The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: AATW on January 18, 2022, 01:16:47 PM
-
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?
I would suggest that objects sinking below the horizon, the distance (and angle dip) to the horizon increasing with altitude are observations which we all agree on.
That could be explained by us living on a globe - objects disappear over the curve, as you ascend you see further over the curve. But these observations could equally be explained by EA on a flat earth.
I think we can all agree that objects fall. That could be explained by mass attracting mass, but it could equally be explained by UA.
Ah, but the weight of things, and therefore the force of gravity, varies by latitude (and in other ways) in a measurable way. That could be explained by a spinning globe, the centrifugal force being greater nearer the equator where you are spinning faster. Other variations can be explained by the mass of the earth not being distributed perfectly uniformly.
But it could also be explained by Celestial Gravitation causing local variations.
RET has explanations for all the above. If FET has hypothesised mechanisms which also explain them then what experiment can we do to help us determine the true shape of the earth?
-
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?
You're going to find that question impossible to answer. The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
I would suggest that objects sinking below the horizon, the distance (and angle dip) to the horizon increasing with altitude are observations which we all agree on.
That could be explained by us living on a globe - objects disappear over the curve, as you ascend you see further over the curve. But these observations could equally be explained by EA on a flat earth.
I think we can all agree that objects fall. That could be explained by mass attracting mass, but it could equally be explained by UA.
Ah, but the weight of things, and therefore the force of gravity, varies by latitude (and in other ways) in a measurable way. That could be explained by a spinning globe, the centrifugal force being greater nearer the equator where you are spinning faster. Other variations can be explained by the mass of the earth not being distributed perfectly uniformly.
But it could also be explained by Celestial Gravitation causing local variations.
RET has explanations for all the above. If FET has hypothesised mechanisms which also explain them then what experiment can we do to help us determine the true shape of the earth?
It doesn't matter the experiment or observation, FE will simply contrive something to explain it. There really isn't an experiment that an alternative explanation can't be created.
-
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?
You're going to find that question impossible to answer. The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
Well, that's why I asked the question.
One of my frustrations with FE is they seem to simultaneously claim that observations demonstrate a FE, but then hypothesise mechanisms which they claim produce equivalent effects to a globe (the page about EA pretty much makes this claim).
Hence the question, what experiment could we do - and have they done - which discriminate between the two models.
-
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?
You're going to find that question impossible to answer. The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
Well, that's why I asked the question.
One of my frustrations with FE is they seem to simultaneously claim that observations demonstrate a FE, but then hypothesise mechanisms which they claim produce equivalent effects to a globe (the page about EA pretty much makes this claim).
Hence the question, what experiment could we do - and have they done - which discriminate between the two models.
I believe the following would accurately explain your frustrations:
"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe"
Lee McIntyre, Boston University
-
There’s the gyroscope experiment. It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere. Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating. What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world. When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer. If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types. These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities. It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.
-
There’s the gyroscope experiment. It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere. Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating. What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world. When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer. If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types. These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities. It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.
It doesn’t have to be that difficult - there’s no need to move. All you need is a ring laser gyro system and the ability to change and measure the angle between the measurement axis (or axes, depending on the design)and local gravity - ie ‘level’. If you tilt the gyro you will observe changes in the measured earth rate - varying between a maximum when aligned with the earth’s spin axis , and zero when at 90 degrees to it. The angle between ‘level’ and the spin axis will tell you your latitude.
That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth, even if it was rotating, as the maximum value would always be achieved at the same angle regardless of your position on the earth.
-
Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating. My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip. If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings. I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that. A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned.
-
Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating. My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip. If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings. I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that. A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned.
But if the earth isn't rotating, then why would the gyro show a rotation?!
The last FE answer I got for this was that the 'aether' is rotating, causing the gyro to measure that, rather than the earth's rotation. However, that falls down when you introduce the latitude / angle issue, because if it was the 'aether' doing the rotating, and the gyro was somehow capable of measuring that, then the axis of rotation wouldn't change with latitude.
-
The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased. It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth. I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change. In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.
-
The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased. It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth. I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change. In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.
The odd thing about Knodel's experiment was that the documentary wasn't clear on what exactly he was using, and how exactly it was set up. If you simply take a single axis gyro and lay it flat on the ground it will measure earth rate multiplied by the sine of your latitude - I would therefore have expected Knodel to have had a result some way under 15 degrees per hour. If they wanted to make it read zero all they'd need to do was tilt it a bit.
-
It's impossible. FE and RE can never be distinguished.
If a complete flat earth model is ever found, it should be able to explain anything physics can explain.
And as both models model reality, both should give the exact same answer for every possible test.
In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.
So not test can ever be found.
In the fully functional model, the gyro aligns with space and returns the same drift the globe model predicts.
BTW: details about the fully functional flat earth model can be found at https://troolon.com.
kind regards
Troolon
-
It's impossible. FE and RE can never be distinguished.
If a complete flat earth model is ever found, it should be able to explain anything physics can explain.
And as both models model reality, both should give the exact same answer for every possible test.
In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.
So not test can ever be found.
In the fully functional model, the gyro aligns with space and returns the same drift the globe model predicts.
BTW: details about the fully functional flat earth model can be found at https://troolon.com.
kind regards
Troolon
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.
-
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.
Not if your distance metric compensates for it.
-
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.
Not if your distance metric compensates for it.
How does one compensate a distance metric?
-
How does one compensate a distance metric?
You're probably used to calculating distances as sqrt(xx+yy+zz).
On the AE map this is no longer the formula.
In math distance is nothing but a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.
On the AE map, distances are calculated with this algorithm:
You have 2 points in AE space expressed with coordinates (lat1, long1, distance1) and (lat2, long2, distance2).
- convert (lat1, long1, d1) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- convert (lat2, long2, d2) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- returns sqrt(xx+yy+zz)
The above algorithm can also be written as a single large ugly formula: the flat earth distance formula.
And the distance for any 2 points in space, will give the same answer as the globe distance.
-
How does one compensate a distance metric?
You're probably used to calculating distances as sqrt(xx+yy+zz).
On the AE map this is no longer the formula.
In math distance is nothing but a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.
On the AE map, distances are calculated with this algorithm:
You have 2 points in AE space expressed with coordinates (lat1, long1, distance1) and (lat2, long2, distance2).
- convert (lat1, long1, d1) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- convert (lat2, long2, d2) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- returns sqrt(xx+yy+zz)
The above algorithm can also be written as a single large ugly formula: the flat earth distance formula.
And the distance for any 2 points in space, will give the same answer as the globe distance.
Tbh I am struggling to understand this. Can you give some practical examples?
I have yet to see a FE map where land mass sizes, distances between places match reality and flight routes make sense
-
...In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.
No it hasn't. It'd be an impossibility simply because there can be no
such thing. We know the earth is an oblate spheroid. End of story.
-
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.
- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.
So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.
It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.
Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.
-
No it hasn't. It'd be an impossibility simply because there can be no
such thing. We know the earth is an oblate spheroid. End of story.
If you have nothing to say other than "wow the Earth is <x shape>!!!", say nothing.
-
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.
- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.
So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.
It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.
Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.
But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.
There are galaxies in the night sky that look as though they've been twisted into a ring, evidence of gravity's influence on light. Physics makes predictions, predictions that come true under the most rigorous epistemological scrutiny.
(https://astronomy.com/-/media/Images/Web%20Extras/2013/01/Gravity%20illusion/Gravitational-lensing.jpg?mw=600)
By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?
-
But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.
Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.
http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/
(http://beyondmainstream.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SolarBending_ImpactParameter_animation.gif)
-
Wonder what he says about the shape of the Earth?
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/einstein-was-right-again-astronomers-watch-stars-gravity-bends-light-another-star
-
A parallel transport can distinguish curved space from flat. Its just moving a vector, keeping it parallel to itself, along a closed path. If the vector has to change directions to complete the path, then the surface is curved.
(https://i.imgur.com/UCOgMAC.gif)
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/
You might have to use some ingenuity on the actual execution, but I'm sure it could be figured out. Maybe a missile or rocket of some sort that is programmed to maintain a constant orientation along its trajectory.
The same concept was used to measure the curvature of spacetime using a gyroscope. The animation is from a link describing the experiment.
-
By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?
I said it's impossible to differentiate it from the globe model. What makes it not a fantasy is that i prove equivalence with the globe. (but maybe we should continue this discussion in the other thread)
We can't define the tests, unless we have a model.
- Today FE doesn't provide a working model and then there's nothing to test.
- If someone develops a perfectly working model, then there are no tests to perform.
