Google Doodle - 9/18 - Foucault Pendulum

I guess I should've been clearer.  I didn't mean they spin opposites directions in the same hemisphere.  I meant they spin in opposite directions in opposite hemispheres only because the sun MOVES closer to one hemisphere than the other, depending on the season.  The weather channel is always saying "hurricane season" so naturally, I figured they only occur in the given hemisphere at the given season.  Am I wrong?

The Philippines, in the northern hemisphere, can have hurricanes all year. This happened on December 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Bopha_(2012).

Late to this thread, but here is further experimental evidence that verifies the original findings of Foucault Pendulum.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PS Move detects Earth's rotation

Is the data from this experiment also subject to the spectre of celestial gravitation?

How is it that Foucault's pendulum is affected by Earth's supposed spinning but NOTHING ELSE IS?  I thought the effect wasn't noticeable because everything spins with the Earth.  HAHAHA!

Wow you're as thick as ten flat earths put together!

Old thread but - Many things are effected by the spinning earth WEATHER Systems being a biggy... its why Tornadoes in the northern hemi spin to the right, and cyclones in the south spin to the left.

Oh GOD!  You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you?  Did you even read the whole thread?  I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work.  My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc..  And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement.  CONTRADICTORY!

Oh GOD!  You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you?  Did you even read the whole thread?  I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work.  My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc..  And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement.  CONTRADICTORY!

wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?

I really need to work on a script to place a facepalm graphic below everyone of EarthIsASpaceship's posts....

Come on, now.  Let's not be rude. 

wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?

No YOU are wrong.  The Earth does NOT move.  It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable.  It has to be set in motion to get it to swing.  BASIC FACT.

Quote from: glokta on February 18, 2014, 11:32:19 AM

wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?

No YOU are wrong.  The Earth does NOT move.  It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable.  It has to be set in motion to get it to swing.  BASIC FACT.

Does it move in that it swings back and forth?  yes. 
Does the direction of the swing move?  no.  The ground and room rotate around it.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 18, 2014, 11:49:51 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 18, 2014, 11:32:19 AM

wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?

No YOU are wrong.  The Earth does NOT move.  It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable.  It has to be set in motion to get it to swing.  BASIC FACT.

Does it move in that it swings back and forth?  yes. 
Does the direction of the swing move?  no.  The ground and room rotate around it.

Thanks I guess for some people it really does need to be simplified to that level

Quote from: glokta on February 18, 2014, 11:32:19 AM

wrong. the pendulum doesnt move the pendulum frame moves with the earth. Really not that hard to grasp is it ?

No YOU are wrong. The Earth does NOT move. It's the pendulum that moves, suspended on the cable.  It has to be set in motion to get it to swing. BASIC FACT.

The only basic fact here is that you still fail to understand the very basics of this experiment. The earth moving is the very thing this experiment proves.

Whatever dude.  Keep believing the lies.  Your brain is very clean.

I am curious as to what your take is on the device and how its movement fit in with a flat earth theory. And please don't just go into one of your vitriol soaked rants and throw upper case ad hominems at me please. Thanks.

I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs.  They DO initially move it, don't they?  It doesn't just start moving on it's own.

If you had read through the entire thread, you would have seen that.   

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on September 21, 2013, 08:58:47 AM

I suspect that mathematically, they figured out how long the cable should be and at what distance the ball should be swung at in order to get the right momentum for it to continue moving for 24 hrs.  They DO initially move it, don't they?  It doesn't just start moving on it's own.

If you had read through the entire thread, you would have seen that.   

was that in response to me? If so I still dont understand your argument for the rotation of the earth being clearly displayed.

Physics Rule: An object at motion will move more easily when external force is applied then the same object at rest.

So to determine if Foucault's Pendulum is moving in relation to Earth moving underneath it or to determine if it's the force of the Celestial sphere moving around we must observe physics.

Physics Rule: If Earth is moving underneath our feet it must be uniform in percentile. No matter if you are on the equator or on the poles the rules of a moving underneath Earth doesn't change in percentile. Thus it should be known that if Earth was moving under your feet it would move 100% in 1 day the same as it would move 100% at the poles.

Following the above rule we must know that if Earth was rotating underneath our feet there would be no observable force upon the pendulum as the pendulum would always rotate at the same exact speed as the Earth underneath it which is 1 day for 1 rotation.

Following the above statement we know that : Earth moving under our feet cannot be a mechanism to explain the pendulums movement as if the above was true the pendulum would never rotate.

So we are left with two possibilities:
1) Earth is wobbling slightly every day creating the pendulums motion.
2) the Celestial Sphere is rotating above a Concave Earth.

This picture determines the answer:

Physics Rule: An object at motion will move more easily when external force is applied then the same object at rest.

Ok. This does apply to some thing.

So to determine if Foucault's Pendulum is moving in relation to Earth moving underneath it or to determine if it's the force of the Celestial sphere moving around we must observe physics.

Ok

Physics Rule: If Earth is moving underneath our feet it must be uniform in percentile. No matter if you are on the equator or on the poles the rules of a moving underneath Earth doesn't change in percentile. Thus it should be known that if Earth was moving under your feet it would move 100% in 1 day the same as it would move 100% at the poles.

This is not a physics rule. You made it up. But yes, the whole earth does rotate though once per day.

Following the above rule we must know that if Earth was rotating underneath our feet there would be no observable force upon the pendulum as the pendulum would always rotate at the same exact speed as the Earth underneath it which is 1 day for 1 rotation.

No. Your made up rule doesn't apply here. The axis of rotation is at the north and south pole. This is where the pendulum rotates once in 24 hours. Everywhere else is not at the axis of rotation and therefore cannot have the same properties as the axis has. The equator is the furthest point from the axis of rotation. This is why there is no rotation.   
 

Following the above statement we know that : Earth moving under our feet cannot be a mechanism to explain the pendulums movement as if the above was true the pendulum would never rotate.

This follows nothing as you said the pendulum should rotate once in 24 hours. Now you are saying it shouldn't rotate at all. Which is it?

So we are left with two possibilities:
1) Earth is wobbling slightly every day creating the pendulums motion.
2) the Celestial Sphere is rotating above a Concave Earth.

No wobble is detected.
Celestial sphere inside a concave earth goes against all of astronomy. That is another topic.
This picture determines the answer:


[/quote]
Earth is a sphere. You cannot graph a sphere with a linear equation. Equations relating to it's properties would also not be linear.  Nor is it a perfect sphere.  So part one is wrong in your picture. Part two is just made up. No credibility yet you call the rotating earth idea dumb. And then a conclusion based on your opinion.

Once again, another post with zero evidence.

The Pendulum would not rotate at all in the heliocentric model as there would be no uneven force to press against it to make it rotate because the platform would always be forced to rotate at the same rate as the Pendulum so even though force would be present it would always be equal to the platform so there wouldn't be any differences so the object would always rotate exactly with Earth which means it wouldn't move in a visible circle.

As for your astronomy comment the sky can be perfectly mapped perfectly to a sky sphere. (which matches perfectly with all observations aka science by the way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere

Oh GOD!  You just HAD to put your two cents in on this old thread, didn't you?  Did you even read the whole thread?  I already know how tornadoes and cyclones work.  My point was that RE's claim that everything moves with the Earth, including the atmosphere and that is why we don't feel it or see objects moving like suspension bridges, trees, swings, etc..  And yet here they are saying the FP shows the movement.  CONTRADICTORY!

You're a unique one aren't you.. I can't imaging such a lack of knowledge to would come close to replicating your idiocy.

The Pendulum would not rotate at all in the heliocentric model as there would be no uneven force to press against it to make it rotate because the platform would always be forced to rotate at the same rate as the Pendulum so even though force would be present it would always be equal to the platform so there wouldn't be any differences so the object would always rotate exactly with Earth which means it wouldn't move in a visible circle.

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

As for your astronomy comment the sky can be perfectly mapped perfectly to a sky sphere. (which matches perfectly with all observations aka science by the way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.



 

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 04:02:52 PM

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.

Everything after first grade is still left for you.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 05:12:31 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 04:02:52 PM

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.

Everything after first grade is still left for you.

I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 05:38:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 05:12:31 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 04:02:52 PM

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.

Everything after first grade is still left for you.

I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?

