# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: HavanaJoe on October 05, 2011, 07:03:13 PM

Title: Pendulums.
Post by: HavanaJoe on October 05, 2011, 07:03:13 PM
I dont think I spelled it right, but you get the idea. Unless the Flat Earth rotates, the pendelum proves it wrong.

For those that dont know what I am talking about, if you but a ball on a string, hung it on a sort of beam, started swinging it so it goes in one direction, then left a domino a little bit to the side of it, at some point the earths rotation will move its swinging path and it will knock over the domino.

Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: three-dimensional-world on October 05, 2011, 10:35:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 05, 2011, 11:05:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

If the experiment were done in a vacuum the results would be the same.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: three-dimensional-world on October 05, 2011, 11:50:22 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

If the experiment were done in a vacuum the results would be the same.

...according to round earth theory. That's circular logic.

You need to actually do the experiment if you want to have valid reasoning.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 06, 2011, 02:12:25 AM
Brownian motion concerns particles, not pendulums!

Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: OU812 on October 06, 2011, 03:41:57 AM
Brownian motion is also random (or better: wholly unpredictable) whereas pendulums move in a very predictable way. That predicatable movement also varies with latitudie, proving a spherical Earth.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Ski on October 06, 2011, 06:28:08 AM
That is the first I've heard of a Brownian motion link with pendulums.

The commonly believed answer is that the pendulum is affected by the heavens.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 06:39:28 AM
Does the pendulum knock over the domino? I mean, its a nice thought experiment but your assumption is that it should do this and therefore it does. Just because you are told it works like that doesn't mean it does. You aren't going to be able to replicate this at home due to losses and your pendulum running out of steam, so I guess you only have their word for it. Things like grandfather clocks don't seem to want to swing the pendulum through the glass door at the front though. I would like a real world example of such a phenomenon.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 06, 2011, 07:37:06 AM
Things like grandfather clocks don't seem to want to swing the pendulum through the glass door at the front though. I would like a real world example of such a phenomenon.

Clocks dont have pendulums that CAN swing out of alignment. They are hung on a shaft or through a slot that only allows them to swing in the correct path. also they ahve a very short cycle that is powered by falling weights. This means the pendulum itself is a regulating mechanism for keeping time, not a method of testing for free moving pendulum action on a round or flat earth.

you can do better than that. please talk about the issue the OP is asking. Also there are countles examples of the OP's point all over the internet. lrn2google lrn2youtube lrn2wikki
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 07:38:59 AM
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: OU812 on October 06, 2011, 07:48:53 AM
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

The Panthéon in Paris. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)

I've been to Paris personally. Both Paris and the pendulum exist.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 06, 2011, 07:50:22 AM
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

Do you mean something like this?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 06, 2011, 07:51:30 AM
I've been to Paris personally. Both Paris and the pendulum exist.

Do you have any proof to this outlandish claim?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Sentient Pizza on October 06, 2011, 07:54:34 AM

It's a fun animated series of pages that even children can understand.

I'm sure you'll tell me that these things show no actual evidense or they make huge logical leaps that are wrong.

Here are the facts: People with far less technology and far less understanding of science and far less access to the great knowledge base of human kind were able to figure this stuff out with simple experiments like a pendulum. Focault figured it out with a 30" string and a weight.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Ski on October 06, 2011, 08:15:32 AM
I've been to Paris personally. Both Paris and the pendulum exist.

To my mind, any result with a pendulum using electromagnets is suspect.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 06, 2011, 08:28:35 AM
Brownian motion concerns particles, not pendulums!
In fact, it also concerns drunken sailors earlý in the morning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: somersetlass on October 06, 2011, 12:25:49 PM

To my mind, any result with a pendulum using electromagnets is suspect.

Indeed. Although the electromagnets are only there to maintain the pendulum's swing, they do add another element to the device. If you're using electromagnet to keep the pendulum swinging,  surely it'd be easy to get them to artificially recreate the Foucault effect.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 12:53:14 PM
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

I completed such an experiment in my studies at Florida State University. Please look my experiment up, I give all the necessary data and credentials.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 06, 2011, 12:54:55 PM

To my mind, any result with a pendulum using electromagnets is suspect.