I believe in the other thread i have developed a perfectly working flat earth model, and there's no way to test flat earth from globe earth. The shape of the universe simply can't be known. It could not even have a shape.
-
The Foucault Pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum) seems like an obvious choice.
The original was built in 1851 to show that it is the earth that is rotating not the stars. The spherical nature of the earth was not in question any more in 1851 than it is today. But the pendulum's rate and direction of rotation clearly confirms the spherical nature of the earth as well. The pendulum rotates once per day clockwise at the north pole (i.e. the earth rotating counterclockwise under it), slows down as the sin of the angle of latitude as you go south until it stops at the equator then picks up again but counterclockwise as you continue south until its again once per day at the south pole. The rotation rate formula of 24h56m/sin lat or about 31h50m for London was fully expected for the original device but is further confirmed (including the reversal in the southern hemisphere) by the many devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums) built all over the planet including at the south pole.
The rotation direction is from the perspective of a person standing by the device. Clearly the direction of the rotation of the earth can not reverse at the equator since its a solid object whatever shape it is. So the only explanation for the reversal is that the orientation of the device and observer reverses relative to the rotation of the earth between north and south hemispheres. All perfectly explained by a rotating sphere but not explained at all by even a rotating disk let alone a stationary one.
Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth? Of course the same could be said of many other things but the Foucault pendulum being simple, self contained and purely mechanical seems harder to wave away with some unknown magic technology or vast conspiracy.
-
Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?
No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum
-
Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?
It does. The results from that experiment would not be possible on a flat earth.
The FE response is a predictable “nuh uh”, the results are simply denied. But yes I’d suggest that is a good experiment that would distinguish between the two models.
-
I think the results from this contraption that Bob refers to as "extremely precise" would not be possible on a flat earth either.
https://youtu.be/SrGgxAK9Z5A
-
Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?
No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum
I did before I posted and it doesn't invalidate this at all. Your references are often from unrefereed papers, are very old (like 1851) or simply false. Certainly there are often difficulties with building such a device. I tired to build one myself in high school but had to do it outside and the occasionally slight breeze despite he sheltered location invalidated the effort. From the south pole paper (emphasis mine) in contrast to your picking and choosing quotes:
"Calculations and conclusions:
If the period of the pendulum was 24 hours then it should subtend an angle of 15º every hour. Intermediate measurements and calculations were made to verify this. By measuring the lengths of 3 sides of an equilateral triangle formed by the swinging pendulum over a 20 minute period and using the Law of Cosines to calculate the angle subtended in that time period it was determined that the earth rotated in a clockwise direction, relative to looking down at the South Pole, 5º every 20 minutes as expected."
-
Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?
No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum
I did before I posted and it doesn't invalidate this at all. Your references are often from unrefereed papers, are very old (like 1851) or simply false. Certainly there are often difficulties with building such a device. I tired to build one myself in high school but had to do it outside and the occasionally slight breeze despite he sheltered location invalidated the effort. From the south pole paper (emphasis mine) in contrast to your picking and choosing quotes:
"Calculations and conclusions:
If the period of the pendulum was 24 hours then it should subtend an angle of 15º every hour. Intermediate measurements and calculations were made to verify this. By measuring the lengths of 3 sides of an equilateral triangle formed by the swinging pendulum over a 20 minute period and using the Law of Cosines to calculate the angle subtended in that time period it was determined that the earth rotated in a clockwise direction, relative to looking down at the South Pole, 5º every 20 minutes as expected."
Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. ::)
-
Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. ::)
If they could not find a flaw in their setup that would be different but the DID find flaws. This is a standard method of scientific experimentation. If the results are not as expected you look for flaws in your technique. In this case that might be that the wire used is untwisting, or that there is air flow, or the release mechanism applies a torque. If you do NOT find any such flaws then you need to accept the results but if there ARE flaws then you need to correct them and rerun the experiment. This is especially true if the results are not just unexpected but inconsistent or variable as they were in this case before the flaws were corrected.
-
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?
Larger/longer versions of the Bedford Level.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1a/Experiment-2a.jpg)
Rowbottom asserts he was looking straight and level along the tops of the flags. If the height of the flags is 5 feet, Rowbottom's eyes and/or optical instrument were also at 5 feet.
If Rowbottom had a straight, unwavering sightline over the various flags, as the illustration suggests, then we can assert a straight sightline from his eye/optical instrument down to the surface of the canal, or to the base of any the flags, at zero feet above the canal. Why not?
So;
Find a spot onshore, looking outward/seaward toward boats/ships or islands of lesser height than the observer. Let's say observer height is 100m. Sea level is zero. Let's presume the sea to be flat, as per Rowbottom's assertion for the canal.
All straight sightlines to the sea's surface must be downward sightlines. From 100 down to 0. They cannot be upward or level. The observer cannot be looking upward or level toward the sea below him.
All sightlines must pass through all levels below 100m on their way to the sea. 100 down through 95, 90, 80, 70, 50, 25, down to zero. Cannot pass through 110, 120, or any other level above 100.
By the same token, if the observer sees any object out on the water of lesser height than his, say at 80 or 25, the sightline through the top of it must, if continued beyond the top of that object, meet the water.
The downward sightline is non-parallel to the plane of the sea, and must always meet the sea at some point. Non-parallel lines always meet.
If the observer does not see water behind and beyond the top of the lower object, the seas CANNOT be flat. If there is clear sky behind and beyond the top, the seas CANNOT be flat.
Simple right-angle triangle geometry dictates the point at which the straight sightline must meet the water, where the observer height, object height and distance between are known.
The following observations are therefore an impossibility if the seas are flat; the first is my own, the second taken from a flat-earther's YouTube video.
Observer height 100m, ship height 52m (the one on the right with two cranes);
(https://i.imgur.com/XwrQpgh.jpg)
Observer height 210m, lighthouse on the island 73m;
(https://i.imgur.com/SC97J2F.jpg)
Nothing to do with "ships going over the horizon", "disappearing bottom up", etc etc ...
-
Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. ::)
If they could not find a flaw in their setup that would be different but the DID find flaws. This is a standard method of scientific experimentation. If the results are not as expected you look for flaws in your technique. In this case that might be that the wire used is untwisting, or that there is air flow, or the release mechanism applies a torque. If you do NOT find any such flaws then you need to accept the results but if there ARE flaws then you need to correct them and rerun the experiment. This is especially true if the results are not just unexpected but inconsistent or variable as they were in this case before the flaws were corrected.
Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.
-
Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.
So why don’t you try then?
All we have from you is the Bishop experiment which you’ve provided no evidence for even having done?
This thread is about experiments which could distinguish FE from RE. What experiment would you suggest? Have you done said experiment? If so, can we see your results and the documentation of your method for review?
-
Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.
Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy and this of course includes the instances open to the public that have been running for years and your evidence for this is what you as a layman with no scientific training at all think is "likely". Of course the Foucault Pendulum cases are only the tip of the iceberg as you have to come to this same conclusion about much of the modern world (as has been pointed out repeatedly in this forum). With such an amazingly ability for determining what is real and what is not why are you not among the richest people on the planet, why have you not solved the worlds energy problems or cured disease etc? I'm not trying to be condescending here. In all seriousness why does this ability manifest itself in such limited circumstances? Doesn't that cause you to question your view?
-
Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy
Actually it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's. See the references at https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum
-
Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.
As per the title, have you got any experiments to show, and which of them have you done?
I detailed the results of mine above. What can you show us?
-
Hey all!
Some of my thoughts on the matter:
Experiment is a technical vernacular of the discipline of science. It has a rigorous and inflexible definition as a result.
We most all learn incorrect colloquial definitions of these vernaculars, and because so few of us ever have advanced scientific training, or study the history and philosophy of science, - they just let us continue being wrong and confused. It is one of the most major reasons for the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.
An experiment is only a validation/refutation (ideally) of a valid hypothesis. It has no other purpose. The shape of things is not a valid hypothesis in any way, and so naturally cannot be verified by experiment.
In fact, there is only one way to determine with certainty the shape of any physical object in reality. It is rigorous and repeated measurement (OF THE OBJECT!)! The earth is NO exception to this.
As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics.
This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)
-
Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy
Actually it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's. See the references at https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum
This is total BS. Starting from the first (presumably the most important) counter claim
The Popular and Scientific Reception of the Foucault Pendulum in the United States
by Michael F. Conlin, Ph.D. (bio)
Full Text Link
History professor Michael Conlin gives us a historical account of the Foucault Pendulum and its reception. We read that, although the Foucault Pendulum was publicly supported by Royal Astronomer George Airy and others, it was privately rejected:
p.185
“ In private correspondence, Airy had repeatedly dismissed the Foucault pendulum experiment as a "fraud." He regarded the latitude-dependent formula for the period of the apparent precession of the pendulum as a "mathematical curiosity having no application whatever to the soi-disant experiment." Attending no demonstrations, Airy based his conclusion on oral accounts of the experiment. Concurring with Airy, Powell accepted the theory but held that as a "practical question" the experiment was "doubtless open to every kind of doubt." After learning of successful demonstrations by British scientists, Airy conducted his own experiments. Although it was possible to conduct the experiment properly, he concluded that the "difficulty of starting a free pendulum, so as to make it vibrate at first in a plane, is extremely great."
Although Airy and Powell kept their opinions private, popular journals learned of their rejection of the experiment. Linking Airy's and Powell's doubts to recent unsuccessful popular demonstrations of the experiment, these journals questioned the validity of the Foucault pendulum. The London Literary Gazette recommended caution to those who would attempt the experiment because "persons unqualified by previous habits of research and accurate investigation" had failed. The Literary Gazette knew of several exhibitions "in which, to the horror of the spectators, the earth has been shown to turn the wrong way." The Illustrated London News expressed similar reservations, observing that the "experiment is now giving rise to much controversy, and it is hard to conceive that there is not some fallacy lurking at the bottom of it." ”\
You merely have to go on to the next page (186) to see: "Powell also noted that Airy had confirmed the experiment. On 9 May, Airy had presented his results to the Royal Astronomical Society."
So Airy is NOT just publicly accepting the results of others, he verified it himself. Note "his results".
The rest of your claims are all about how hard the experiment is to perform. That is true, but does not in any way invalidate the results.
Finally you have this belly laugh
Mach's Principle
One alternative explanation that has been suggested by those who do accept the Foucault Pendulum is Mach's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."
FEers do not accept that the stars exist right? So how can you fall back on this? If you are accepting that stars exist then why would the gravitational attraction do this pulling around of the pendulum, i.e. where is the math that shows this (also note that the gravitational attraction of a large star 2000 light years away would exert a few million times less gravitational force on the pendulum that a person standing in the room).
Finally all this is popular press stuff. Who cares? Science is done in peer-reviewed journals. If anyone wants to make a scientific claim that the Foucault Pendulum does not work or does not show what is claimed that is where you make them.
So no Tom, your claim that "it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's." is total nonsense. This so called "criticism" changes nothing about the result of the Foucault Pendulum.
-
As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics. This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)
Done twice thus far. You did see reply #31 above...?
Got lots more examples if you wanna see.
-
As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics. This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)
Done twice thus far. You did see reply #31 above...?
Got lots more examples if you wanna see.
Serious question.
Could the Wiki's "electromagnetic acceleration" account for your reply #31? In other words, the plane of the sea totally IS "above" the tops of the ship and lighthouse in your two example pictures, but the light reflecting from the sea to the observer's eyes simply makes it appear to be "below" where it really is.
I am terrible at math, so I would not be able to calculate the following, but perhaps you can:
Could we then do some sort of magical calculations (math sometimes really does seem like magic to me) to measure that the light is "bending" the same amount(? - I don't know what word to use here) in both your 100m above the sea observation AND the light of the sun to the earth creating the time zones, etc. as described in the Wiki ?
Or would we first need to know the Bishop constant to even make sure a comparison and thus we can't anyway?
-
Not sure this will answer AATW's original thoughts discussed in the first 4 posts of this thread, but I did think about an interesting experiment that could be tried.
To date, I'm unfamiliar with any FE arguments against the generally accepted physics of how waves travel. Specifically, I'm thinking about how sound and pressure waves travel radially outward from a fixed source at equal speed unless an external force acts to change their path. I'm unaware of any proposed FE theory, such as EA, that refutes this.
So, the experiment would be to initiate a sound or pressure wave at a given location, and then use the various measuring sites across the earth to time when that wave reaches them. Knowing the speed of the wave, the distance from the source could then be calculated and various models could be compared to how that data aligns with the model.
The only issue with this experiment, is that the energy required to perform the experiment is quite large and the expense and logistics of performing the experiment basically make it impossible to perform.
Fortunately for all of us, Mother Nature cares nothing about expense and logistics and decided to perform the experiment January 15, 2022 at Tonga.
This would leave FEers to explain how the data from this natural experiment aligns with the RE model but not any of the FE models.