# But it moves! How we know the Earth rotates.

"I feel the earth move under my feet
I feel the sky tumbling down
I feel my heart start to trembling
Whenever you're around" -Carole King

I had so much fun earlier this week telling you about how we know that the heliocentric model is better than the geocentric one, that I thought I'd go a little farther down that rabbit-hole. You see, the first astronomical thing that any living creature likely notices is that, as seen from Earth, the Sun rises in the East each day and sets in the West.

(I don't want to hear it from you kids at the poles, either!)

The Sun, as it were, appears to move in half of a great circle throughout the sky. What's more, is that if you look up at night, you'll find that the night sky appears to move along a similar path, like the entire heavens rotates.

Why does this happen?

It turns out that there are two possible explanations that -- at first glance -- are equally good.

First off, the Earth could be stationary, and everything in the heavens, including the Sun, stars, Moon, and planets, could be revolving around it, once per day.

The other option, though, is that these objects in the sky don't move so rapidly, around the Earth, once per day. Rather than having everything orbit the Earth, the Earth could simply be rotating.

How would we know? What test could you perform on Earth to tell these two cases apart?

You'd hope that there'd be some easy way to see it from looking at the atmosphere, but when things with atmospheres rotate at constant rates, their atmospheres rotate at constant rates with them. It turns out that it wasn't until the 1850s that we figured out a simple, straightforward method to test it. The key device, believe it or not, is a simple pendulum.

If you have a perfect pendulum, it will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line forever, until something like air resistance slows it down to a full stop. For a very long, very heavy pendulum, this could take days.

But if you have a perfect pendulum that lives on, say, a rotating planet, something very, very interesting happens.

Image credit: Cleon Teunissen.

The pendulum, swinging back and forth, will be affected by the Earth's rotation! The effect won't be visible in just a few swings; in fact, if you were at 30 degrees North latitude (as the diagram above shows), it would take two full days for the pendulum to spin around once, or five minutes for it to rotate a mere one degree.

So what happens if you do this?

Well, the first time this was demonstrated was in 1851, by the Frenchman Leon Foucault, and the device is now known as the Foucault Pendulum. In fact, there are many of these all over the world, including the world's heaviest one right by me in Portland, OR. The results are almost immediately striking.

The simplest way to do it is to build a long pendulum with a heavy mass, and tie it off at a small but significant (5-10 degree) angle. Leave it overnight. In the morning, come in and mark its position, and then burn the string you used to tie it off.

Why burn it? Because this way, you won't accidentally introduce any angular momentum; the pendulum will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line.

And then come back to it. Or, if you've got some time, just watch it go. Know what you'll see?

The pendulum indeed rotates at the exact rate you'd expect if the Earth rotated once per day, regardless of your latitude! Not only that, but there are some pendula out there that are situated with a spike on their bottoms and a sand-pit beneath them to draw in.

Over the course of a day, they trace out a very telling pattern.

Image credit: Cleon again. Note, this cuspy, updated image replaces an old one, which is less correct because of the rounded edges.

This is firsthand, easy proof that the Earth, indeed, moves! Although we already knew it via other means, this is an experiment that anyone can do with a little effort, and many people all over the world already have!

In fact, some people even videotape it...

And that's how you know the Earth moves, and how you can demonstrate to anyone who thinks otherwise what science actually has to say!
Tags

### More like this

##### And so I'm where, exactly?
"And you may find yourself in another part of the world. And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile. And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife. And you may ask yourself, 'Well, how did I get here?'" -Talking Heads What would you do if you woke up…
##### How the Earth moves, and how do we know?
"Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not." -Galileo Galilei All of science is rooted in the idea that natural phenomena can be explained naturally, and that if we want to know how anything in the…
##### Incredible Star Trails, from Earth and Beyond
"Building one space station for everyone was and is insane: we should have built a dozen." -Larry Niven Here on the solid ground of the Earth, the Sun and Moon rise and set on a daily basis. During the hours where the Sun is invisible, blocked by the solid Earth, the stars twirl overhead in the…
##### How long does a Solar Eclipse last?
"The moon shuts off the beams of the sun as it passes across it, and darkens so much of the earth as the breadth of the blue-eyed moon amounts to." -Empedocles, ~450 B.C. Less than two weeks ago, I saw my first annular eclipse, with some spectacular results at the moment of maximum eclipse. From…

Excellent posts. (I enjoyed the ones on heliocentric and terracentric models. Next, how is the absolute size of the solar system determined?)

