# Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?

• 47 Replies
• 3825 Views
?

#### vhu9644

• 1011
• Round earth supporter
##### Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« on: November 05, 2010, 01:09:05 PM »
if you wtate that the earth is accelerating upwards, and you have a pendulum with a string, attached to a rod attached to the earth  do a thought experiment

with nothing to pull the pendulum down to the center point, and the air moving with the earth, the pendulum should just stay at its upward spot right? gravity pulls down, but UA theory makes the earth push up
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

#### dexi

• 35
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2010, 01:15:07 PM »
pendulums also rotate... because the earth is spinning on an axis.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2010, 01:20:21 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

?

#### dexi

• 35
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2010, 01:31:14 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

That still doesn't explain that all pendulums on the same latitude rotate at the same rate and direction.

And what about hurricanes vs cyclones?

« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 01:34:13 PM by dexi »

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2010, 01:33:59 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en
Wrong. From the quoted source:
Quote
Thus, a more precise formulation of the equivalence principle states that in any freely falling reference frame, the laws of physics are the same as in special relativity, as long as tidal effects can be neglected.

There are tidal effects. The UA is demonstratively false and those model that rely on the UA are likewise false.

Thanks to the OP for the opportunity to restate this!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2010, 01:37:38 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

That still doesn't explain that all pendulums on our HEMISPHERE rotate at the same rate and direction.

And what about hurricanes vs cyclones?
Is rotation the focus of the OP? I don't want to be accused of derailing the thread. I think the OP needs to clarify the position of his evidence. If it is indeed rotation we can discuss, but I didn't get that vibe from reading it. If my link earlier answered his question we can happily move on to the rotation facet.

ClockTower, stop derailing another thread. This is about pendulums. You will have plenty of opportunity to be humiliated in tidal effect threads, elsewhere.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2010, 01:44:14 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

That still doesn't explain that all pendulums on our HEMISPHERE rotate at the same rate and direction.

And what about hurricanes vs cyclones?
Is rotation the focus of the OP? I don't want to be accused of derailing the thread. I think the OP needs to clarify the position of his evidence. If it is indeed rotation we can discuss, but I didn't get that vibe from reading it. If my link earlier answered his question we can happily move on to the rotation facet.

ClockTower, stop derailing another thread. This is about pendulums. You will have plenty of opportunity to be humiliated in tidal effect threads, elsewhere.
Where did I say rotation was the focus of the OP?

I swore I read about the EP in your response. If you are just trolling again, knowing that the UA is false, I'm sure the OP appreciates knowing that.

Are you under the misconception that rotation of the pendulum is equal to the known tidal effects when FET's UA claims EP?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

#### dexi

• 35
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2010, 01:45:42 PM »
I am not sure at which angle you are trying to make an argument in the OP. Please elaborate. The pendulum will go down towards earth as an apple from a tree, and momentum will carry it up again. This is explained by FE with the equivalence principle.
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle/?set_language=en

That still doesn't explain that all pendulums on our HEMISPHERE rotate at the same rate and direction.

And what about hurricanes vs cyclones?
Is rotation the focus of the OP? I don't want to be accused of derailing the thread. I think the OP needs to clarify the position of his evidence. If it is indeed rotation we can discuss, but I didn't get that vibe from reading it. If my link earlier answered his question we can happily move on to the rotation facet.

ClockTower, stop derailing another thread. This is about pendulums. You will have plenty of opportunity to be humiliated in tidal effect threads, elsewhere.

Rotation is included in the argument. Go.

?

#### Thork

##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2010, 01:50:00 PM »
Are you deliberately trying to wreck another thread ClockTower? Rotation was suggested by Dexi. Whilst happy to talk about that I want to make sure the OP feels their question is addressed first.

Proving or disproving tidal effects is a long way from where the conversation is now. How about you let the OP clarify the intent of the post, and we can go about investigating those chosen points. If you want to talk about tidal effects, necro and old one or make a new thread unless you can wait to see where this thread will go.

Dexi, the OP makes no mention of rotation. I am going to give him a short while to elaborate. Otherwise I guess yours was the second question on the list, and rotation it shall be.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2010, 01:58:01 PM »
Are you deliberately trying to wreck another thread ClockTower? Rotation was suggested by Dexi. Whilst happy to talk about that I want to make sure the OP feels their question is addressed first.

