aeroplanes

OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:34:32 AM

OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.

Where's the evidence for that?

The evidence is on the page!  Yes it assumes a round earth, but that's the point!
The experiment assumes a round earth and applies an experiment to either prove or disprove its theory. That's called the scientific method. Viewing the results without bias.
You won't even trust the results, let alone view them without bias.

So where's the evidence that the rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the earth and no other phenomenon?

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:08:09 AM

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 AM

For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

Please read all of my posts before responding

Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?

What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:54:58 AM

What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?

The rotational pull of the stars overhead.

Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.

I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces.  I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons.  These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force.  The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.

Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.

• bendy light
• aether
• gravitational pull from stars
• multiple southern poles
• UA
• Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
• bowshocks
• ... and many more.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 11:33:08 AM

I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces.  I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons.  These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force.  The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.

Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.

This is becoming tiresome. An "FE theorist" invents a cute name for the phenomenon that would fake the evidence that bugs him, tells everyone that he is working on the model, and then starts using the model as truth, without ever showing a number, a formula, a prediction, or anything else resembling science. Then, when somebody asks for any substance, they say they have no budget or time. But the theory has become accepted fact anyway.

Finally, bad use of Occam's Razor and requirements towards others to prove them wrong convert a totally useless hypothesis into a subject of debate. Before inventing "coriolons" why don't you use some of your time working on:

• bendy light
• aether
• gravitational pull from stars
• multiple southern poles
• UA
• Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
• bowshocks
• ... and many more.

They all started like your "coriolons" are still in need of the "maths".

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 15, 2009, 11:33:08 AM

I'm working on a theory on how the sun affects Coriolis forces.  I believe the sun radiates huge quantities of as-yet-unobserved particles called Coriolons.  These particles cause the rotational effects we perceive as the Coriolis force.  The Coriolons are weakly affected by magnetism so that those that drift from the sun into the northern hemisphere cause rotation of wind systems and pendulums in a clockwise direction, and those that drift into the southern hemisphere cause the rotation in a counterclockwise direction.

Of course, we may never observe these Coriolons because scientists will never think to look for them until it's widely accepted that the Earth is flat.

This is becoming tiresome. An "FE theorist" invents a cute name for the phenomenon that would fake the evidence that bugs him, tells everyone that he is working on the model, and then starts using the model as truth, without ever showing a number, a formula, a prediction, or anything else resembling science. Then, when somebody asks for any substance, they say they have no budget or time. But the theory has become accepted fact anyway.

Finally, bad use of Occam's Razor and requirements towards others to prove them wrong convert a totally useless hypothesis into a subject of debate. Before inventing "coriolons" why don't you use some of your time working on:

• bendy light
• aether
• gravitational pull from stars
• multiple southern poles
• UA
• Dark Energy/Dark Matter ("FE" version)
• bowshocks
• ... and many more.

They all started like your "coriolons" are still in need of the "maths".

Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.

Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?

How does the periodic comets and meteor showers fit into the gear system?

Quote from: zork on March 15, 2009, 03:03:19 PM

How does the periodic comets and meteor showers fit into the gear system?

They're periodic and come through our system from the unobservable stellar plane every now and then.

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 11:41:08 AM

Counter-hypothesis. The FE does not rotate. The behavior of FPs is controlled by the rotation of stars overhead.
Analysis: Since the stars rotate in the same direction in both hemidiscs and the FPs behave differently in each hemidisc, the counter-hypothesis failing to predict this behavior is falsified.

Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?

Do you care to explain a little. Do we for example have every year different Perseids every time or are they fixated somehow to some plane which rotates? If they are not fixed then how they come toward us and not away from us. UA must push them also like it pushes earth. If they are fixed to some plane then how do you picture hundred of solid planes rotating up there and going through others?

Quote from: zork on March 15, 2009, 03:22:13 PM

Do you care to explain a little. Do we for example have every year different Perseids every time or are they fixated somehow to some plane which rotates? If they are not fixed then how they come toward us and not away from us. UA must push them also like it pushes earth. If they are fixed to some plane then how do you picture hundred of solid planes rotating up there and going through others?

They're not coming from "up above" they're coming in from the side, making a big loop around the Northern Hub and leaving whence they came to return again some other day.

I don't know what all this looping round the Northen hub stuff is about

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:54:58 AM

What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?

The rotational pull of the stars overhead.

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:54:58 AM

What other phenomenom could cause the pendulum to precess in such a way as to give such consistant results?

The rotational pull of the stars overhead.

Actually the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemidisk. Gear systems, remember?