I'm not clear on the relationship between the latitude of the pendulum and how long it takes for its rotation to become apparent. I get that a pendulum at the North or South pole would take 24 hours to make a full circle (or 12, depending on whether you count swings one or two at a time). What would a pendulum at the equator do? How about at 30Â°, 45Â°, 60Â° latitude?

I'm not happy with he first animation: It looks like the pendulum stays in the same direction when it's on my side of the sphere and reversing on the back side. That process should be evenly distributed all around the circle, right? Is that some odd trick of perspective?

By timberwoof (not verified) on 17 Sep 2010 #permalink

The relationship between latitude and the period of precession of the pendulum is:
period=24/sin(latitude) (answer is in hours). You'll notice that for the poles (latitude= +- 90 degrees, the period is 24 hours, while at the equator (latitude= 0) the period is infinite, i.e., at the equator a Foucault pendulum doesn't precess at all.

Check out Amir D. Aczel's book Pendulum: Leon Foucault and the Triumph of Science,. Aczel gives two derivations of the sine law in an appendix.

By Ktesibios (not verified) on 17 Sep 2010 #permalink

James Burke mentioned Foucault in one of his two major TV series (I believe it was "The Day The Universe Changed") when he was discussing Gallileo, Copernicus and/or clocks. Foucault's use of the pendulum is as simple and as inspired a way of proving the Earth is round as was Ptolemy's use of a stick in Egypt.

Unfortunately, the ignorant and short sighted cannot grap the concept for the same reason they can't graps the big bang, evolution and abiogenesis: they lack the intellectual capacity to see past their short 70 year lifetimes.

By jcmartz.myopenid.com (not verified) on 17 Sep 2010 #permalink

In principle, this is a really good demonstration. The problem is that the publicly accessible ones would all be too affected by vibrations from external traffic and people walking around.

To keep them going indefinitely for display, they have electromagnetic kickers built into them. Foucault's experiment was still good proof, but you don't see the same experiment in museums today.

By Jonathan Lee (not verified) on 17 Sep 2010 #permalink

Great poetry you've got up there
copied to be posted at Facebook

"Next, how is the absolute size of the solar system determined?"

Oh, yes, great idea, since I believe part of the answer will be very relevant in about 8 or 9 months!

(I'd've sworn it'd already been discussed here, but can't seem to find any evidence of that fact. I must've read about it somewhere else recently?)

By Dale Sheldon-Hess (not verified) on 17 Sep 2010 #permalink

The movement of the Foucault pendulum can also be described (from the frame of the rotating Earth) using the concept of Coriolis force. One other clearly measurable consequence of Coriolis force due to the rotation of the Earth is the deviation of artillery shells fired in a North-South direction.

I thought I should share my confusion regarding the finer details of this. I got confused about what happens to the hook & string from which the pendulum is hanging. The hook rotates with the earth. And then shouldn't it also take the pendulum along with it? But then I realized that the string has 360-degree rotational freedom around the hook. And because gravitational force is always pointing downwards, pendulum remains in the plane containing the center of the circle & the current position of the pendulum. On these lines, the string would get twisted over time, right? And when it twists too much, it will exert angular momentum over the pendulum, right?

So, in summary, there are some finer aspects of how to hang this pendulum.

IBY, put simply, the pendulum isn't really moving as much as you'd think: the floor and earth and everything under the pendulum is. It gets its energy from the motion and gravitational pull of the earth.

By FarmerTodd (not verified) on 18 Sep 2010 #permalink

But... that takes too long.

Can't you just read the rotation directly with a laser (fiber optic) gyroscope?

How cool. I didn't know we had teh world's heaviest Foucault's Pendulum in Portland! Well then, off I go to the Oregon Convention Center!

By Caleb Fennell (not verified) on 18 Sep 2010 #permalink

There are active geocentrists afoot, and they are having a conference.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/9/12/18017/5649

"Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right - that's the sensationalistic heading for the 1st Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism...."

