Irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round

(the title was to catch your attention)
Hello, Flat Earthers and Round Earthers alike!
The topic of this thread is the rotation of the Earth. As an expressed Round Earther, I believe not only that the Earth is round, but rotates about a North South axis.

Do flat Earthers believe that the earth rotates at all?
If so, at what angular speed?

According to calculations by Leon Foucault, a foucault pendulum should have an angular rotation of 360 sin (latitude)

I think that simple experiments with a foucault pendulum show that the Earth does indeed rotate.


I can think of two scenarios of a flat Earth
1. The flat earth does not rotate.
If so, any foucault pendulum's plane of swing would not move.
2. The flat earth indeed rotates about the north pole.
If so, the foucault pendulum would indeed exhibit angular rotation.

However, because the Earth is a "disk", not only would the rotation occur at the equator (whereas in the spherical Earth it would not), but would behave in a way that agrees with the disk model of the Earth, with a varying rate of rotation depending on the position of the pendulum with respect to the direction of your movement.
In the spherical Earth model, equivalent distances north or south of the Equator exhibit equivalent rates of rotation (with the southern hemisphere causing the pendulum to rotate in the opposite direction).

Indeed, with experiments having been done since 1851, results have been solid at pointing toward a rotating, spherical Earth.

For those of you who travel, I urge you to build a pendulum and calculate the rate of rotation of the pendulum, and compare it to a pendulum back at home. Hint: On a spherical Earth, the north pole and south pole should exhibit a single rotation per day, with that rate slowing down the closer to the equator you are.

I am eager to read your responses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

dont worry, if this is an valid argument then they will not respond, since they have no answer.

Awww... c'mon! Not a bite?

1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

what do you mean the heavens? you mean space, i find it hard to believe everything in space revolves around a object smaller then themselves.

1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

Are you saying that invisible "puller particles" or bendy space-time is influencing pendulums?

Please, let's keep this to a calm debate  .
Can they explain why the foucault pendulum moves in the way it does?
Why does it agree with 360 sin (latitude) ?

1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

What moves the heavens?

what do you mean the heavens? you mean space, i find it hard to believe everything in space revolves around a object smaller then themselves.

In FET the cosmos are quite smaller than the RET cosmos. For example, in FET the sun is 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. The stars are small motes of chemical attraction located about 3100 miles above the surface of the earth

In FET the earth is so much bigger than the cosmos. The sun, moon and stars are small bodies rotating close above the earth's surface.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 25, 2011, 08:26:21 PM

1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

Are you saying that invisible "puller particles" or bendy space-time is influencing pendulums?

No. I did not say anything about puller particles or bendy space anywhere in my post.

What moves the heavens?

What moves the heavens and how they are held together is unknown.

Yes, but can FET explain why rotation does not occur at the equator, and rotates rapidly at either pole?

What kind of chemical reactions occur at these "motes"?

So many unanswered questions! 

Pulley Particles?
Bendy Space-time?
That's odd vocabulary, I'd have to admit
Are these elementary particles?
Do they have mass?
What kind of forces do they mediate?

Bendy space time:
Does this agree with relativity?

OKAY GRANTED.

Let's assume that the heavens rotated above our flat Earth.
So...
What's causing the foucault pendulum to move?

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2011, 08:30:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 25, 2011, 08:26:21 PM

1. The earth does not rotate. The heavens rotate above it.

2. The Focault Pendulum is moved by the attraction of the heavens rather than the motion of the earth.

Are you saying that invisible "puller particles" or bendy space-time is influencing pendulums?

No. I did not say anything about puller particles or bendy space anywhere in my post.

Quote from: sillyrob

What moves the heavens?

What moves the heavens and how they are held together is unknown.

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

But FET still doesn't explain why the pendulum would rotate in the first place! What the heck is going on? Granted that if the heavens moved about in their own way, what's causing the pendulum itself to move? Gravity? I don't know! I actually WANT a debate!

Interesting response Dr. Bishop. Did you get your doctorate in bullshit or hypocrisy? So, when you claim that, "The heavens move above the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism that does it," it is more relevant than, "We are pulled down toward the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism?"

The stars are small motes of chemical attraction

How exactly did you use direct observational evidence to determine this?

Yes, but can FET explain why rotation does not occur at the equator, and rotates rapidly at either pole?

Rotation does occurs at the equator.

The rotation is faster towards the pole because the stars are traversing a shorter distance to make one full rotation.

What kind of chemical reactions occur at these "motes"?

Look up Spectrum Analysis.

Pulley Particles?
Bendy Space-time?
That's odd vocabulary, I'd have to admit
Are these elementary particles?
Do they have mass?
What kind of forces do they mediate?

Bendy space time:
Does this agree with relativity?

Bendy Space is the mechanism behind GR's explanation for gravity.

Puller Particles are the mechanism behind the QM explanation for gravity.

Let's assume that the heavens rotated above our flat Earth.
So...
What's causing the foucault pendulum to move?

The attraction of the rotating heavens causes the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

I don't recall saying "magic" anywhere in my post.

Interesting response Dr. Bishop. Did you get your doctorate in bullshit or hypocrisy? So, when you claim that, "The heavens move above the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism that does it," it is more relevant than, "We are pulled down toward the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism?"

Scienticians don't say "We are pulled down toward the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism"

They say "We are pulled down towards the Earth because invisible bendy space/puller particles did it."

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 25, 2011, 08:32:19 PM

The stars are small motes of chemical attraction

How exactly did you use direct observational evidence to determine this?

Spectrum Analysis is observational evidence for the chemical composition of the heavens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_analysis

"Spectrum analysis, also known as emission spectrochemical analysis, is the original scientific method of charting and analyzing the chemical properties of matter and gases by looking at the bands in their optical spectrum. The empirical laws of spectrum analysis are commonly known as Kirchhoff's Three Laws of Spectroscopy "

Quote from: Galileo on June 25, 2011, 08:35:43 PM

Yes, but can FET explain why rotation does not occur at the equator, and rotates rapidly at either pole?

Rotation does occurs at the equator.

The rotation is faster towards the pole because the stars are traversing a shorter distance to make one full rotation.

Which pole?  The stars are traversing a shorter distance at both of them.....

Berny
Nobody still has provided a legit answer except ski

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2011, 08:58:22 PM

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

I don't recall saying "magic" anywhere in my post.

If you have no clue as to what the mechanism is, then it must be magic.  What else could it possibly be?

Spectrum Analysis is observational evidence for the chemical composition of the heavens.

Hasn't you argued that we don't know the chemical composition of the sun because there could be some kind of different matter that emits the exact same light bands as that of hydrogen and such?

Regardless, you've found yet another way to amuse me. Gravity is absurd, yet chemical attraction is fine - which also may have invisible puller particles.

Quote

Interesting response Dr. Bishop. Did you get your doctorate in bullshit or hypocrisy? So, when you claim that, "The heavens move above the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism that does it," it is more relevant than, "We are pulled down toward the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism?"

Scienticians don't say "We are pulled down toward the Earth but I cannot explain the mechanism"

They say "We are pulled down towards the Earth because invisible bendy space/puller particles did it."

Scienticians? I'm pretty sure the term is scientist. However, you claim that "puller particles" cannot exist because you don't see them. Since these are invisible and, to date, not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that would mean, "We cannot explain the mechanism." So, claiming that I am being pulled to Earth is just as relevant as you claiming the heavens move above a non-rotating, accelerating Earth. With both examples, we cannot 100% conclude why these things happen.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:34:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2011, 08:58:22 PM

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

I don't recall saying "magic" anywhere in my post.

If you have no clue as to what the mechanism is, then it must be magic.  What else could it possibly be?

Unknown does not specify "magic," it specifies "unknown."

Hasn't you argued that we don't know the chemical composition of the sun because there could be some kind of different matter that emits the exact same light bands as that of hydrogen and such?

No, I did not.

Scienticians? I'm pretty sure the term is scientist. However, you claim that "puller particles" cannot exist because you don't see them.

I did not claim that puller particles do not exist because I don't see them. I claimed that there was no reason to believe in their existence because they have not been detected.

Since these are invisible and, to date, not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that would mean, "We cannot explain the mechanism."

When you believe in puller particles you believe in the in the invisible and speculative. When you say that puller particles are doing it, or amuse their existence, you are giving a positive mechanism for gravity. You are not saying "the mechanism is unknown." You are claiming the existence of something unproven and unseen.

So, claiming that I am being pulled to Earth is just as relevant as you claiming the heavens move above a non-rotating, accelerating Earth. With both examples, we cannot 100% conclude why these things happen.

That wasn't my argument. I was not claiming that it was not possible that there is something invisible pulling one to the earth.

I was claiming that an upwardly moving earth was more empirical than an invisible downward pull. When one steps off a chair one sees that the earth is moving upwards to meet them. They don't see anything invisible pulling them. Empirically, an upwardly moving earth is the best explanation.

I did not claim that the effects wouldn't be the same, or that the equivalence principal was invalid. My claim was that one had more empirical evidence than the other. One is visible. The other is not. After stepping off a chair one can see that the earth moves upwards to meet them. One cannot see any invisible downward pulls.

Quote from: markjo on June 26, 2011, 07:16:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:34:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2011, 08:58:22 PM

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

I don't recall saying "magic" anywhere in my post.

If you have no clue as to what the mechanism is, then it must be magic.  What else could it possibly be?

Unknown does not specify "magic," is specifies "unknown."

The unknown is indistinguishable from magic.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:08:35 PM

Quote from: markjo on June 26, 2011, 07:16:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:34:09 AM

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2011, 08:58:22 PM

Ah, then it's magic.  Good to know.

I don't recall saying "magic" anywhere in my post.

If you have no clue as to what the mechanism is, then it must be magic.  What else could it possibly be?

Unknown does not specify "magic," is specifies "unknown."

The unknown is indistinguishable from magic.

Unknown != Magic.

When you're in a room and the lights go out the do you assume that everything dematerialized from existence?

When you're on the highway and your car breaks down for some unknown reason, do you assume that magical gnomes did it?

When you're unable to explain how a magician pulled a rabbit out of his hat, do you assume that it must be magic?

No. Unknown != Magic.

When you're in a room and the lights go out the do you assume that everything dematerialized from existence?

If you truly hold observational evidence above all else, you must assume that something does not exist if you cannot observe it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:29:37 PM

When you're in a room and the lights go out the do you assume that everything dematerialized from existence?

If you truly hold observational evidence above all else, you must assume that something does not exist if you cannot observe it.

Incorrect. You can withhold judgement.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2011, 12:29:37 PM

When you're in a room and the lights go out the do you assume that everything dematerialized from existence?

If you truly hold observational evidence above all else, you must assume that something does not exist if you cannot observe it.

Experiencing a lack of data does not lead one to assume that magic dematerilization occurred.

Experiencing a lack of data does not lead one to assume that magic dematerilization occurred.

Then by that same logic, experiencing a lack of data with respect to observing puller particles does not lead one to assume that some magic force is pushing the Earth upwards.