim gravity to be an Entropic Force. I did not realize that one set of beliefs defined the beliefs of all physicists.
From Wikipedia so it must be wrong.
It is generally believed that gravity is a microscopic force[citation needed] (or arguably a pseudo-force in general relativity where it becomes a pseudo-scalar at the Planck length scale).
Seems gravity as a entropic force is a newer theory where it states gravity is not a fundamental interaction.
Nowhere did I state that general relativity's gravitation as fact. They are all theories.
-
Wll, here is another quote from Wikipedia. We must be reading different articles.
Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force.
-
Wll, here is another quote from Wikipedia. We must be reading different articles.
Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force.
What about it?
-
A fundamental force is a force.
-
A fundamental force is a force.
What force do people in freefall feel?
-
They feel all of the same forces that someone who is not free-falling feels. If you are trying to imply that the force of gravity can not be felt while in free fall, then I would counter that the force of magnetism can also not be felt. Does that nullify its standing as a force?
-
They feel all of the same forces that someone who is not free-falling feels. If you are trying to imply that the force of gravity can not be felt while in free fall, then I would counter that the force of magnetism can also not be felt. Does that nullify its standing as a force?
People in freefall do not feel a force. Do not say they do. Back up your claim that magnetism can not be felt. And for that matter, use the right words. Do you mean the Lorentz Force?
Now read this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Do you still want to confine this thread?
-
People in freefall do not feel a force. Do not say they do.
Of course they feel a force.
drag ... refers to forces acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.
-
People in freefall do not feel a force. Do not say they do.
Of course they feel a force.
drag ... refers to forces acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomit_Comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomit_Comet)
Or better yet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall)
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where its weight is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and it moves along a geodesic.
But I can tell with your change of subject and no response to anything important you have seen how you are wrong. This thread can die.
-
Funny, not ONE of you mentioned the MOTOR that keeps this thing moving. Talk about misleading!
(http://)
-
There is no motor! SOME, not all, have a magnet that gives it a kick so it doesn't stop swinging after 4 hours. OTHER ONES DO NOT HAVE A MAGNET but only last a few hours, long enough to demonstrate the Earth rotates!
Now say it again about how a motor creates the effect. Say it again!
-
Funny, not ONE of you mentioned the MOTOR that keeps this thing moving. Talk about misleading!
(http://)
The one on this page (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html) doesn't use a motor, yet still rotates about 9° every hour, and anyone can set it swinging:
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. The pendulum takes seven minutes to precess one degree, but even smaller angles than this can be seen by sighting along the reference plane.
So, find one like this near where you live, go set it swinging, and sit next to it while you have lunch so you can watch it precess, all by itself.
-
Is there one person here is answers questions in a normal manner that believes in a Flat Earth?
-
Yes, me.