Indeed. Although the electromagnets are only there to maintain the pendulum's swing, they do add another element to the device. If you're using electromagnet to keep the pendulum swinging,  surely it'd be easy to get them to artificially recreate the Foucault effect.

Yes, and you'd need to deliberately set up the pendulum to fake the effect with no motive. And so would the science musem in London, and all the other museums that have Foucault pendulums. And you'd have to fake it in such a way that other people in the museum who work with and maintain the pendulum would not realise you had made this mechanism.  :P
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 12:57:21 PM

To my mind, any result with a pendulum using electromagnets is suspect.

Indeed. Although the electromagnets are only there to maintain the pendulum's swing, they do add another element to the device. If you're using electromagnet to keep the pendulum swinging,  surely it'd be easy to get them to artificially recreate the Foucault effect.

My experiment used no such device. The only forces at work were gravity and the effects of the Earth's rotation.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 06, 2011, 12:59:27 PM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 01:01:47 PM
Gyroscopes topple due to random precession. Its nothing to do with earth's shape. They need to be caged and re-erected. Pendulums moving off axis is a similar phenomenon. Its a combination of no system being perfect and chaos.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 01:05:42 PM
Gyroscopes topple due to random precession. Its nothing to do with earth's shape. They need to be caged and re-erected. Pendulums moving off axis is a similar phenomenon. Its a combination of no system being perfect and chaos.

If this were true, then the precession I measured would have been random. What I measured was a consistent precession that was extremely predictable. In fact, using the mathematics of RE, the precession observed matched completely with what was predicted.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 01:14:21 PM
If this were true, then the procession I measured would have been random. What I measured was a consistent procession that was extremely predictable. In fact, using the mathematics of RE, the procession observed matched completely with what was predicted.

Being as you can't even spell precession, I am now having doubts over the validity of your claims. A scientist would know the difference and not make repeated mistakes in the word's use. I am now left doubting your scientific credentials and am disappointed as I thought your work may be of use. :(
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 06, 2011, 01:38:44 PM
If this were true, then the procession I measured would have been random. What I measured was a consistent procession that was extremely predictable. In fact, using the mathematics of RE, the procession observed matched completely with what was predicted.

Being as you can't even spell precession, I am now having doubts over the validity of your claims. A scientist would know the difference and not make repeated mistakes in the word's use. I am now left doubting your scientific credentials and am disappointed as I thought your work may be of use. :(

Translation from Thorkspeak to English "I don't believe you and I have no other way to refute you than to say so."
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 01:45:20 PM
Srsly? A guy makes a post and spells precession as procession 3 times and I am supposed to believe he did experiments and wrote papers on precession at university?

I know you think we are all idiots, but we didn't come down in the last shower. Its like MiG-Boy and his MiG-25 flight, or NASA scientists that visit or Antarctic scientists giving eye-witness accounts on this site. Its just kids pretending to try and make us squirm. The thing is, we know the earth is flat so we are already suspicious. If he had done that experiment he would have been on our side, as would MiG-Boy as would Neil Armstrong and Richard Branson and the SR-71 designer and all the other people we are lucky enough to have visit our site.

It may be we are indeed a very privileged bunch that all these people come visit us, but its more likely they are novice trolls.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 02:22:22 PM
If this were true, then the procession I measured would have been random. What I measured was a consistent procession that was extremely predictable. In fact, using the mathematics of RE, the procession observed matched completely with what was predicted.

Being as you can't even spell precession, I am now having doubts over the validity of your claims. A scientist would know the difference and not make repeated mistakes in the word's use. I am now left doubting your scientific credentials and am disappointed as I thought your work may be of use. :(

If you would like to discredit my results, refer to my experiment and data. Whether I misplaced a vowel does not invalidate my claims. Try again.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 02:26:04 PM
Srsly? A guy makes a post and spells precession as procession 3 times and I am supposed to believe he did experiments and wrote papers on precession at university?

In a similar manner, I must discard everything you have posted or will post because you are apparently incapable of spelling the world "seriously."
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 06, 2011, 02:27:21 PM
Srsly? A guy makes a post and spells precession as procession 3 times and I am supposed to believe he did experiments and wrote papers on precession at university?