The author of the article is a subject-matter expert on religious extremism in America, whose research is taken seriously in high places. He is also the one who exposed the video of Sarah Palin at an extremist religious service that included "casting out of demons" and praise for actual witch-hunting: when this came to light it cost McCain/Palin points in the opinion polls (and thus presumably at the voting booth).

BTW, the conference in question is not supported by the Vatican, it appears to be on the fringes of Catholicism. In the same way that dominionism was once on the fringes of Protestantism.

Keyword search "dominionism" and read up. This is not snark or sarcasm, this is a five-alarm fire that has to be fought.

@IBY: For as long as I can remember, we cheat. The plumb is usually a ferromagnetic material and there is a large electromagnet directly below the pendulum's pivot point. Now you just need a very simple electronic circuit whose timing can be finely adjusted to coincide with the pendulum's period; that timer triggers a brief pulse of current as the plumb approaches the electromagnet. Some massive plumbs do without cheating; they rely on the mass to help compensate for loss of momentum through air friction, but they do need to be given a push at least once every few days whereas the cheaters have pendula which run for much longer periods (until something goes wrong - power goes out, electronics fail, the wire suspending the plumb snaps, or someone decides to stop the pendulum).

@Anasva: Yes, the wire twists and this torsion in turn twists the pendulum (but does not affect the direction of the swing). That torsion would also ensure that the plumb does not appear to twist. So, if you painted a stripe on the plumb and set the pendulum swinging that stripe would appear to face the same direction all the time - for example, if you put a peephole in a wall at some distance, you will always see the stripe facing you when the pendulum is in the lowest position in its swing even though the pendulum itself appears to swing in a different direction.

Oh - I forgot to mention - that short loop shows a pendulum which is wobbling out of the plane. The blue part (if you swing the pendulum correctly) should simply be an arc.

Hmm, with the earth in the center, and the known distance to the furthermost stars, and the earth stationary, those distant stars and galaxies travel so fast (some 200 billion light years in 12 hours) that they surely induce some force on a pendulum?

By Joffemannen (not verified) on 19 Sep 2010 #permalink

Please don't misunderstand my comment: I do agree with the HC model and I know about the Coriolis & Focault effects. However, with Mach's principle, we could still say the Earth is static while the stars spinning around us create a gravity effect that has the very same effect of the Earth rotation.

It's all a matter of reference frames: there is no "correct" one, there is only that one that simplifies requested hypothesis, approximations and calculations. And this one is, most often, the HC model.

The pendulum indeed rotates at the exact rate you'd expect if the Earth rotated once per day, regardless of your latitude! and if you were at 30 degrees North latitude (as the diagram above shows), it would take two full days seem to contradict each other.

Markogts is correct - there is no "correct" reference frame. HC or GC are equally valid frames - sorry to say. While a nice blog entry, Foucault's pendulum does not "prove" one frame over another - in fact there is absolutley no proof one way or the other. That is the whole point of the GC crowd -

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe. I have been encouraging my pupils to explore science fair projects that explore astronomy and the HC and GC models.

Two of my pupils attend strict catholic schools and this has raised some debate in their household. Still their parents acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the HC model. It has really been a great conversation provoker.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

It turns out that there are two possible explanations that -- at first glance -- are equally good. <\i>

second glance, too..... every glance.

If you have a perfect pendulum, it will simply swing back-and-forth in a straight line forever, until something like air resistance slows it down to a full stop. For a very long, very heavy pendulum, this could take days. <\i>

Glosses over important practical details.... Most FP require additional energy to maintain the plane of motion... like electromagnet pulses. This pumps energy into the FP which may affect the normal response.
Some FP won't produce any planar rotation.... or do, but in the opposite sense of the Earth's rotation!
Most won't start rotating anywhere if in an East-West vertical plane, but will if in a N-S plane.

The pendulum, swinging back and forth, will be affected by the Earth's rotation! <\i>

How does the Earth's rotation affect the FP?... there's no physical contact, except through the wire.
How does the FP 'know' that it is above a rotating object and should start rotating?
Where's the cause for the observed effect?

The pendulum indeed rotates at the exact rate you'd expect if the Earth rotated once per day, regardless of your latitude! <\i>

We expect a 24 hour rotation, but that only happens at the poles ... there's no rotation at the equator. How is that independent of latitude??

This is firsthand, easy proof that the Earth, indeed, moves! <\i>

Only if you ignore other logical possibilities.
If absolute rotation were detectable, then relativity of rotation - expressed in Mach's principle - would be refuted.
But Mach's principle was the key to the final version of the GR field equations. If the Earth does rotate absolutely, then the GR model collapses... Pretty serious implied claim for an astrophysicist....

Although we already knew it via other means, <\i>

....What are the other experimental proofs?

And that's how you know the Earth moves, and how you can demonstrate to anyone who thinks otherwise what science actually has to say!<\i>

Great graphics, as usual. But short on logic... as usual. Aristotle 101.
Wiki says the FP is sensing the stars motion.... or lack thereof. This is an even greater leap of faith - how does the FP know the stars are moving, or not?
This reasoning allows one to also say that if the stars are moving... as actually observed .... then the FP is moving with the stars..... and the Earth is not! In other words - proves nothing.

The model of an aether wind circulating every sidereal day on a static earth solves all the issues above, including the practical anomalies. This aether wind was detected by Michelson-Gale in 1925 but reported as proof of the Earth's rotation.
The difference in timing of E-W radio signals also supports the aether wind model - a natural aether flow, not caused by dragging by the Earth's spin.
3
Yes, what a burden of ignorance - using the scientific method of testing, Popper's logic and reasoning - which prevents acceptance of scientific speculation masquerading as fact.
5
Ah, an inquisitive mind.
16
Oh dear... why such virulence? What about freedom of speech??? Are these people terrorists?
All we need to do to silence them is use the scientific method and reasoning to show that the Earth moves.
The problem is finding such evidence.... here, or anywhere.
20
Yes, but how, without an aether?
21
But we do misunderstand ..... why agree with the HC model if it's not testable?
Simplification of hypothesis, approximations and calculations is personal subjective aesthetics.... Occam's Razor is not part of the scientific method.
22
23
Agreed.... but why 'sorry to say'? Is there some kind of bet going on..... or an ego thing?
24
And the complelling evidence is....??
25
Show your students and their parents this post.

AMDG

AMDG,
You obfuscate like a coward.
I dare you to answer in one word this simple question:
does the earth move?

Do not blow smoke, do not cite "research", do not impugn others. Just answer the question; everyone else can.
In one word: does the earth move?

By Elmer PhuD (not verified) on 28 Sep 2010 #permalink

AMDG's post reminds me strongly of a poster found on Talk.Origins (newsgroup) who goes by the name Anthony Pagano. Are you two folks the same?

As we can see, the GC crowd has ways to 'explain' FC and Coriolis effects. But there is one evidence that, IMHO, cannot be satisfactorily explained by GC. Earth is not a sphere, but (approximately) an oblate spheroid. This is a matter of comparatively simple and reproducible measurement. Moreover, the plane of its putative rotation exactly corresponds to the plane of its bulge. We can see this bulge on many other objects in our solar system, and it always corresponds with their respective (and observable) planes of rotation.

Nobody has ever proposed a mechanism that could explain the Earth's shape except that it rotates on its axis.

By Tim DeLaney (not verified) on 30 Sep 2010 #permalink

If absolute rotation were detectable, then relativity of rotation - expressed in Mach's principle - would be refuted.
But Mach's principle was the key to the final version of the GR field equations. If the Earth does rotate absolutely, then the GR model collapses... Pretty serious implied claim for an astrophysicist....

Have I got news for you...

Rotation is absolute. Uniform motion -- straight, no change in direction, no change in speed -- is relative, but acceleration is not, and rotation is a form of acceleration, because it's a change of the velocity vector.

You've misunderstood general relativity. Try again.

Occam's Razor is not part of the scientific method.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Falsification and parsimony are the two parts of the scientific method.

When 2 or more falsifiable but unfalsified hypotheses explain the data equally well, those of them that require the fewest extra assumptions must be preferred. What else would you do? Prefer the hypotheses with the most extra assumptions? Every event caused by its very own law of physics?

...Are these rhetorical questions? :-)

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 30 Sep 2010 #permalink

68 The Earth has two aether rings - for the Sun and Moon. The planets are in secondary aether rings surrounding the Sun. Their moons are in tertiary aether rings around the planets ... see the neo-Tychonian hierarchy model.
You could have saved a lot of words by just saying "magic". If everything moves like it does because the aether currents send it where they flow, and they can basically flow anywhere ... where's the predictive power?

Magic is the word for Newtonian gravity - objects fall to the ground with nothing between.. spooky AAAD, said big Al.
The cosmic aether currents/rings are seen to be quite stable, so we predict that the celestial objects will continue on the orbits we see now, like balls floating in a river.
There are innumerable weather sensors around the world, in space and in the oceans. Yet the specific local weather is only known a few days in advance.. WHERE'S THE PREDICTIVE POWER?
The implication that knowledge is useless unles it has predictive power is tunnel vision. What about truth for its own sake?
Is it the goal of science to know how everything works? Or is there a limit to such knowledge by humans?

LeSage particles use the ideal-gas paradigm - there is no drag/friction in matter interaction , only absorption - which produces the inverse square law locally.
No drag/friction, only absorption? First, that is not an ideal gas (particles elastically scattering off whatever you put into it). Second, you still get drag in your model due to velocity distribution in front of an object being different from the velocity distribution behind your object.

First- The LeSage particles convert to photons(heat) within mass ... so an ideal gas, with energy conversion.
Second- A log is floating downstream, moving at the same speed as the water touching it. Where's the drag??

69 ..... The Casimir effect was predicted by quantum physics (more precisely: Heisenberg's uncertainty relation) before it was observed, and the observation fits the prediction.

Aether pressure also explains the Casimir effect, which supports both theories.

The exact same holds for your misunderstanding of the tunnel effect. The light in that experiment did not have 310 c, it had no velocity at all, because it never was between the ends of the tunnel.
So the speed of light wasn't 310 times c(as reported), it was zero! Thanks for clearing that up....

...... There is, ultimately, no such thing as mechanics. There are no forces in this universe that do not reduce to electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity, or the expansion of the universe.
So you reject the electroweak unification.... why?
Tell us more about the fifth force of BB expansion... what is the source? How is it measured?

Parsimony, man. We don't need an aether. You, on the other hand, haven't even explained the experiments by Michaelson and Morley yet!
Why no discussion of M&MX? Parsimony, man! Nobody asked us..... because it's pretty obvious.
With an Earth at rest and a weak aether flow that only the Mic-Gale-1925 exp. could detect, what fringe shift result would you expect?
Null - right!

Oh, and, just to repeat what so many people have already said, uniform motion is relative, but acceleration is not, and rotation is a form of acceleration because it's a change in the velocity vector. According to relativity, you cannot tell how big the vector is, but you can tell when it changes!
Relativity of motion means that Va,b(t) = - Vb,a(t) for any frames a,b.
The rate of change of this equation gives the acceleration: Aa,b(t) = - Ab,a(t)
So velocity and acceleration are relative.... in relativity theory

AMDG,
In one word: does the earth move?

By Elmer PhuD (not verified) on 01 Oct 2010 #permalink

AMDG,
Ah sorry, I see you did answer, but in the wrong thread, and lumped in with other piffle.

In one word: does the earth move?
According to the scientific method and logic, no. But this is a question you should ask yourself, using the same epistemics, not us.

There it is, unvarnished medieval arrogance: as special Jesus headquarters, AMDG's planet doesn't move. Nor, I presume, do the turtles under it.

That's all I wanted. Thanks for admitting it at least, even though you felt compelled to wrap it in more commentary.

But wait: I clearly asked AMDG alone. So who is "us?" Is AMDG plural?
Anonymity is the right of an individual, not of an organization too cowardly to own its propaganda.

I'll not respond further, but I urge you sincerely: take as many Jesus Points as you want on the way out, but just stop, please. You are naked here, and pulling more rhetorical underpants over your head as an Epistemic Helmet will not make it better. The fun's over; practice letting go and walk away.

By Elmer PhuD (not verified) on 01 Oct 2010 #permalink

Galileo was not the first to propose a Sun-centered system. That was a Catholic priest from Poland named Nicolaus Copernicus. He was never punished for his theory.

Several comments here mention people wondering about the Earth-centered theory, but being swayed to a Sun-centered one by "impressive" and "overwhelming" evidence. However no particular evidence is cited.

The Astronomy professor who taught us at The New School in New York would always post two diagrams side by side and allow us to choose. He had his degree from Harvard in 1925 and was on the Editorial Board at Scientific American. He told us, "if anyone insists our system is Heliocentric, ask them to prove it."

