# Step by step

• 51 Replies
• 7507 Views
?

#### Didymus

• 179
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2018, 11:31:37 AM »
Step 3

Now we (or better, our observer who doesn't know very much about Earth), are facing what is called a "pendulum". He is observing a bob (let's use this name), which swings back and forth around its neutral position.
He sees that every time the bob is left, some oscillations start, and these oscillations always remain in the same plane. He can understand why this happens: just referring to his (our) steps 1 and 2, he knows that, for some reason yet to be understood, the weight force, which is always vertical, lies in a geometrical plane together with the reaction force in the rope.

Now, sorry, but I need to stop because I have to throw again the periodic and fundamental question to everybody:

would you all agree that the pendulum oscillates constantly in the same geometrical plane when left free?

(I've got a bad feeling that, despite my intention to accelerate, here in step 3 I will be forced to slow down and reply to several objections... ok, I decided to go this way)
Anyway, I think most of us are going to come up with something along the lines of “Not necessarily”, and we are going to grind to a halt around step 3.5 amid murmurings about Foucault and The “C” word, and then Wise, or MOTD or whatever he is called this week will plaster the page with copy n paste sums.
In fact good money says that’s what will happen:)

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2018, 12:40:48 PM »
Step 3

Now we (or better, our observer who doesn't know very much about Earth), are facing what is called a "pendulum". He is observing a bob (let's use this name), which swings back and forth around its neutral position.
He sees that every time the bob is left, some oscillations start, and these oscillations always remain in the same plane. He can understand why this happens: just referring to his (our) steps 1 and 2, he knows that, for some reason yet to be understood, the weight force, which is always vertical, lies in a geometrical plane together with the reaction force in the rope.

Now, sorry, but I need to stop because I have to throw again the periodic and fundamental question to everybody:

would you all agree that the pendulum oscillates constantly in the same geometrical plane when left free?

(I've got a bad feeling that, despite my intention to accelerate, here in step 3 I will be forced to slow down and reply to several objections... ok, I decided to go this way)
Anyway, I think most of us are going to come up with something along the lines of “Not necessarily”, and we are going to grind to a halt around step 3.5 amid murmurings about Foucault and The “C” word, and then Wise, or MOTD or whatever he is called this week will plaster the page with copy n paste sums.
In fact good money says that’s what will happen:)

Agreed, the smart money is definitely on a forthcoming Wise dissertation.

In any case, my understanding is that a pendulum has to be "launched". In essence, it has to be set in motion and will not generally start oscillating on its own. Has our observer (Who I will now call Bob), has Bob touched the bob in any way to initiate it's movement?

#### JackBlack

• 22572
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2018, 03:10:54 PM »
He sees that every time the bob is left, some oscillations start, and these oscillations always remain in the same plane. He can understand why this happens: just referring to his (our) steps 1 and 2, he knows that, for some reason yet to be understood, the weight force, which is always vertical, lies in a geometrical plane together with the reaction force in the rope.
I assume by left you mean let go?
If so, no. (otherwise, definitely no as it doesn't just start swinging by itself).
I observe the opposite.
When let go the pendulum at first appears to remain in the same plane, but if watched for long enough the plane appears to rotate (at least where I am).
However I also note that this is constant for my location and doesn't depend upon what the pendulum is attached to, i.e. the pendulum can be attached to a turntable and shows no change in this rotation of the plane. I also notice that this rotation depends upon location, with moving north making the rotation slow down and moving south makes it speed up.

You are either trying to show Earth is flat, or you are about to contradict yourself.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2018, 07:25:31 AM »
has Bob touched the bob in any way to initiate it's movement?
The bob has been left free from a static position just away the neutral one. In such a way, also at start, the bob moved under the action of two forces only.

You are either trying to show Earth is flat, or you are about to contradict yourself.
None of the two, definitely.
You jumped to step 6 or 7, while I am still trying to understand at which point the mistake of Flat-Earthers is located. My deliberately slow speed is taken as a claim for flat Earth, while it is a serious attempt to proceed along the path of scientific reasoning and experimental proof that the Earth is round and rotates.
If you are patient enough, I will soon touch your points. But in a structured sequence, step by step. And please, do not forget that Bob still has no proof whether the Earth is flat or round. This is the essential point of the whole argument.
Still. At the moment.

