[ijustlikeknowingthings]

Hi, I am new to the FES and I have some questions about how pendulums work in FET. I do want to disclaim that I am not attacking FET nor am I trying to disprove it, I just enjoy having knowledge.

When a pendulum is in a free moving system the parabolic arc made by the object at the end of the rope begins to rotate on the equilibrium point. According to RET this is because of the rotation of the earth. Being that the rotation of the earth acts very little on a system in free fall, the pendulum will not stay in one parabolic arc.

Does the parabola move in flat earth theory because the disk is rotating? I assume not because, well, it does not rotate.
Regardless, either a link to an article explain this phenomenon in FET or just a plain answer would be very much appreciated.
Thanks! 

[Rounder]

Here’s a link to the answer from the wiki.

[AATW]

Interested in this part of that page:

"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."

I didn't think gravitation existed in flat earth "theory".

[Tom Bishop]

Interested in this part of that page:

"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."

I didn't think gravitation existed in flat earth "theory".

Gravitation just an action word that means attraction, and is different than Gravity's universal attraction of mass by the mechanism of bendy space or puller particles (which has never been observed).

We accept that the heavens attract each other, and other bodies, and have a concept of "Celestial Gravitation." However, we question the conglomeration of mass as being the cause, and the mechanism of "puller particles," and so we do not incorporate those ideas into our theories as they are unempirical. This is why gravitation exists in Flat Earth Theory and why "gravity" does not.

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom, does that mean that gravitation is an observation and not an explanation? If one notices that the pendulum changes direction, and then says that the gravitation (a perceived attraction) of the distant stars is to blame, then isn't he using the observed behavior of the pendulum to infer that there is a mysterious force from the distant stars on the pendulum?

Perhaps it would be wise to disambiguate the different forms of gravitation in FE (and rename it to something like attraction so RE people don't go crazy because in established science, gravitation = gravity). Or perhaps it would be good to include a wiki page precisely explaining these subtleties.

[douglips]

For probably a century now, Foucault pendula have been indoors, so Rowbotham's temperature/sun hypothesis can't apply. Many natural science museums have such pendula indoors, all over the world, and their behavior is well described.

The first part of the wiki is deliberately using data that is over 100 years old, because more recent data exists that contradicts the desired conclusion.

The Mach principle part is just plain wrong. You can distinguish inertial from non-inertial reference points precisely by these sorts of experiments (eotvos effect, coriolis effect, Foucault pendulum, etc.)