Foucault Pendulum

Oh, please call it the antimoon! Please!!

Actually there is a ton of evidence that gravitational magnetism is a reality and that the two are actually quite intertwined. There is a high likelihood that some magnetic fields are created by gravitational forces and angles of motion alone.

Perhaps you are referring to gravitomagnetism.  In the same way a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field, a moving mass produces what is known as a gravitomagnetism, a field that only acts on other masses.  Notice that gravitomagnetism depends only on mass and the velocity of the mass and is thus independent of electromagnetism.  Gravitomagnetism is a very slight effect that only has begun to be observed recently.  However, finding a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is an area of great research in physics today, but little success has been found.  Any resource that claims to have done so is not likely to be reliable.

Anyway, the Antimoon seems to be the best candidate for explaining the Foucault Pendulum in Flat-Earth Theory, but there are many difficulties in this explanation as well.

The exact origin is unkown, however we can say with utter certainty it exists. I believe I came up with the name.

and an object only feels a gravitational force if it has mass.  The converse is true as well, only a mass can produce a gravitational force

Quote from: jdoe on November 11, 2007, 01:58:41 AM

and an object only feels a gravitational force if it has mass.  The converse is true as well, only a mass can produce a gravitational force

Light?

Conspiracy, obviously.

It's just a pendulum. Any number of things could cause it to change its path slightly. The results, therefore, are bogus.

Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.

He penned the name, and I came up with the idea. {Antimoon}

I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason.  You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.

Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend.  The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.  A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin.  Light merely follows the bends in space.

the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.

Quote from: jdoe on November 11, 2007, 12:02:38 PM

Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend.  The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.  A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin.  Light merely follows the bends in space.

Yes I know.  But, there is no such thing as gravitational force.  The two are incompatible.

Quote from: jdoe on November 11, 2007, 12:02:38 PM

the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.

No, it's not.

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 11, 2007, 02:37:39 PM

Quote from: jdoe on November 11, 2007, 12:02:38 PM

Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend.  The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.  A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin.  Light merely follows the bends in space.

Yes I know.  But, there is no such thing as gravitational force.  The two are incompatible.

Quote from: jdoe on November 11, 2007, 12:02:38 PM

the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.

No, it's not.

I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean.  Can you clarify your views on gravity?

Perhaps when you say that there is no such thing as gravitational force, you are referring to the General Theory of Relativity's assumption that all apparent gravitational forces are due to bends in space-time.  This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time and hence create apparent gravitational forces.  Can you point out another mechanism other than mass that bends space-time creating gravitational forces?

In explaining why light bends, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of having a force act on a massless object.  Light bends because it follows the curves of space-time.  Mass is a necessary requirement for a force to be acting on an object, even a gravitational force.

Quote from: Moon squirter on November 11, 2007, 01:34:57 PM

I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason.  You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.

The effects of the antimoon were discovered when examining diurnal tides.  The fact that it is now being used to explain also pendulum phenomenon only strengthens the argument for its existance. 

Perhaps when you say that there is no such thing as gravitational force, you are referring to the General Theory of Relativity's assumption that all apparent gravitational forces are due to bends in space-time.  This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time and hence create apparent gravitational forces.  Can you point out another mechanism other than mass that bends space-time creating gravitational forces?

In explaining why light bends, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of having a force act on a massless object.  Light bends because it follows the curves of space-time.  Mass is a necessary requirement for a force to be acting on an object, even a gravitational force.

I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean.  Can you clarify your views on gravity?

This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time

Gravity is used to explain an observation based on a faulty assumption.  That assumption being that we are in an inertial frame of reference.  We are not.  Newton's laws of inertia, namely the first two laws of motion, do not apply in non inertial FoRs.  We are undergoing constant acceleration while we are in contact with the earth, or in the case of an airplane, when it is maintaining constant altitude and we are in contact with it.  Thus, no force is required for the phenomenon we observe to happen.  Gravity only exists as a concept.

Light bends spacetime.

Well, that being the case - that would somewhat destroy most theories, and quantum physics in general because you are taking the graviton out of existence. Yet to be seen (although I haven't seen the latest results from the labs) it would destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics. Included we are talking about the individual concepts of String theory, Superstring theory, and Quantum Gravity, just to name the more common knowledge ones.

Light itself, alone, cannot bend space time. It would violate every known precept.

Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation  m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.

Ah, that was an excellent explanation.  Light can produce very small bends in space-time.

So for the issue at hand, what does this have to do with FE theory?

Quote from: jdoe on November 12, 2007, 01:45:31 AM

Ah, that was an excellent explanation.  Light can produce very small bends in space-time.

So for the issue at hand, what does this have to do with FE theory?

And how can it explain the Foucault Pendulum?

I also find it ironic that we are using General Relativity, a theory that has been at least partially verified using the assumptions of RE theory.

The stars have a slight gravitational pull.

• Pick and choose established scientific theories.
• Deny other observations happen at all.
• Explain anything else as a conspiracy.

Quote from: Mystified on November 12, 2007, 01:10:22 AM

Well, that being the case - that would somewhat destroy most theories, and quantum physics in general because you are taking the graviton out of existence. Yet to be seen (although I haven't seen the latest results from the labs) it would destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics. Included we are talking about the individual concepts of String theory, Superstring theory, and Quantum Gravity, just to name the more common knowledge ones.

You do realize what I just described was General Relativity, right?

-- Probably more than you realize

Quote

Light itself, alone, cannot bend space time. It would violate every known precept.

What are the three 'causes' of space time curvature?
Mass
Energy
Momentum

What does light have?
Energy
Momentum

Quote

Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation  m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Quote from: TheEngineer on November 10, 2007, 07:29:29 AM

Conspiracy, obviously.

Quote from: Diego Draw, Tamer of Beasts on November 10, 2007, 09:31:44 AM

It's just a pendulum. Any number of things could cause it to change its path slightly. The results, therefore, are bogus.

Quote from: divito the fascist on November 10, 2007, 07:58:49 AM

Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.

Quote from: Username on November 11, 2007, 09:31:59 AM

He penned the name, and I came up with the idea. {Antimoon}

I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason.  You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.

You have to begin by saying "X appears to cause Y", then explain (prove) why this is so.  You cannot start out with just Y (the pendulum), the explanation (gravity/magnetism), and then invent "X" (the antimoon).

To put it another way, you could never prove the antimoon was the cause, because there are no other observations to compare it against, so the antimoon could be anything/anywhere/anytime.

Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.

What are the three 'causes' of space time curvature?
Mass
Energy
Momentum

What does light have?
Energy
Momentum

Quote

Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation  m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

I've not heard of massless objects bending spacetime. Is there an example of this happening that I can look up?