Pendulums.

  • 69 Replies
  • 12069 Views
Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #60 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.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #61 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.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #62 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.
"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.."

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #63 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.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #64 on: October 09, 2011, 11:35:34 PM »
Perhaps it is poorly understood because the cosmological foundation they are building on is faulty.
"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.."

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #65 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.
You, sir, can't comprehend the idea of bottoms.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12257
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #66 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.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #67 on: October 10, 2011, 04:39:14 PM »
Please provide a real world example of a pendulum swinging off its axis.

http://www.sdnhm.org/about/pendulum.html

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #68 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.
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.

Re: Pendulums.
« Reply #69 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.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "