Did anybody mention the Foucault Pendulum? Here are the facts for all of you...
Heliocentrism (or the more commonly referred to Acentrism) has never been proven, despite having been taught as fact for the last four-hundred years. Even supposed proofs like Foucault's Pendulum do not prove the rotation of the world either, because firstly on a very basic level this phenomenon could be explained in a geocentric model via the gravitational pull caused by the rotation of the entire universe rotating diurnally about a fixed Earth.
The true answer is that all of the serous three story high pendulums that are located in museums around the world (like the one in Paris for example), have there own problems which are not usually talked about.
For instance, not many know that at the very top of the pendulum next to the cable mounting there is a small motorized pin that always stays horizontally opposed to the cable. This pin rotates very slowly, once daily, so as to always ensure the pendulums reliability when hitting the radial teeth once every hour as it swings to and fro. Finally, the pendulum is always cranked up every morning by the caretaker.
From Galileo was wrong:
One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'
As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion' it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.
Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.
From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.
Einstein was intrigued by, but ambiguous about, Mach's principle. This is strange, because Mach's principle states a principle of relativity for rotation, similar to Special Relativity's assertion concerning relative linear motion. An inconsistency with relativity would arise if rotational effects were not reciprocal. Distant masses would be discounted as a potent source of inertia.
No measurement of absolute or preferred rotation has been made to test whether the Earth is rotating or its surroundings. Until such a test is performed, Mach's principle is a valid statement; it has not been disproven experimentally. It is only a hurdle in the minds of those who wish it were not so.
By maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, he maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.
The Foucault Pendulum
By 1851, despite Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler no proof existed of the rotation of the earth.
At that time a Jesuit named Leon Foucault 'invented' a contrivance that supposedly PROVED the rotation of the earth.
The Foucault pendulum was just another Jesuit hoax like the Piltdown man.
Foucault was a failure until Napoleon III became his patron!!
Foucault was a failure at everything he did until Louis Napoleon became his patron. Louis was the nephew of the emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and became president of France in 1848. In 1851, he abolished civil liberties and declared himself dictator of France.
Foucault's pendulum in the church of the Pantheon in Paris. The pendulum had a specially rigged device on top to make it sway a certain way. Of course it was not visible from the floor. Notice also that the pendulum was not swinging in a VACUUM where air currents could not influence its sway.
In front of this display was a big sign which read: COME SEE THE PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS TURNING!!
The French scientific community were not amused by Foucault's folly and refused to make him a member of the French Academy.
Pressure from the emperor finally caused them to relent and 2 years before his death, Foucault was finally made a member of that august body.
Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as 'proofs' of heliocentricity!
Richard Elmendorf has done a tremendous amount of research on the Foucault Pendulum and has published it in an illustrated 84-page monograph entitled Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum.
It may be ordered for $5 from the Pittsburgh Creation Society, P.O. Box 267, Bairdford, PA 15006, U.S.A. Please add appropriate postage (about $2.50 should cover postage, and shipping envelope, I think).
One personal note about Elmendorf's work. He writes that most Foucault pendulums are not free-swinging, that they are damped and are constrained to swing in a plane. Without such damping the bob tends to start tracing out an ellipse which makes it hard to see the precession.
Now, we go on to the GEOCENTRIC CORIOLIS EFFECT:
Mach's Principle/Geocentric Coriolis Effect
"The effect of the Coriolis force is an apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves within a rotating coordinate system. The object does not actually deviate from its path, but it appears to do so because of the motion of the coordinate system. On the Earth an object that moves along a north-south path, or longitudinal line, will undergo apparent deflection to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere."
By maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, E. Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, Mach maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.
Mach's Principle: A body experiences no inertial forces when it is at rest or in uniform motion with respect to the center of mass of the entire universe. When its motion is nonuniform (accelerated) with respect to the total mass of the universe, it experiences forces such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis effect. Hence, the "local" behavior of matter is influenced by the "global" properties of the universe, i.e., those properties that describe the universe as a whole, which are studied in cosmology.
More details, concerning the application of Mach's Principle to Foucault's Pendulum can be found here:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374The Lense-Thirring effect as a consequence of Mach's Principle:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mach-s-principleH. Thirring observed that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: "the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations." That is, Einstein's field equations are structured to supply the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. Thus, H. Thirring notes that: "...in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces."
Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs. 344 & 345 says:
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also says:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"
Therefore, distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, which perfectly mimic the inertial effects of a spinning Earth . This implies that there are two possible explanations for the inertial forces whenever objects are in relative rotational motion.
Mach's principle has been confirmed in theory by Hans Thirring and no experimental test has ever disproved this principle of relative motion.
The experiment performed by J. Barbour and B. Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. There have arisen some questions re: the Lagrangian used by Barbour and Bertotti and also about the coordinate transformations discussed in their article, but the main experiment showed, quite clearly that Mach's Principle is correct.
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Overview-Barbour-BertottiErnst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as 'proofs' of heliocentricity!
Stationary Earth/Cloud Trajectories - Timelapse Videos
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143Included in that message: the Restoring Forces Paradox (see also
http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm ), Angular Momentum Paradox, Barometric Pressure Paradox and much more.
When you have at your disposal the best possible information, everything becomes so easy to understand...no such thing as a heliocentric foucault's pendulum.