That you think a GED makes you smarter than scientists, which you are not. You can't even keep a straight argument. First it was everything wants to turn clockwise. Then it was everything turns better left(counter-clockwise). You said a Foucault pendulum should rotate more at the equator then at the poles. Then you said a Foucault pendulum shouldn't rotate. Then you say it should rotate in a linear fashion. You make up math equations just to retract them. You can't keep a straight answer for how many degrees makes up a circle.
So what does it say to me? You are foolish.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 05:46:11 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 05:38:10 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 05:12:31 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 04:02:52 PM

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.

Everything after first grade is still left for you.

I never actually even completed first grade but I still got my G.E.D. so what's that say to you?

That you think a GED makes you smarter than scientists, which you are not. You can't even keep a straight argument. First it was everything wants to turn clockwise. Then it was everything turns better left(counter-clockwise). You said a Foucault pendulum should rotate more at the equator then at the poles. Then you said a Foucault pendulum shouldn't rotate. Then you say it should rotate in a linear fashion. You make up math equations just to retract them. You can't keep a straight answer for how many degrees makes up a circle.
So what does it say to me? You are foolish.

The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.

To clarify those points you brought up here are my official answers, I just don't think you understood me properly.

1) From a Northbound observer everything does move clockwise including that which is in the southern hemisphere.

2) Everything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.

3) Foucault's pendulum shouldn't rotate on a rotating Earth but if it did rotate it would rotate anti-clockwise in a linear fashion, if a force that I imagined was also coming from the Earth it would push it in a curve opposite to what the graph shows, however since I would have to make up laws of physics that don't exist lets just say Foucault's Pendulum would only rotate as much and not more or less then a rotating Earth making it look like it's not moving side to side from the Earth's frame of reference. Hope that clears up my seemingly double-talk.

4) Depends on how you are traveling the circle. At perimeter a circle is 314 degrees, from the inside of a circle travelling in one complete motion inside of another object you will move 360 degrees. A Square's perimeter is 400 degrees. Other conditions also can modify degrees and the way you calculate the numbers as they aren't exactly static and they can fit together in many different possible ways depending on the situation.

5) My ways seem foolish to you but my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts...   

The Math equations were a mistake that I later corrected, Math is not really an exact art any more-so then words and words have many different meanings that are completely based on what context you are using them in.

I asked you to explain it and you just shrugged it off.

To clarify those points you brought up here are my official answers, I just don't think you understood me properly.

1) From a Northbound observer everything does move clockwise including that which is in the southern hemisphere.

Define everything because that makes no sense.

2) Everything has more friction and therefore more traction when turning counter-clockwise from a northbound observer. You have less friction and more momentum when turning right.

How do you even come about making up such foolish claims. There is not one shred of evidence that suports this claim.

3) Foucault's pendulum shouldn't rotate on a rotating Earth but if it did rotate it would rotate anti-clockwise in a linear fashion, if a force that I imagined was also coming from the Earth it would push it in a curve opposite to what the graph shows, however since I would have to make up laws of physics that don't exist lets just say Foucault's Pendulum would only rotate as much and not more or less then a rotating Earth making it look like it's not moving side to side from the Earth's frame of reference. Hope that clears up my seemingly double-talk.

A Foucault Pendulum seems to rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere. There is no arguing this. It will not rotate in a linear fashion based on latitude because the earth is a sphere. Spheres are made up of linear equations. Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of Foucault Pendulum.

4) Depends on how you are traveling the circle. At perimeter a circle is 314 degrees, from the inside of a circle travelling in one complete motion inside of another object you will move 360 degrees. A Square's perimeter is 400 degrees. Other conditions also can modify degrees and the way you calculate the numbers as they aren't exactly static and they can fit together in many different possible ways depending on the situation.

A circle is always 360 degrees or 2 pi radians. A square contains four 90 degree angles. What is 90 x 4?

5) My ways seem foolish to you but my ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts...

Just because they are your thoughts, that doesn't make them correct.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 05:12:31 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2014, 04:02:52 PM

You said yourself it should rotate. Now you are saying it shouldn't. Make up your mind. Even your picture says it should rotate.
You have no clue. Why does the pendulum even need forces on it? The pendulum doesn't rotate, it just seems to rotate.

I'm not going to argue your sky "theory" here.

I'm assuming all the arguments you didn't respond to you have no response and admit defeat.