In a similar manner, I must discard everything you have posted or will post because you are apparently incapable of spelling the world "seriously."
Does anyone on here tonight know how to use the internet?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=srsly
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 06, 2011, 05:14:28 PM
Srsly? A guy makes a post and spells precession as procession 3 times and I am supposed to believe he did experiments and wrote papers on precession at university?

In a similar manner, I must discard everything you have posted or will post because you are apparently incapable of spelling the world "seriously."
Does anyone on here tonight know how to use the internet?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=srsly

Quote
4.  srsly  225 up, 200 down
Srsly is an internet shorthand or slang for seriously. It is either written out of laziness, a complete inability to spell or type, or in a failed attempt to be amusing.

Which one of those discribes your use of this spelling?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 06, 2011, 06:17:08 PM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: OU812 on October 07, 2011, 12:27:55 AM
I've been to Paris personally. Both Paris and the pendulum exist.

To my mind, any result with a pendulum using electromagnets is suspect.

The electromagnet is merely there to keep the pendulum going. Pendulums without such assistance show the same behaviour but will stop their motion eventually.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 07, 2011, 07:13:39 AM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.

??? The rotation of the plane counters any movement of static pendulums.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 08:25:06 AM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.

??? The rotation of the plane counters any movement of static pendulums.

It is generally accepted that the FE does not rotate.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 09:10:06 AM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.
The tilting of the earth causes pendulums?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 07, 2011, 09:12:20 AM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.

??? The rotation of the plane counters any movement of static pendulums.

It is generally accepted that the FE does not rotate.

But what if it does........
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 09:13:37 AM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.

??? The rotation of the plane counters any movement of static pendulums.

It is generally accepted that the FE does not rotate.
And if it did, it doesn't explain why the precession is faster at the poles than at the equator (where there is no precession at all)
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 07, 2011, 09:17:29 AM
Very true.  I guess it doesnt and its just the magnets doing it.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 07, 2011, 10:18:22 AM
Very true.  I guess it doesnt and its just the magnets doing it.
um...which magnets..
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 07, 2011, 10:27:06 AM
THE magnets.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 07, 2011, 11:13:17 AM
THE magnets.

My pendulum didn't use any magnets...
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 12:00:45 PM
It is generally accepted that the FE does not rotate.

But what if it does........

Then it would be just one more thing that Rowbotham was wrong about.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 07, 2011, 03:46:38 PM
The earth tilts which causes tides and also pendulums.

If this were true, then gravity would seem to change direction as the disk of the Earth would tilt. Not only that, but then you have to explain why the tilting of the Earth only affects moving pendulums and not stationary ones.

??? The rotation of the plane counters any movement of static pendulums.

It is generally accepted that the FE does not rotate.

This is incorrect. There is much debate on the issue. In the Colchester Model the earth rotates.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 04:26:49 PM
This is incorrect. There is much debate on the issue. In the Colchester Model the earth rotates.

Samuel Birly Rowbotham proved beyond doubt that the flat earth does not rotate in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 07, 2011, 07:25:42 PM
He was mistaken about many things. Such as young girls skirts. He could not understand them which is why he got perspective wrong. However ENaG is the best and most accurate record of the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 07, 2011, 09:43:51 PM
Samuel Birly Rowbotham proved beyond doubt that the flat earth does not rotate in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe.
This doesn't affect the fact that there is much debate about it. There's also much debate about the shape of the Earth*, even though it's been conclusively proven to be round/flat**.

* - here
** - delete as appropriate according to personal beliefs
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2011, 09:56:16 PM
Samuel Birly Rowbotham proved beyond doubt that the flat earth does not rotate in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe.
This doesn't affect the fact that there is much debate about it.
What evidence do you have to support this outlandish claim?  I don't remember seeing much, if any, debate among FE'ers about this (or much of anything else, for that matter).
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 08, 2011, 03:20:08 AM
He was mistaken about many things. Such as young girls skirts. He could not understand them which is why he got perspective wrong. However ENaG is the best and most accurate record of the shape of the earth.

Despite the fact that the Bedford Level results recorded by Rowbotham completely contradict his own perspective theory? And this is "the best" work on FET?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 08, 2011, 05:23:35 PM
Samuel Birly Rowbotham proved beyond doubt that the flat earth does not rotate in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe.
This doesn't affect the fact that there is much debate about it.
What evidence do you have to support this outlandish claim?  I don't remember seeing much, if any, debate among FE'ers about this (or much of anything else, for that matter).

Because you are a RE you are not privy to our super secret discussions. You will have to take our word for it: There has been much discussion.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2011, 06:02:37 PM
Because you are a RE you are not privy to our super secret discussions. You will have to take our word for it: There has been much discussion.

Super secret discussions?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: trig on October 09, 2011, 04:58:10 AM
Because you are a RE you are not privy to our super secret discussions. You will have to take our word for it: There has been much discussion.

Super secret discussions?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
Not when the discussion is "What are we going to do? We have nothing to show!"
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Biohazard on October 09, 2011, 07:19:44 AM
I feel like I should put my input in here as I have personal experience with this experiment.

I am currently at university doing a physics degree and I have seen this experiment performed myself, and taken the measurements personally. We used a wooden pendulum to account for any magnetic interference and we performed it inside a vacuum to account for wind or other things which could cause anomalous readings. The pendulum moved away from it's original axis.

Can you think of any other reason to cause such a result if not the rotation of the earth?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on October 09, 2011, 07:49:30 AM
How big was the vacuum chamber you performed this experiment in?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Biohazard on October 09, 2011, 10:54:58 AM
The chamber was large airtight bell jar, perhaps a metre across and a metre and a half tall?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 09, 2011, 11:00:53 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51073.msg1252272#msg1252272
Someone else already pretended to have done this experiment. The standard of trolling this week is very poor. The mods seem to only punish senior members for trolling.

Its probably the same person with a new account, having embarrassed himself the first time. ::)
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Crustinator on October 09, 2011, 12:05:38 PM
Because you are a RE you are not privy to our super secret discussions. You will have to take our word for it: There has been much discussion.

Super secret discussions?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

Yes. You are correct this is further evidence of The Conspiracy's (NASA) attempts to strangle freedom and equality.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Biohazard on October 09, 2011, 12:17:05 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51073.msg1252272#msg1252272
Someone else already pretended to have done this experiment. The standard of trolling this week is very poor. The mods seem to only punish senior members for trolling.

Its probably the same person with a new account, having embarrassed himself the first time. ::)

I'm quite offended you would believe that. Can you not think of any contradictory argument so have to resort to "HE MUST BE A TROLL."?

If you believe I'm the same person get a mod to check my IP or something if that's possible, I'm sure there is some way for them to see I am not a duplicate account.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Thork on October 09, 2011, 12:22:43 PM
I posted a contradictory argument which to a man, all the RErs ignored.

The point is, why should we take your word for it that you got the results you did? Its just like you claiming to have walked on the moon. You cannot say you got results and demand we explain them, when the odds are overwhelming that you haven't done the experiment and that you are just saying you have. It is you that needs to do the explaining and proving.

Also using a proxy server is not beyond the wit of man.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Biohazard on October 09, 2011, 12:38:11 PM
The gyroscopes and random precession? A gyroscope toppling is due to it slowing down and losing the centrifugal force keeping them upright. If you could create a gyroscope with absolutely zero friction it would remain in a perfect spin forever, however this it not possible. Either way that is not relevant to a pendulum, because a pendulum has no sidewards forces affecting it at all on a small scale, so if it goes off-axis at all it must be due to a grander force, for instance, the earth rotating?
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: The Knowledge on October 09, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
I posted a contradictory argument which to a man, all the RErs ignored.

Thork's argument: "I don't like your spelling, so I don't believe you."

::)
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 09, 2011, 05:01:24 PM
I posted a contradictory argument which to a man, all the RErs ignored.
You are pushing shit uphill there Thork ol' buddy.  As if someone wasn't going to call you on that.  ;)

The point is, why should we take your word for it that you got the results you did? Its just like you claiming to have walked on the moon. You cannot say you got results and demand we explain them, when the odds are overwhelming that you haven't done the experiment and that you are just saying you have. It is you that needs to do the explaining and proving.

How do you calculate those odds?   We have no knowledge of the man.  If we ignore the fact that FET is an extremely weak theory without any substantial support, then the odds are exactly 50/50 that he is telling the truth.  If we calculate in the extreme unlikelihood of FET being correct, then the odds are strongly in favour of the claim being true.

If FET is true, there are no odds at all; he is lying.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 09, 2011, 06:48:02 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51073.msg1252272#msg1252272
Someone else already pretended to have done this experiment. The standard of trolling this week is very poor. The mods seem to only punish senior members for trolling.

Its probably the same person with a new account, having embarrassed himself the first time. ::)

What would be the point of me getting another account? I have evidence that I have done that experiment, I have photographic evidence and the verification of my lab partners and professor. You have nothing of the sort to support your ideas.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Ski on October 09, 2011, 11:10:02 PM
Either way that is not relevant to a pendulum, because a pendulum has no sidewards forces affecting it at all on a small scale, so if it goes off-axis at all it must be due to a grander force, for instance, the earth rotating?

The pendulum is affected by the heavens. The Allais Effect and Mach's principle prove this.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 09, 2011, 11:30:54 PM
Either way that is not relevant to a pendulum, because a pendulum has no sidewards forces affecting it at all on a small scale, so if it goes off-axis at all it must be due to a grander force, for instance, the earth rotating?

The pendulum is affected by the heavens. The Allais Effect and Mach's principle prove this.

For one thing, the Allais effect is not very well understood and almost no accurate data exists for it. For Mach's principle, it says nothing about which is the correct reference frame, it only posits the relation between rotating frames.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: Ski on October 09, 2011, 11:35:34 PM
Perhaps it is poorly understood because the cosmological foundation they are building on is faulty.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: jraffield1 on October 09, 2011, 11:48:18 PM
Perhaps it is poorly understood because the cosmological foundation they are building on is faulty.

Come up with a better theory that makes testable predictions and is consistent with what is observed experimentally and we will come to know the source of the alleged effect.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: PizzaPlanet on October 10, 2011, 12:22:11 AM
Samuel Birly Rowbotham proved beyond doubt that the flat earth does not rotate in his seminal work Earth Not a Globe.
This doesn't affect the fact that there is much debate about it.
What evidence do you have to support this outlandish claim?  I don't remember seeing much, if any, debate among FE'ers about this.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to adjust my claims to suit you in this discussion, you may as well provide your own evidence. Alternatively, you may insert the modified claim in your rectum.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: digitalartist on October 10, 2011, 04:39:14 PM
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: EmperorZhark on October 15, 2011, 03:58:42 PM
I've seen a Foucault's pendulum in Paris, at the Pantheon.

Whatever you did to the pendulum, it would always be in line with the rotation of the Earth.
Title: Re: Pendulums.
Post by: pitdroidtech on October 15, 2011, 10:53:58 PM
Either way that is not relevant to a pendulum, because a pendulum has no sidewards forces affecting it at all on a small scale, so if it goes off-axis at all it must be due to a grander force, for instance, the earth rotating?

The pendulum is affected by the heavens. The Allais Effect and Mach's principle prove this.
The FIXED heavens.

Again you are assessing the Pendulum affect in isolation.  There is a massive amount of evidence in support of the "heavens" being light years distant and more or less fixed relative to the earth (because of the scale, their own movements are neglible in relation to Earth.)  The mass of distant galaxies alone is enough to dispel the notion that they are circling a stationary earth 24 hours a day.  Given the sum total amount of evidence, it more likely by a ratio of millions to 1 that it is the earth rotating within the relatively fixed framework of the Milkyway galaxy.

Yet you are prepared to propose a cosmological model that puts all the stars in a rotating shell at 3100km distant, without any actual observational or experimental evidence, and the only reason for drawing this extremely unlikely scenario is so that you can justify the fact that the FE argument doesn't stand up against the cosmological model that has been developed over hundreds of eyars of precise measurements and analysis?

Before you can continue with this rejection of the Pendulum affect proving rotation of the earth, you need  to come up with a sound theoretical model, based on observational evidence, for your proposed cosmology.  Otherwise your argument is circular and based on extremely broad assumptions with no evidential basis whatsoever.