However, ladies and gentlemen, the important thing (for me) is that I need to collect agreements or disagreements about the very basic principle of  a pendulum: it continuously moves under the action of co-planar forces. When this point is agreed, I proceed with Bob experiments. Actually, for step 4 I'll need to move Bob around the Earth. Ooooops, sorry, not "around" the Earth but "along" the Earth. In different locations.

Step 4 is about to come.

#### Stash

• Ethical Stash
• 13398
• I am car!
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2018, 11:07:45 AM »
However, ladies and gentlemen, the important thing (for me) is that I need to collect agreements or disagreements about the very basic principle of  a pendulum: it continuously moves under the action of co-planar forces. When this point is agreed, I proceed with Bob experiments. Actually, for step 4 I'll need to move Bob around the Earth. Ooooops, sorry, not "around" the Earth but "along" the Earth. In different locations.

Step 4 is about to come.

Agreed.

#### JackBlack

• 22572
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2018, 09:36:11 PM »
My deliberately slow speed is taken as a claim for flat Earth
[/quoet]
No, your claim that the pendulum oscillates in the same plane is.
This goes directly against experimental observation unless you are at the equator.
Everywhere else, pendulums are observed to have the plane of oscillation rotate.

very basic principle of  a pendulum: it continuously moves under the action of co-planar forces.
So are you trying to go based upon a model of how pendulums work, or based upon observations?
The model would indicate it remains in the same plane unless perturbed. Observations indicate it moves (which can then be used to conclude Earth rotates).

I haven't been skipping steps, I am just noticing that the observations don't match what you say.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11067
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2018, 09:11:38 AM »
Step three.

The weight as let go is expeceted to swing back and forth along a straight line with the expectation no other forces at play.
The gravity pulls down and the lateral is caused by the angled tension of the string.
The ball should NOT stray off its line.

No jumping ahead even if this moves at a turtles pace.

#### NotSoSkeptical

• 8548
• Flat like a droplet of water.
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2018, 12:22:52 PM »
Step three.

The weight as let go is expeceted to swing back and forth along a straight line with the expectation no other forces at play.
The gravity pulls down and the lateral is caused by the angled tension of the string.
The ball should NOT stray off its line.

No jumping ahead even if this moves at a turtles pace.

Only note to your statement is that it is a singular 2-dimensional plane, not a straight line.  The pendulum ball/weight actually travels in a curve like a drafting compass (tool for drawing circles), within a singular 2 dimensional plane.  This assumes that there are no other forces acting on the pendulum.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 12:24:40 PM by NotSoSkeptical »
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2018, 12:47:49 PM »
ok, it was my intention to keep the suspense at high level and asking some trap quetion, but you guys are impatient and want to proceed very quickly. You have also spoiled my suspense attempt by revealing the name of the killer before the end of the movie.... does not matter.

Step 4

Because the pendulum stops after some oscillations, Bob finds a way to increase the total number of oscillations over time, before stopping. He can increase the bob mass, increase the wire length, and reduce the friction at the suspension point. It does not really matter, how, but he finds a way.
(I said before that Bob was observing some oscillations, therefore he could not conclude what happens in 24 hours and he was not at all claiming that the Earth is flat: now he can).

He can therefore observe the behaviour of his pendulum during a 24 hour period. Having understood that the pendulum maintains its plane fixed, he can imagine that on a non-rotating Earth, the pendulum would not show any apparent variation of the orientation. In other words, in a non-rotating Earth the pendulum plane would not rotate. But this is exactly what he observes, why? Because he is at the equator.

Step 5

He therefore asks to a friend, located in a different point on Earth surface, whether or not his pendulum rotates its oscillations plane. His friend tells him that the pendulum rotates by 360 degree, ie a complete turn, in 24 hours. Where is his friend? At the pole. Well, he thinks, this is the proof that, assuming the Earth is not completely flexible, it rotates both at the pole and the equator, and it is round because this is the only shape that can keep the pendulum plane fixed at the equator.