Proving or disproving tidal effects is a long way from where the conversation is now. How about you let the OP clarify the intent of the post, and we can go about investigating those chosen points. If you want to talk about tidal effects, necro and old one or make a new thread unless you can wait to see where this thread will go.

Dexi, the OP makes no mention of rotation. I am going to give him a short while to elaborate. Otherwise I guess yours was the second question on the list, and rotation it shall be.
Why are you still talking about rotation? I've already corrected you on that error. As soon as you invoke EP, you have to deal with tidal forces proving the UA and the FE models that rely on it false. If you want to pretend that you don't believe that, then you're just trolling again.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

#### wecl0me12

• 142
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2010, 02:48:42 PM »
Now thork has to rely on personal attacks.
Thork, tidal effects are related to this thread. Equivalence principle is affected by tides, did you even read the article you linked to?
round earther
Quote from:  topic#19384
Gravity as a force does not exist
Quote from: FAQ
Q: Why does g vary with altitude if the Earth simply accelerates up?

A: The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull.

?

#### Danukenator123

• 520
• My Alts: Parsifal
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2010, 03:54:20 PM »
Are you deliberately trying to wreck another thread ClockTower? Rotation was suggested by Dexi. Whilst happy to talk about that I want to make sure the OP feels their question is addressed first.

Proving or disproving tidal effects is a long way from where the conversation is now. How about you let the OP clarify the intent of the post, and we can go about investigating those chosen points. If you want to talk about tidal effects, necro and old one or make a new thread unless you can wait to see where this thread will go.

Dexi, the OP makes no mention of rotation. I am going to give him a short while to elaborate. Otherwise I guess yours was the second question on the list, and rotation it shall be.

I guess relevant posts that address the OP are irrelevant? Explain, In this thread, how the UA or other models explain tides. (Note: Sources wouldn't;t include links to this site.)

?

#### vhu9644

• 1011
• Round earth supporter
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2010, 04:28:28 PM »
im saying that when you have a pendulum attached to a stick on the ground, without gravity to pull it down, it would not come down, but just stay there,  becuase there is no force acting on the ball anymore right?  the upward movemnt of the stick pulls the ball in the direction of the string, and, the ball would tend to stay up right?  air also does not push it down.
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2010, 07:42:57 PM »
No. The pendulum ball would remain stationary, but the Earth and anchor would accelerate upwards, causing the pendulum to "swing down". There is no difference between gravity and acceleration.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2010, 08:56:35 PM »
No. The pendulum ball would remain stationary, but the Earth and anchor would accelerate upwards, causing the pendulum to "swing down". There is no difference between gravity and acceleration.
Not quite, There is no difference between a uniform gravitation field and acceleration according the Einstein's EP. Since the Earth's gravitation field is not uniform, we know the UA to be false, right?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17521
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2010, 08:58:10 PM »
Since the Earth's gravitation field is not uniform

Proof of this?

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2010, 09:07:16 PM »
Well, he's right that the gravitational force would decrease as you move away, while the UA will always cause the Earth to accelerate towards you at 9.8 m/s2

#### ClockTower

• 6462
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2010, 09:30:58 PM »
That has nothing to do with a non-uniform gravitational pull. It has to do with the Earth spinning under the pendulum while the pendulum wants to keep oscillating in the same direction.

EDIT: Oh, I see. Yeah, gravity changes depending on radius.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2010, 09:32:49 PM »
That has nothing to do with a non-uniform gravitational pull. It has to do with the Earth spinning under the pendulum while the pendulum wants to keep oscillating in the same direction.

EDIT: Oh, I see. Yeah, gravity changes depending on radius.
Thanks!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2010, 10:45:55 PM »
EDIT: Oh, I see. Yeah, gravitation changes depending on radius.

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2010, 12:13:30 AM »
EDIT: Oh, I see. Yeah, gravitation changes depending on radius.

What else did you think I meant by gravity? "Gravity" can refer to gravitational force.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8505
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2010, 12:38:36 AM »
Certainly, and it could easily be explained by the decreased radius from the heavenly bodies.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2010, 12:46:51 AM »
Certainly, and it could easily be explained by the decreased radius from the heavenly bodies.
If it's so easy then would you please explain it to us? How can you say that the Earth's mass doesn't respond to Newtonian gravity to explain the UA and then say that it does to explain the decreased 'g' with increase altitude?

Furthermore, please explain why 'g' decreases beneath the surface in mines, for example.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2010, 12:55:27 AM »
He's saying the farther you go upwards, the more gravitational pull there is from stars and the sun and moon, causing a decrease in apparent gravitational force. This is the standard Flat Earth Theory.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2010, 01:38:05 AM »
He's saying the farther you go upwards, the more gravitational pull there is from stars and the sun and moon, causing a decrease in apparent gravitational force. This is the standard Flat Earth Theory.
I'm sure you're right. It's just FET fails to be consistent.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Uberrod

• 26
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2010, 02:41:00 PM »
im saying that when you have a pendulum attached to a stick on the ground, without gravity to pull it down, it would not come down, but just stay there,  becuase there is no force acting on the ball anymore right?  the upward movemnt of the stick pulls the ball in the direction of the string, and, the ball would tend to stay up right?  air also does not push it down.

Yes, except the upward continual acceleration acts like gravity. Remember that with UA, the movement is not at a constant speed, but always going faster and faster at a specific rate which matches normal numbers for gravity. The earth would move up at the same rate that gravity would say the pendulum comes down and produce identical results.

So the pendulum idea won't work. I disagree with UA because I'm thinking we should have hit the speed of light a long time ago. But in the FE universe this may not matter.

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2010, 02:57:59 PM »
im saying that when you have a pendulum attached to a stick on the ground, without gravity to pull it down, it would not come down, but just stay there,  becuase there is no force acting on the ball anymore right?  the upward movemnt of the stick pulls the ball in the direction of the string, and, the ball would tend to stay up right?  air also does not push it down.

Yes, except the upward continual acceleration acts like gravity. Remember that with UA, the movement is not at a constant speed, but always going faster and faster at a specific rate which matches normal numbers for gravity. The earth would move up at the same rate that gravity would say the pendulum comes down and produce identical results.

So the pendulum idea won't work. I disagree with UA because I'm thinking we should have hit the speed of light a long time ago. But in the FE universe this may not matter.
Let me try to reduce the confusion...
1) Einstein's thought experiment, the Equivalence Principle, states that at a point, you can't tell the difference between a constant acceleration and a gravitational field (UA versus gravity). Please don't try to find a case, as scientists have looked for decades. (Parachutes, pendulums, terminal velocity, air bubbles in water, etc., all result in disappointment.)
2) By the properties of the Lorentz Transform, no mass can ever be accelerated from less than the speed of light to the speed of light.
3) However, we know that the UA is false since the pendulums rotate. (See Foucault's Pendulum.)
4) However, we know that the UA is false since 'g' decreases as we measure it in mines and caves.
5) However, we know that the UA is false since 'g' varies with the tides.
6) However, we know that the UA is false since 'g' varies with latitude.
7) However, we know that the UA is false since the energy required for the UA to continue to accelerate the FE is far beyond any reason.

I hope that helps.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

#### Trekky0623

• Official Member
• 10061
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2010, 03:58:58 PM »
The tides and latitude can be explained by the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, all of which have a gravitational pull.

As for the energy requirements, it really isn't relevant since we know nothing about the UA. Who's to say there isn't a constant source of energy?

Also, to the people saying we should have reached the speed of light, you're wrong.

And here.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2010, 04:12:59 PM by Trekky0623 »

#### ClockTower

• 6462
##### Re: Pendulum doesn't support UA theory?
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2010, 04:07:44 PM »
The tides and latitude can be explained by the movement of the sun, moon, and stars, all of which have a gravitational pull.

As for the energy requirements, it really isn't relevant since we know nothing about the UA. Who's to say there isn't a constant source of energy?

The tides cannot be explained by the movement of the Sun and Moon. The earth doesn't have gravity, so it can't be subject to a gravitational pull.

Likewise, the variation by latitude can't be so explained.

Any theory that requires more energy than can be imagined is false.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards