The proof of earth's non-motion: the experiments

[daxwc]

Silvertiger:

They operate perhaps on greater faith than most Christians, but it is misplaced, and it grossly inhibits their objectivity, causing them to abandon the scientific method in favor of philosophy.

Very good point; yet they carry none of the stigma of ridicule and rebuke our western establishments give religion.

[daxwc]

Silvertiger wrote:

Nope. The motion of the pendulum is an effect of inertial forces produced by the combined gravity of all celestial bodies in the rotating universe. There are three inertial forces produced by the stars: centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler.

Graphs of precession period and precession per sidereal day vs latitude. The sign changes as a Foucault pendulum rotates anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. The example shows that one in Paris precesses 271° each sidereal day, taking 31.8 hours per rotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

I don’t know how the hemisphere observation can be reconciled in a stationary earth.

[agor95]

Hi daxwc

Logically the universe is rotating one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the southern.

Lets invoke willful blindness for the section in the middle.

[Silvertiger]

Silvertiger wrote:

Nope. The motion of the pendulum is an effect of inertial forces produced by the combined gravity of all celestial bodies in the rotating universe. There are three inertial forces produced by the stars: centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler.

Graphs of precession period and precession per sidereal day vs latitude. The sign changes as a Foucault pendulum rotates anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. The example shows that one in Paris precesses 271° each sidereal day, taking 31.8 hours per rotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

I don’t know how the hemisphere observation can be reconciled in a stationary earth.

Dax, I'm very surprised that you said that - do you not understand how it works? It's based solely on how your body is oriented. Let's say you're standing on a merry-go-round that is rotating clockwise. Since your body is oriented in the upright position, the MGR is rotating clockwise. So you're having you're fun, but then you see a pretty girl walking by, and so you decide to do a handstand on it to get her attention. But, since your body is now oriented upside-down, to YOU'RE perspective it seems that the direction of the MGR has changed to a counter-clockwise rotation, but its direction of rotation in fact never changed - just you're orientation to it, hence the perceived reversal in the southern hemisphere.

Agor, the rotation of the universe is the same no matter where you're standing on earth. Consequently, the Foucault pendulum does nothing at the equator other than oscillate back and forth like a regular pendulum, since the inertial forces that cause its precession balance out to zero there.

And so, for physicists today wishing to advance heliocentrism, or for those wishing to advance LCDM, they seek to confine Newton's laws to the solar system, and thereby neatly exclude any external forces coming from the universe. This approach of course results in having to regard inertial forces as "fictitious," mere effects that only appear when objects are accelerated - just as is seen in a gravitron ride when its occupants are held fast to its spinning wall. Conversely, by expanding Newton's mechanics to the rest of the universe, which in Newton's case means that "absolute space" will revolve around a fixed earth, the inertial forces created by that rotation are very real forces that are caused by all the mass in the universe. In other words, they are forces that actually CAUSE things to accelerate, rather than being merely effects of acceleration.

In this way, the universe's inertial forces contribute to the movement of everything from the revolutions of the celestial bodies to the directions of hurricanes on earth and the turning of the Foucault Pendulum. Inertial forces will likewise pull the planets around the sun, and pull the sun and moon around the earth. As noted in Newton's P43, ALL of these movements are permitted by Newton's physics and are confirmed by modern physics. In point of fact, having real inertial forces is actually better for Newtonian physics, since without them, Newton NEVER possessed a physical explanation for what exactly causes the planets to continue to accelerate around the sun, without eventually being pulled INTO the sun.

[MrTim]

So, if the Earth isn't rotating, explain why there is a Coriolis Effect (and why it turns in different directions at opposite hemispheres. Or better yet, why there aren't Coriolis forces turning in opposite directions in the same hemisphere... ;-)

[Silvertiger]

I did. It's in the very first post of the Machian Physics thread. The answer to "different directions at opposite hemispheres" is in the post right above the post you just posted. You see, the same thing happens over and over every time I have a conversation. People either don't read what I wrote or they forget, or a question arises in their mind about a particular thing that is answered in another thread, and so they eventually get into a cycle of asking the same questions over and over again. I'm trying to keep this topic of "experimental proofs" separate from the topic of the "Machian physics," which is why I made them two separate threads, but it doesn't seem to be working out LOL. Anyways, when you go the first post in the Machian physics thread, just do a "Ctrl + F" for "Coriolis." ;)

[Fletcher]

ST .. I think that we have not ruminated on these things for anywhere as long as you, so there is some catch-up factor if we want to examine your thoughts more closely.

Part of that is that some things while obvious to you might seem to lack the background detail for easy acceptance.

Case in point - much of your theory is driven by Mach's Principle (Machian Physics) which you go on to explain suggests that the pseudo forces of Coriolis, Euler, and local FOR Centrifugal forces are as Weinberg describes INERTIAL Forces from the surrounding rotating mass of the greater universe.

IOW's Mach's Principle IINM.

IIRC Einstein proposed a thought experiment to describe Mach's Principle thus ..

Take a sphere of evenly distributed material (a shell) and call it a universe. Have it rotating (relative to what?) - lets say it is rotating and all objects in the shell have inertia and momentum. He suspends a pendulum inside the shell, and sets it swinging from equator to equator. He suggested it would precess like a Foucault's pendulum IINM. IOW's the gravitation from these objects in the rotating shell would 'drag' the pendulum into precessing like a Foucalt's. Or have I completely gone off the reservation here ?

And so you use that Machian explanation for why these forces on earth can not and do not indicate rotation of the earth itself.

Can you correct or add to it to explain in your words why these forces are unreliable to quantify earths rotation ?

We, myself included, were probably taught that gravity is a relatively weak force inversely proportional to square of the distance apart i.e. diminishing exponentially with separation distance. And even tho the universe is vast (and massive) so are the intergalactic distances and so the gravitational influences are very weak here on earth from other cosmic bodies.

[Silvertiger]

Ok. Here are some things that require no background of knowledge; just mild reading:

If gravity is strong enough to keep the planets in tow around the sun, and the sun and the planets in tow around the galactic center, then it's certainly strong enough to keep the stars together so long as a stronger net force does not act.

Except they aren't exactly being held together...they are flying apart with a net force that acts from rotation.

We KNOW that the universe rotates. The proof is in spiral handedness. It is completely irrefutable. If you Google it, paper after paper comes up reporting the preferred direction of the rotation that calls the Copernican Principle (of flat expanding space with no center such that rotation cannot even be considered) out, and yet there the rotation is for anyone with telescope access to see. Now, Google [ "spiral handedness" copernican principle ] and nothing comes up...there are no results. Google [ "spiral handedness" lambda cold dark matter ] and see what comes up. Now you get more papers that present preferred directions in direct contradiction (violation) to the LCDM (Copernican) model. Whether or not the earth rotates, the fact that the universe does rotate observationally (empirically) places the earth at its center...just by looking out and watching northern hemisphere circumpolar stars go around, with Polaris at center.

[Fletcher]

I've read about asymmetric bias spiral handedness of galaxies in the universe previously. I have no trouble accepting that this is observational where the plane is able to be seen. And it seems to me that a rotating universe is not hard to imagine. Even from a Big Bang beginning model.

Whether or not the earth rotates, the fact that the universe does rotate observationally (empirically) places the earth at its center...just by looking out and watching northern hemisphere circumpolar stars go around, with Polaris at center.

It indicates an axis.

I go back to the previous question. I ask another one based on another thought experiment.

Assume there is a straight hollow tube from one side of the earths surface thru the center of the core to the other side and you could travel thru it safely. If you jumped in one end would you accelerate towards the center ? I think we'd all say yes (assuming there were low friction guides to the tube inner surface).

Would you continue accelerating and shoot out the other side ? Probably not.

Would you yo-yo around the center back and forwards until you came to rest at the earths center (bit like a spring analogy) ? Would you then effectively be weightless with equal gravity force on all sides ?

Now my imaginary Foucalt Pendulum (spring motivated) should work in any direction shouldn't it and stay in that orientation ? Yet the Cosmos inertial influences of Mach's Principle are still for all intents and purposes the same at these scales ?!

[TGM]

Whether or not the earth rotates, the fact that the universe does rotate observationally (empirically) places the earth at its center...just by looking out and watching the northern hemisphere circumpolar stars go around, with Polaris at the center.

So by your logic, the videos taken on the moon of the earth (couldn't see stars) moving prove the moon is the center of the universe that revolves around the moon?

[Silvertiger]

Yes, it does indicate an axis of rotation. Combine THAT fact with the fact of spiral handedness and add the two together:

1. You observe an axis of rotation going THROUGH the Earth - whether it is the earth or the universe does not matter for this observation. You know it is **one OR the other OR both.

2. Then you observe the spiral handedness of galaxies, proving that the universe DOES rotate, regardless of whether the earth rotates or not.

3. Circumpolar Axis of Rotation + Spiral Handedness = Rotating Universe + Earth at Center (+/- Rotation of Earth)

4. No tests/experiments have ever proved any motion of the Earth, and thus we can say three things categorically:
--A. The earth does NOT orbit the sun barycentrically, and thus has no motion through space, but rather is at the entire universe's center of gravity, occupying a barycenter of which it plays no part, like putting your hand inside of a spinning tire.
--B. Whether the earth rotates or not...the universe rotates on the EXACT SAME axis.
--C. Whether the earth rotates or not, the fact that the universe rotates on the EXACT SAME axis places earth at the center of its rotation.

**You can draw ABC as a triangle connecting each letter with arrows, for each ONE reinforces the other TWO, no matter which one you start with. The only item ever in doubt is A (as a standalone), but when combined with the known empirical observational facts B and C, it becomes certain, being the only one that could go three different ways without B and C as the deciding factors. Each item, when combined, reduces the likelihood more and more, to a very near zero chance that the earth rotates at all.

As far as the earth's gravity, that point of weightlessness would be somewhere between the surface and its center depending on how the density is distributed, most likely at some point between the outer core and the lower mantle where the amount of mass above you is equal to the amount of mass beneath you, following Gauss' Law of course.

[agor95]

I don't think you have talked about Foucault's Pendulum. So how do you account for that Silvertiger?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Logically the universe is rotating one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the southern.

Lets invoke willful blindness for the section in the middle.

As the thread title states 'the experiments'. So we are on topic.

As the main proof here is based on old and experiments i.e. circa 1888.
Also observations from the Earth.

The alternative Earth rotation proof is current and from off planet observations.

However lets look at this logically.

1. On the equator the Foucault's Pendulum is weak.
2. At or near the North pole it is stronger and clockwise.
3. At or near the South pole it is stronger and anti-clockwise.

The key point is any observations that shows a change in apparent speed in the rotating universe of a short term. Where this observation can be linked to Earth rotation events like Earth quakes, Moon braking effects.

Then the conjecture of a none rotating Earth is invalid.

An observer in the North you can see the Sun rise is in the East on the left and sets in the West on the right.

The universe naturally base on the Static Earth follows this rule.

Now in the South you can see the Sun rise is on the right; which is perceived as West. Also the Sun sets in the left; which is perceived as East.

On the equator the Sun rise move vertically up to being overhead then down to Sun set.

We used the highest Sun position to indicate South.

So the rotating universe appears to move differently from were you view the universe on Earth. This inconsistency in observations invalidates the conjecture.

[daxwc]

Quote:
Graphs of precession period and precession per sidereal day vs latitude. The sign changes as a Foucault pendulum rotates anticlockwise in the Southern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. The example shows that one in Paris precesses 271° each sidereal day, taking 31.8 hours per rotation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Daxwc:
I don’t know how the hemisphere observation can be reconciled in a stationary earth.

Silvertiger:
Dax, I'm very surprised that you said that - do you not understand how it works? It's based solely on how your body is oriented. Let's say you're standing on a merry-go-round that is rotating clockwise. Since your body is oriented in the upright position, the MGR is rotating clockwise. So you're having you're fun, but then you see a pretty girl walking by, and so you decide to do a handstand on it to get her attention. But, since your body is now oriented upside-down, to YOU'RE perspective it seems that the direction of the MGR has changed to a counter-clockwise rotation, but its direction of rotation in fact never changed - just you're orientation to it, hence the perceived reversal in the southern hemisphere.

It’s not the observation explanation of the rotation to reconcile but the effects to a spinning universe. Just to be clear is the earth spinning or static?

Your first post was so long I forgot what I read before I was done. That and it takes a while to sink in. I imagine you already explained this too but you can repeat yourself for discussion sake. We can detect planets going around other suns; out of the billions of suns why would ours be different?

[daxwc]

Silvertiger:

I'm trying to keep this topic of "experimental proofs" separate from the topic of the "Machian physics," which is why I made them two separate threads, but it doesn't seem to be working out LOL.

I gave up trying to herd cats a long time ago. Just relax and go with the flow, it’s a discussion form. Also sometimes people ask repeat questions because they find the answer not consumable as is.

[agor95]

I did. It's in the very first post of the Machian Physics thread. The answer to "different directions at opposite hemispheres" is in the post right above the post you just posted. You see, the same thing happens over and over every time I have a conversation. People either don't read what I wrote or they forget, or a question arises in their mind about a particular thing that is answered in another thread, and so they eventually get into a cycle of asking the same questions over and over again. I'm trying to keep this topic of "experimental proofs" separate from the topic of the "Machian physics," which is why I made them two separate threads, but it doesn't seem to be working out LOL. Anyways, when you go the first post in the Machian physics thread, just do a "Ctrl + F" for "Coriolis." ;)

I see a conflict above 1. You want to keep this thread separate from other threads, 2. You refer and link to other threads.

Also you state the "different directions at opposite hemispheres" has been answered. When clearly only the equator case is put forward.

Therefore this appears to be a case of willful blindness.

The reason this question comes back is because the question is not resolved.

Going off on long posts on other matters does look like a distraction method.

P.S. some of you post are interesting; however they are not relevant to this topic.