If the Earth was rotating it would rotate along with the Earth at the same exact rate. Therefore it's not Earths rotation that is the subject of argument. Axial precession is what you are actually arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

However as one celestial rotation is actually 6'573 years in the matrimony of Heaven and we have not even completed one rotation that proves that Axial precession cannot be and is not responsible as you would never notice a force like that.

Assuming the pendulum could swing back and forth with no force acting upon it, it still wouldn't rotate once per day but would preserve it's sidereal movement in relation to Earth as Earth would rotate the angle of the pendulum with it's own so you would never see any rotation of the pendulum in relation to the ground.

So I mean what's left? Earth's alleged rotation is nullified, Earth's alleged wobble is nullified, gravity doesn't technically exist and therefore is nullified. So I mean not a lot of options left. The only thing you pretty much have is celestial rotation dragging the Pendulum up to about one full circle per day farthest away from the equator line.

Everything after first grade is still left for you.

He's got a LOT to look forward too! lol

Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle. If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.

I say everything because if you turn upside down clockwise motion turns to counter-clockwise motion, so therefore everything from a northbound observer is determined to be clockwise motion. It's not like the motion ever changes it's just your relative angle to the motion. And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions. An object in motion will more easily follow motion, if I drop a ball into river the ball will flow with the river, not against it!

You should be happy I'm explaining this to you. This forever means that since Northbound observers are standing opposite directions from Southbound observers this itself proves that the Earth is not flat! However what they also fail to mention is it also proves without any doubt that the Earth is not rotating and the celestial sphere and not the Earth is moving inside the Earth.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp, very easy in fact. Read this write-up if you are still in doubt. (And also note that I think the Author of this is really silly in some of his ideas but spot on regarding the shape of the Earth)

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle. If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.

Nope

I say everything because if you turn upside down clockwise motion turns to counter-clockwise motion, so therefore everything from a northbound observer is determined to be clockwise motion. It's not like the motion ever changes it's just your relative angle to the motion. And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions. An object in motion will more easily follow motion, if I drop a ball into river the ball will flow with the river, not against it!

So my car only goes clockwise? Also while you are ignoring everything important. Care to explain how my car's tires know when it is turning counter-clockwise and to have more traction?

You should be happy I'm explaining this to you. This forever means that since Northbound observers are standing opposite directions from Southbound observers this itself proves that the Earth is not flat! However what they also fail to mention is it also proves without any doubt that the Earth is not rotating and the celestial sphere and not the Earth is moving inside the Earth.

OMG south is the opposite of north so the earth is flat. Who would have guess south is the opposite of north? Not me.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp, very easy in fact. Read this write-up if you are still in doubt. (And also note that I think the Author of this is really silly in some of his ideas but spot on regarding the shape of the Earth)

http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

I have read some of that the last time it was posted and some of the other links that have been posted. Now all you have to do is disprove all of astronomy.

So my car only goes clockwise? Also while you are ignoring everything important. Care to explain how my car's tires know when it is turning counter-clockwise and to have more traction?

Your taking what I said out of context. However some cars do independently track each wheel electronically and adjust the spin to better match the road these days. Good suspension also helps to even out this leaning effect to also make your car more stable so overall unless you are really pushing your car to the limits you will not notice the effect in every day life. I specifically brought up NASCAR because the track is slanted to the right to make turning left even more stable as their cars are specially designed with really stiff suspension and really grippy tires to get the most traction. Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more. And yes turning right would net them less grip and less control but faster spin, however spin is about the last thing you want when racing at speeds close to 200 mph.

Just remember a square is 360 degrees but so is a circle.

Sorry, but this is totally erroneous.  A "square" and a "circle" are geometric figures.  Neither can be defined by the term 360º or of any other angular description. The specific difference in their forms has nothing at all to do with angular measurement.

If you were able to travel outside the circle of the square to the corners of the square and measure the square from the outside and not the inside you would find that the square contains 400 total degrees because we are locked out of 10% of the universe.

This makes absolutely no sense at all to anybody who understands geometry or trigonometry.  I'm guessing you're just making this stuff up on the trot—or pissing yourself laughing at us poor saps trying to make sense of it all.
 

And the motion is a motion that attracts other motions and it is a force that attracts other forces and motions will follow motions.

One of us is seriously losing the plot here, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.