Step 6

A direct confirmation that it is round comes from other observations at different parallels, intermediate between pole and equator: the 24 hour period of the pendulum at the pole slowly increases until becomes infinite at the equator (infinite means that the pendulum does not rotate). Because the period reduces by the inverse trigonometric sine rule (sine of latitude), then at 30 degree latitude (roughly Houston or Cairo) it becomes 48 hours.
Direct observations can also show that, while north of equator the pendulum rotates clockwise, south of equator the pendulum rotates counterclockwise, with exactly the same sine law than in the northern hemisphere. So, even if we accept the idea that nobody ever arrived to the south pole, by extrapolating the law, we can be sure that at the south pole the rotation is again one turn in 24 hours. Indeed, at 30 degree latitude south (roughly Perth in Australia) the rotation is again made of a 48 hour period.

Step 7

So, the direct proof of the round Earth is the Foucault's pendulum. This is the name of the guy who made the experiment, after Galileo failure to understand that this is the most direct proof ever. From this proof, everything else comes, but I am too tired to continue now. Following steps will deal with the direct equivalent of the pendulum, which is the gyroscope. Actually, Foucault himself used a gyroscope, not a pendulum, but nowadays the experiment with a pendulum (or a gyroscope) can be reproduced by anyone, and it has been repeated also in my town.

Still curious to know at which point the disagreement flat-round starts to be. Thanks.

#### JackBlack

• 22572
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2018, 02:05:01 PM »
Still curious to know at which point the disagreement flat-round starts to be. Thanks.
Different ones will have different points.
Some will disagree at step 5, saying all results of Foucault's pendulum are fake.
Others disagree at step 4 and instead say something else causes the pendulum's rotation, like the rotation of magic aether, or the stars.

And I wasn't being impatient, I just wasn't going to agree with observations I don't agree with.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2018, 01:58:14 PM »
Some will disagree at step 5, saying all results of Foucault's pendulum are fake.
They are not fake, because these experiments are perfectly reproduceable by anyone. I know people who built a pendulum in the stairwell, something 10 metres long. A similar principle is observable with a gyroscope. Anyone can go on a bicycle, or just observe people going on it, I suppose.
Others disagree at step 4 and instead say something else causes the pendulum's rotation, like the rotation of magic aether, or the stars.
Then I have to introduce the Coriolis force. The Coriolis force is again something that is perfectly reproduceable by anyone: it's even detectable without using a pendulum. A carousel would be sufficient. The Coriolis force is responsible of trade winds and tropical cyclones, and I think it would be very hard to state that these meteorological phenomena are fake, or generated by something which is not testable.

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11067
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2018, 02:08:49 PM »
Youre dealing with a group that is very distrustful and doesnt seem to go out much.
Requiring the tester to go to 3spots:  south equator, equator, north equator - is probably asking too much.
Same goes for "look at the stars".
They wont do it and wont reason to it.

#### JackBlack

• 22572
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2018, 02:55:33 PM »
They are not fake, because these experiments are perfectly reproduceable by anyone.
They don't care.
They dismiss these repeats as fake, finding any excuse they can and refuse to test themselves.

The only tests they are willing to do are those which allegedly show the Earth being flat.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2018, 06:52:57 AM »
They dismiss these repeats as fake, finding any excuse they can and refuse to test themselves.
Well, are hurricanes also a fake?

#### JackBlack

• 22572
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2018, 01:02:33 AM »
Well, are hurricanes also a fake?
No, but they typically don't link them to the Coriolis effect, those who do have a magic one which still magically works for a FE without explanation.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2018, 08:47:20 AM »
Well, are hurricanes also a fake?
No, but they typically don't link them to the Coriolis effect, those who do have a magic one which still magically works for a FE without explanation.
OK then, I would be curious to know whether or not the Coriolis effect is understood, because this would be impossible in a non-rotating Earth.
The key point here is the following: is this flat Earth rotating or not?

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2018, 09:13:59 PM »
OK then, I would be curious to know whether or not the Coriolis effect is understood.
I would claim that the Coriolis effect is certainly not understood by flat-earthers.

Quote from: Alien
because this would be impossible in a non-rotating Earth.
Some try to claim that the "Mach's Principle" explains it.
Ernst Mach hypothesised that even rotary motion was relative so that the forces due to rotation (centripetal, Coriolis etc) could be explained the stars, etc rotating above the object.

Funnily the name was given to the "principle" by Einstein who discarded it on "his pathway to General Relativity".
You can read more in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity in technology Chapter "Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")".

Quote from: Alien
The key point here is the following: is this flat Earth rotating or not?
The flat-earthers claim that the earth is stationary.

Most flat-earthers are very insistent "THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION", Chapter 3 in Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe".

?

#### Themightykabool

• 11067
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #47 on: October 01, 2018, 08:48:58 AM »
OK then, I would be curious to know whether or not the Coriolis effect is understood.
I would claim that the Coriolis effect is certainly not understood by flat-earthers.

Quote from: Alien
because this would be impossible in a non-rotating Earth.
Some try to claim that the "Mach's Principle" explains it.
Ernst Mach hypothesised that even rotary motion was relative so that the forces due to rotation (centripetal, Coriolis etc) could be explained the stars, etc rotating above the object.

Funnily the name was given to the "principle" by Einstein who discarded it on "his pathway to General Relativity".
You can read more in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity in technology Chapter "Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")".

Quote from: Alien
The key point here is the following: is this flat Earth rotating or not?
The flat-earthers claim that the earth is stationary.

Most flat-earthers are very insistent "THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION", Chapter 3 in Rowbotham's "Earth not a Globe".

Frame of reference.
Earth can be made stationary but it over complicates the math.
Same as any no euclid nonsense and such to warp a helio world onto a pancake.

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #48 on: October 01, 2018, 08:12:29 PM »
Frame of reference.
Earth can be made stationary but it over complicates the math.
Angular motion cannot be made relative without affecting many inertial effects. That is why Einstein discarded "Mach's Principle".

Quote from: Themightykabool
Same as any no euclid nonsense and such to warp a helio world onto a pancake.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #49 on: October 07, 2018, 01:28:29 AM »
OK, let me summarise my reasoning, please.

Note 1: every step described here is subject to experimental confirmation, hence every conclusion is a scientific proof. However, any step can be expanded and discussed in more details if necessary.
Note 2: I am still curious to know at which point the disagreement FE-RE starts to be.

Step 1

A bob weight tied to a rope, when stationary, is subjected to two forces only: its own weight, and the wire tension.
These two forces are equal and opposite, and this is why the bob is stationary. This appears to be correct independent on the true nature of the weight force, which is not under discussion here.

Step 2

If I shift the bob slightly away from its stationary position, it starts to swing. This is because the two forces acting on the bob, away from the zero position, do not completely compensate each other, and the bob is subject to a resultant force.
This is a pendulum.

Step 3

Two forces are by definition co-planar, because there always is a plane that contains the two forces. And also the resultant, as always, lies in the same plane of the two forces.
Hence, during the pendulum swing, the two forces and their resultant always remain in the same plane.
It can be said that the plane of a pendulum swing remains constant, unless there are additional forces not acting on the plane.

Step 4

The pendulum swinging plane remains constant, and this can be seen if the pendulum is hang on a movable frame. If the frame is rotated on a vertical axis, the plane of the pendulum does not rotate with the frame, but remains constant.
The question is then: how long, over time, this behaviour can be observed? The pendulum tends to stop after some oscillations, because of the importance of the friction at the top of the suspension wire. But this is not a problem, because there are several ways to increase the total number of oscillations over time, before stopping. We can increase the bob mass, increase the wire length, and reduce the friction at the suspension point. We can even find a way to give small energy increments to the oscillating bob, without affecting the direction of the swinging plane.

We can therefore observe the behaviour of the pendulum during a 24 hour period. Let's say that we can check whether or not there is any pendulum plane rotation over this period. And, having checked this, let's say that we do not notice any pendulum swinging plane rotation over 24 hours. What are we authorised to conclude? That the Earth is stationary. The frame reference linked to the Earth does not rotate compared to the outer space.
Why this happens? Because we are at the equator.

Step 5

Let's move to another location on Earth: North pole (forget the South pole, because it's unaccessible!).
And let's say that our pendulum rotates its oscillations plane by 360 degree, ie a complete turn, in 24 hours. We are authorised to conclude that the Earth rotates by one turn in 24 hours. How can we combine the two observations, one at equator and the other at North pole? How can we accept that at the pole the Earth rotates while at the equator it doesn't? One way is to say that the Earth is completely flexible, but this would be a third theory, completely different from both FE and RE. The other way, or better, the only way out, is to accept that the Earth does rotate but it is round, and at equator we stand perpendicular to its rotation axis. The axis is then passing through the pole.

Step 6

A direct confirmation that it is round and the axis goes through the North pole, can come from other observations at different parallels, intermediate between pole and equator: the 24 hour period of the pendulum at the pole slowly increases until becomes infinite at the equator (infinite means that the pendulum does not rotate). Because the period reduces by the inverse trigonometric sine rule (sine of latitude), then at 30 degree latitude (roughly Houston or Cairo) it becomes 48 hours.
Direct observations can also show that, while north of equator the pendulum rotates clockwise, south of equator the pendulum rotates counterclockwise, with exactly the same sine law than in the northern hemisphere. So, even if we accept the idea that the South pole is unaccessible, by extrapolating the law, we can be sure that at the South pole the rotation is again one turn in 24 hours. Indeed, at 30 degree latitude south (roughly Perth in Australia) the rotation is again made of a 48 hour period.

Step 7

So, the direct proof of the round and rotating Earth is the Foucault's pendulum. This is the name of the guy who made the experiment, after Galileo failure to understand that this is the most direct proof ever. Galileo was convinced about the rotation of the Earth (that the Earth is round it was known much before him: his problem was Inquisition, that stated a fixed round Earth in a geocentric system).
Actually, the Foucault experiment can be repeated by using a device different from a pendulum (and Foucault didn't perform the experiment with a pendulum, but the results are quite the same in principle). The experiment can be performed with a gyroscope.

A gyroscope has a very similar property: it tends to maintain its spin axis fixed in space. Hence, the experiment can be repeated by using a gyroscope. At the North pole, a gyroscope horizontally aligned (ie with its spin axis horizontal wrt the ground) would show a complete 360deg turn in 24 hours. The same gyroscope, with the same alignment, at the equator would show no turns. This is because at the equator the gyro axis is parallel to the Earth axis, and therefore any Earth rotation would be of no effect: the gyro axis orientation, similarly to the pendulum plane, would not change over 24 hours.

Thanks

?

#### MouseWalker

• 909
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2018, 07:07:36 PM »
OK, let me summarise my reasoning, please.

Note 1: every step described here is subject to experimental confirmation, hence every conclusion is a scientific proof. However, any step can be expanded and discussed in more details if necessary.
Note 2: I am still curious to know at which point the disagreement FE-RE starts to be.

Step 1

A bob weight tied to a rope, when stationary, is subjected to two forces only: its own weight, and the wire tension.
These two forces are equal and opposite, and this is why the bob is stationary. This appears to be correct independent on the true nature of the weight force, which is not under discussion here.

Step 2

If I shift the bob slightly away from its stationary position, it starts to swing. This is because the two forces acting on the bob, away from the zero position, do not completely compensate each other, and the bob is subject to a resultant force.
This is a pendulum.

Step 3

Two forces are by definition co-planar, because there always is a plane that contains the two forces. And also the resultant, as always, lies in the same plane of the two forces.
Hence, during the pendulum swing, the two forces and their resultant always remain in the same plane.
It can be said that the plane of a pendulum swing remains constant, unless there are additional forces not acting on the plane.

Step 4

The pendulum swinging plane remains constant, and this can be seen if the pendulum is hang on a movable frame. If the frame is rotated on a vertical axis, the plane of the pendulum does not rotate with the frame, but remains constant.
The question is then: how long, over time, this behaviour can be observed? The pendulum tends to stop after some oscillations, because of the importance of the friction at the top of the suspension wire. But this is not a problem, because there are several ways to increase the total number of oscillations over time, before stopping. We can increase the bob mass, increase the wire length, and reduce the friction at the suspension point. We can even find a way to give small energy increments to the oscillating bob, without affecting the direction of the swinging plane.

We can therefore observe the behaviour of the pendulum during a 24 hour period. Let's say that we can check whether or not there is any pendulum plane rotation over this period. And, having checked this, let's say that we do not notice any pendulum swinging plane rotation over 24 hours. What are we authorised to conclude? That the Earth is stationary. The frame reference linked to the Earth does not rotate compared to the outer space.
Why this happens? Because we are at the equator.

Step 5

Let's move to another location on Earth: North pole (forget the South pole, because it's unaccessible!).
And let's say that our pendulum rotates its oscillations plane by 360 degree, ie a complete turn, in 24 hours. We are authorised to conclude that the Earth rotates by one turn in 24 hours. How can we combine the two observations, one at equator and the other at North pole? How can we accept that at the pole the Earth rotates while at the equator it doesn't? One way is to say that the Earth is completely flexible, but this would be a third theory, completely different from both FE and RE. The other way, or better, the only way out, is to accept that the Earth does rotate but it is round, and at equator we stand perpendicular to its rotation axis. The axis is then passing through the pole.

Step 6

A direct confirmation that it is round and the axis goes through the North pole, can come from other observations at different parallels, intermediate between pole and equator: the 24 hour period of the pendulum at the pole slowly increases until becomes infinite at the equator (infinite means that the pendulum does not rotate). Because the period reduces by the inverse trigonometric sine rule (sine of latitude), then at 30 degree latitude (roughly Houston or Cairo) it becomes 48 hours.
Direct observations can also show that, while north of equator the pendulum rotates clockwise, south of equator the pendulum rotates counterclockwise, with exactly the same sine law than in the northern hemisphere. So, even if we accept the idea that the South pole is unaccessible, by extrapolating the law, we can be sure that at the South pole the rotation is again one turn in 24 hours. Indeed, at 30 degree latitude south (roughly Perth in Australia) the rotation is again made of a 48 hour period.

Step 7

So, the direct proof of the round and rotating Earth is the Foucault's pendulum. This is the name of the guy who made the experiment, after Galileo failure to understand that this is the most direct proof ever. Galileo was convinced about the rotation of the Earth (that the Earth is round it was known much before him: his problem was Inquisition, that stated a fixed round Earth in a geocentric system).
Actually, the Foucault experiment can be repeated by using a device different from a pendulum (and Foucault didn't perform the experiment with a pendulum, but the results are quite the same in principle). The experiment can be performed with a gyroscope.

A gyroscope has a very similar property: it tends to maintain its spin axis fixed in space. Hence, the experiment can be repeated by using a gyroscope. At the North pole, a gyroscope horizontally aligned (ie with its spin axis horizontal wrt the ground) would show a complete 360deg turn in 24 hours. The same gyroscope, with the same alignment, at the equator would show no turns. This is because at the equator the gyro axis is parallel to the Earth axis, and therefore any Earth rotation would be of no effect: the gyro axis orientation, similarly to the pendulum plane, would not change over 24 hours.

Thanks

You keep on saying that the south pole is inaccessible, only true on a flat Earth. As the south pole is accessible the Earth is a globe.
They're a pendulum will act as prescribed except in a counterclockwise turn.
Proving the globe.

The flat earthers,  can only complain conspiracy, lies and false hoods, to them it is end of story.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

?

#### Alien

• 37
##### Re: Step by step
« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2018, 11:14:36 AM »
You keep on saying that the south pole is inaccessible, only true on a flat Earth.
Not really: the South pole might be inaccessible even in a round Earth.
The complete proof works even without going to the South pole (in effect, it demonstrates that the Earth is round even without going to the North pole!).
In addition, this kind concession makes the complete reasoning even smarter, because it makes one of the pillars of the FE theory totally irrelevant ....
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 11:16:14 AM by Alien »