Google Doodle - 9/18 - Foucault Pendulum

sculelos can i suggest you make an FAQ or maybe even a bullet point list of the key parts of your model of the universe, such as we are locked out of 10 percent of the universe, a square has 400 degrees etc. It would aid immeasureably in deciphering your posts and you could even refer to it yourself so you dont trip yourself up contradicting your own theory.

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'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 06:28:30 PM

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'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.

As long as the math contains no variables it can be considered exact. As for the other post, I may work on clarifying my model sometime.

Your taking what I said out of context.

No, you are just realizing what you said is stupid when put into context.
You said this BTW

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.

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.

Which has nothing to do with your claim.

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.

Which has nothing to do with turning left being better for traction.

Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.

A east-west perfect oval track would have no effect from it's location in the way you say it does. If a driver started out going east hewould make a turn north and then to west. Then he would go down the straight and then turn south and then east. It would simple be the opposite if he was turning right. Where does the way he is turning matter?
 

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.

OK so because the NASCAR is made to turn left it will turn left better. Once again, it has everything to do with the car and nothing to do with being in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore this actually goes against your first claim that all cars turn left better.
 

If your in the Northern Hemisphere you will notice that taking right handed turns is easier then left handed turns however with a faster weight shift you will lose traction more easily when taking a right handed turn at the same speed as left handed turns.

So now you say it's only NASCAR.
But wait there is more.
 

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.

Turning left is slower in the North but gives you more traction which would be more desirable for high speed velocities such as NASCAR (as their speed is primarily limited by traction).

So everything has more friction when turning left. Traction limits NASCAR's speed, yet when they turn left they have more traction but somehow lower speed. But when turning right they have more momentum (momentum is mass times velocity). I'm assuming their mass doesn't change so there velocity must go up according to you. So... traction goes down but velocity goes up when turning right? Or is it traction goes up and speed goes down when turning left?
You really need to take glokta's advice and make a list of what you believe so you don't argue with yourself.
See also your circle degree claims.

Physics is complicated. But yes they will have more momentum when turning right and more traction when turning left (from a northbound observer). However the force added to them is not pushing them but it's changing their arc angle in relation to the shift of direction.

Don't believe my fine, but if you live in the north hemisphere (at least 30 degrees North) try spinning around clockwise then try to spin around counter clockwise and see which you can do faster more easily. If you live 30 degrees South or more like in Australia try it counter-clockwise then clockwise and see if you notice any difference.

Physics is complicated. But yes they will have more momentum when turning right and more traction when turning left (from a northbound observer).

Once again, this goes against what you have said in other posts. I don't think you even know what momentum is.

However the force added to them is not pushing them but it's changing their arc angle in relation to the shift of direction.

Where did force come from? If you mean centrifugal force, please note that it is not a real force.

Don't believe my fine,

You don't even believe yourself.

but if you live in the north hemisphere (at least 30 degrees North) try spinning around clockwise then try to spin around counter clockwise and see which you can do faster more easily. If you live 30 degrees South or more like in Australia try it counter-clockwise then clockwise and see if you notice any difference.

The pinnacle of your argument, spin in circles.

BTW for anyone playing the home game. All this talk about clockwise versus counterclockwise one works for a round earth that is spinning. As you see, Sculelos believes there will be a difference in spinning and turning. He believes is a round earth, not his concave stationary earth.

Quote from: mathsman on February 19, 2014, 02:54:31 AM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 06:28:30 PM

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'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Mathematics is very much an exact art, that is why it is used in science and engineering.

As long as the math contains no variables it can be considered exact. As for the other post, I may work on clarifying my model sometime.

And once again you are wrong. Variables can relate to one another in exact ways. By continuing down this path you are embarrassing yourself.

Check it out.

Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Quote from: FlatOrange on September 17, 2013, 11:39:02 PM

Check it out.

Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Please define 'heavens'.

Heavens is defined by the celestial sphere above the Earth's Atmosphere.

The #1 rule to remember when describing Foucault's Pendulum is motion will always follow motion therefore if Earth was a proverbial treadmill and the atmosphere was moving with the Earth even if you were above the Earth you would still be following the Earth's momentum, therefore the Pendulum would always be in perfect harmony with the rotation of Earth and therefore you would never see it rotate neither clockwise nor counter-clockwise. The simple fact that the Pendulum does in fact rotate is proof that the Earth is stationary and the celestial orb is moving in the center of the Earth and that the Earth is concave and also hollow, however just because it's hollow doesn't mean the ground doesn't have thickness, by all scientific calculations we can determine the Earth to be about 800 miles thick ground-wise. (And about 7.8 light days thick sky-wise)

It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Go on then, explain it.

Quote from: Ski on February 20, 2014, 08:20:32 AM

Quote from: FlatOrange on September 17, 2013, 11:39:02 PM

Check it out.

Foucault's pendulum's apparent rotation is due to the influence of the heavens. We can see this in the Allais effect. It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Please define 'heavens'.

Things in or above the sky 

Quote from: Ski on February 20, 2014, 08:20:32 AM

It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Go on then, explain it.

Inertia is imparted by celestial bodies.

Quote from: Ski on February 20, 2014, 08:20:32 AM

It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Go on then, explain it.

Mach's Principle is basically from a fixed Earth reference frame the stars rotate around us so they would create momentum in the direction of their rotation separate and apart from Earth so if you use Mach's principle even if Earth was rotating counter-clockwise in relation to outer-space from a northbound observer the outer-space would be rotating in a clockwise motion and sense Earth any objects in Earth's atmosphere would be fixed to Earth it would be impossible for any object or pendulum to get any motion separate from the Earth so if you understand Mach's principle then you would understand that the Celestial Sphere is the only possible explanation for the movement of Foucault's Pendulum. Therefore Foucault's Pendulum proves these things definitively.

1. If Earth is rotating, it's force is not observable nor is it's force effecting anything in the atmosphere which means in layman's terms that Earth's alleged rotation or wobble could NOT be a factor in determining why the pendulum was rotating clockwise from a northbound observer.

2. Because Earth is from Mach's principle definitively omitted as a cause of the pendulum's rotation we must assume that it is the Celestial sphere that is directly responsible and for all practical physics test because the Celestial sphere is much more massive then Earth it's pull is slightly stronger then Earth's when it comes to objects in constant movement. So the celestial sphere is most definitively responsible for the pendulums rotation throughout a day.

3. However this causes a definitive problem for the model of gravity since two forces of gravity should not be pulling on each other simultaneously and if one is pulling it should cancel the other's pull out completely since if the sky and the earth really attracted heavy objects stronger then lighter objects then heavier objects would fall faster then lighter objects but this is never observed unless of course the objects have significant air drag like a parachute or feather and that can be attributed to air resistance, same concept if your body is parallel to the ground while skydiving you will fall slower then if you are vertical in relation to the ground.

4. Last problem is if space is really attracting objects in motion on Earth then it would be sufficient to say that if you gained any sort of speed you should fly into outer-space by force of vector acceleration but that is never observed.

Myth of Gravity: BUSTED. 


 

Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.

Sure, this makes perfect sense. Some screwball might suggest they race counterclockwise because in stock cars the driver is on the left and if he loses control and crashes into a wall the right side will absorb most of the impact.

He might also suggest that the driver is on the left because it's North America, where cars drive on the right side of the road and place the steering wheel on the left so that drivers have a better view of the entire road.

But that's crazy talk... right?

Quote from: Sculelos on February 18, 2014, 09:31:36 PM

Turning left just makes more sense in North America where latitudes are 30 degrees North or more.

Sure, this makes perfect sense. Some screwball might suggest they race counterclockwise because in stock cars the driver is on the left and if he loses control and crashes into a wall the right side will absorb most of the impact.

He might also suggest that the driver is on the left because it's North America, where cars drive on the right side of the road and place the steering wheel on the left so that drivers have a better view of the entire road.

But that's crazy talk... right?

Not really, all those are pretty good points.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on February 20, 2014, 11:23:31 AM

Quote from: Ski on February 20, 2014, 08:20:32 AM

It is explained best by Mach's Principle.

Go on then, explain it.

Inertia is imparted by celestial bodies.

Inertia? Do you need a dictionary by any chance?

All I can say is, if Foucault's pendulum were influenced by anything other than the rotation of a spherical earth, then it's rotational period would not be proportional to the sine of the latitude at which it is placed.

Mach's Principle is basically from a fixed Earth reference frame the stars rotate around us so they would create momentum in the direction of their rotation separate and apart from Earth so if you use Mach's principle even if Earth was rotating counter-clockwise in relation to outer-space from a northbound observer the outer-space would be rotating in a clockwise motion and sense Earth any objects in Earth's atmosphere would be fixed to Earth it would be impossible for any object or pendulum to get any motion separate from the Earth so if you understand Mach's principle then you would understand that the Celestial Sphere is the only possible explanation for the movement of Foucault's Pendulum.

This is one sentence. And, no, Mach's Principle does not say stars rotating create momentum on earth.

 

Therefore Foucault's Pendulum proves these things definitively.

1. If Earth is rotating, it's force is not observable nor is it's force effecting anything in the atmosphere which means in layman's terms that Earth's alleged rotation or wobble could NOT be a factor in determining why the pendulum was rotating clockwise from a northbound observer.

Incorrect. It is the opposite. Because the earth rotating does not act on the pendulum when can assume the pendulum's swing does not change. That is how we know the earth is rotating under it.

2. Because Earth is from Mach's principle definitively omitted as a cause of the pendulum's rotation we must assume that it is the Celestial sphere that is directly responsible and for all practical physics test because the Celestial sphere is much more massive then Earth it's pull is slightly stronger then Earth's when it comes to objects in constant movement. So the celestial sphere is most definitively responsible for the pendulums rotation throughout a day.

Still not even close to what Mac's Principle is. Plus by Celestial Sphere pull is slightly stronger you are saying gravity exists.

3. However this causes a definitive problem for the model of gravity since two forces of gravity should not be pulling on each other simultaneously and if one is pulling it should cancel the other's pull out completely since if the sky and the earth really attracted heavy objects stronger then lighter objects then heavier objects would fall faster then lighter objects but this is never observed unless of course the objects have significant air drag like a parachute or feather and that can be attributed to air resistance, same concept if your body is parallel to the ground while skydiving you will fall slower then if you are vertical in relation to the ground.

Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.

4. Last problem is if space is really attracting objects in motion on Earth then it would be sufficient to say that if you gained any sort of speed you should fly into outer-space by force of vector acceleration but that is never observed.

It is never observed because you made it up.

Myth of Gravity: BUSTED. 

Yet you and ski think the Celestial gears can affect stuff on earth. Sounds like gravity to me.
So once again, you can't make a post without contradicting yourself in it.

Not really, all those are pretty good points.

Are you sure it's not because tires magically know when they turn left to have more traction?
Glad to see you didn't respond to my post calling out all your inconsistency.

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model. 

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.

Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.

1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 02:47:11 PM

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.

Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.

1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.

1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.

gravity does exists you twit.

Stand under something heavy..  make it drop - and see what happens.

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 02:47:11 PM

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.

Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.

1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.

1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.

1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity.  See what I mean when I call you clueless?

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 03:07:11 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 02:47:11 PM

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.

Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.

1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.

1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.

1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity.  See what I mean when I call you clueless?

1. A Car with skidding tires will be able to change it's direction 180 degrees much faster then a car with no skidding tires.
2. Gravity is only a concept that we imagined to be, there is zero proof for it's existence.
3. There is different air densities but obviously unless you were higher then 22,236 miles in the atmosphere you wouldn't just float off into space. However if you jumped out of a space-craft at 30,000 miles high you would just be swept away with the celestial current unless you got close enough to be pushed into another object.

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 04:11:38 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 03:07:11 PM

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 02:54:39 PM

Quote from: Sculelos on February 20, 2014, 02:47:11 PM

Traction all depends on center of gravity, in cars this doesn't change a whole lot but it's far more noticeable in bicycles and motorcycles. Sometimes I sound confusing but generally when I say gravity I mean it like a sky pressure that is pushing down upon us and not a force that pulls as the center of gravity would be 4,000 miles over our head no matter where we were on Earth and that just doesn't make any logical sense in a heliocentric model.

Maybe it is better you don't respond to me as you have no clue about anything.

1. Just admit you were wrong when you claimed there is more traction turning left and more momentum when turning right.
2.Sky pressure is one of the dumbest ideas on here. It has been shown to be completely wrong many times.
3.The center of gravity of the earth cannot be over our heads by 4,000 miles. Mass, energy, and momentum cause object to be "pulled" to them, not away from them.

1. Spin is the word I was looking for and if you spin faster you lose traction faster.
2. Well if gravity and universal acceleration don't exist what is the alternatives really?
3. Technically gravity doesn't exist but if Earth was concave and the Heavens were inside the Earth it makes perfect sense to have different densities of air and thus different pressures.

1. So a car going 60mph has more traction then a car going 80 mph? When a car locks it's brakes up and skids it has the most traction because it's tires have no spin? Give it up.
2. None, it's gravity.
3. Density is not related to pressure in the way you are using it. As you climb a mountain air pressure goes down but you don't go floating away when you reach the top. This also has nothing to do with center of gravity.  See what I mean when I call you clueless?

1. A Car with skidding tires will be able to change it's direction 180 degrees much faster then a car with no skidding tires.
2. Gravity is only a concept that we imagined to be, there is zero proof for it's existence.
3. There is different air densities but obviously unless you were higher then 22,236 miles in the atmosphere you wouldn't just float off into space. However if you jumped out of a space-craft at 30,000 miles high you would just be swept away with the celestial current unless you got close enough to be pushed into another object.

1. Glad to see you were too scared to answer my questions.
2. Different masses fall with the same acceleration. This cannot be explained by a force, gravitation explains it just fine.
3. Once again, air density has nothing to do with pressure. Is it so hard to just look up stuff before you post so you don't look like an idiot?

Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.

Are you sure that you meant to say that gravity is not a force, or did you really mean that gravity is not considered by many to be a fundamental force? 

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 02:42:26 PM

Today we say gravity is not a force. This is why different masses fall the same. Also please stop using run on sentences.

Are you sure that you meant to say that gravity is not a force, or did you really mean that gravity is not considered by many to be a fundamental force?

Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.

Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.

Gravity is defined by its acceleration.  Now, you are saying that because it has a constant acceleration, that means it is not a force?

Your post is very confusing.  Is gravity a fundamental force, but not a force?  That seems to be what you are trying to say.

Quote from: sokarul on February 20, 2014, 09:23:14 PM

Well you see, if gravity was a force, it would accelerate different masses differently.(F=ma) Gravity is considered a fundamental force, it is now thought of as not a force. Maybe that is why they call them fundamental interactions now.

Gravity is defined by its acceleration.  Now, you are saying that because it has a constant acceleration, that means it is not a force?

Your post is very confusing.  Is gravity a fundamental force, but not a force?  That seems to be what you are trying to say.

Newtonian gravity was thought of as a force, general relativity gravitation is thought of as bent spacetime. It causes objects to accelerate without a force. This is why different masses have the same acceleration and why light(massless) can be accelerated. 

That's odd, as there are a lot of physicists who claim gravity to be an Entropic Force.  I did not realize that one set of beliefs defined the beliefs of all physicists.