Some folks simply like to politicize Science. This is to its great detriment.

By Sue Church (not verified) on 03 Oct 2010 #permalink

Galileo was not the first to propose a Sun-centered system. That was a Catholic priest from Poland named Nicolaus Copernicus. He was never punished for his theory.

Several comments here mention people wondering about the Earth-centered theory, but being swayed to a Sun-centered one by "impressive" and "overwhelming" evidence. However, no particular evidence is cited.

The Astronomy professor who taught us at The New School in New York would always post two diagrams side by side and allow us to choose. He had his degree from Harvard in 1925 and was on the Editorial Board at Scientific American. He told us, "if anyone insists our system is Heliocentric, ask them to prove it."

Some folks simply like to politicize Science. This is to its great detriment.

By Sue Church (not verified) on 03 Oct 2010 #permalink

Sue's comment is... interesting... enough that I'll make a brief reprise.

Let's assume that Sue Church is a real person, joining us for the first time, and not a sockpuppet. Welcome Sue!

Let's assume that Sue has read the evidence cited by numerous commenters here --- including this very blog post by Dr. Siegel --- and, quite ingenuously, failed to recognize it, mistaking it for, say, a turnip.

Let's assume that, while making an Argument From Authority (ingenuously of course!),
Sue is able to remember exactly when and where her beloved professor got his degree and which editorial boards he sat on, but sadly unable to remember his name.

Even with those assumptions, I think Sue would have to agree that her credibility is an unlucky casualty of timing, doomed by the stench of dishonesty left by Liars for Jesus who, coincidentally, share her position.

Sorry Sue; it's a shame people politicize science.

By Elmer PhuD (not verified) on 03 Oct 2010 #permalink

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe. I have been encouraging my pupils to explore science fair projects that explore astronomy and the HC and GC models.

Two of my pupils attend strict catholic schools and this has raised some debate in their household. Still their parents acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the HC model. It has really been a great conversation provoker.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe. I have been encouraging my pupils to explore science fair projects that explore astronomy and the HC and GC models.

Two of my pupils attend strict catholic schools and this has raised some debate in their household. Still their parents acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the HC model. It has really been a great conversation provoker.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe. I have been encouraging my pupils to explore science fair projects that explore astronomy and the HC and GC models.

Two of my pupils attend strict catholic schools and this has raised some debate in their household. Still their parents acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the HC model. It has really been a great conversation provoker.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Everyone,

In the Michelson-Morley Experiment(http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html), it was proven that light is constant in all directions at any speed. But, if we think that is true, we would be saying that the simple math of net forces is untrue, because if the earth is moving against the way the light is traveling, the light would move at a slower velocity than if it was traveling with it. This, in turn, proves that since light is the same in all directions, that the earth must be hanging still in the universe(because of the net forces), which then shows that, since we can observe the sun and other planets and stars moving above us, they must be orbiting around the earth, which means the earth is the center of the universe.

By Colter Siebert (not verified) on 13 Nov 2011 #permalink

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

Wow this is a great post!

To think Galileo almost lost his life for his work on the heliocentric nature of the universe. I have been encouraging my pupils to explore science fair projects that explore astronomy and the HC and GC models.

Two of my pupils attend strict catholic schools and this has raised some debate in their household. Still their parents acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for the HC model. It has really been a great conversation provoker.

Markogts makes a great point with respect to "correct/non-correct" reference frame, although I have to say I tend to lean towards the HC model. Reason being there just is too much compelling evidence for me to ignore.

I read a book and the reader proofed that earth don't spin but the sun and moon is rotating around it and the proofes was from quran and um muslim so I said I have 2 search the net to see other proofes that tells that the earth rotates around the sun then I get nothing except a stupid penedulm so now I just believes in what god said in quran... Can any body answer me if the earth spins how can we see the stars constant and how can an air flight takes the same duration for leaving and coming back??

Islam, I will assume for now that this is a genuine question and it is only the penedulm that is stupid.

"how can an air flight takes the same duration for leaving and coming back??"

Simple answer, because the air through which the airliner flies is spinning too.

More complicated answer, it does not. In the Northern Hemisphere at temperate latitudes, winds blow predominantly from west to east, so east-west flights usually take longer. The winds blow west to east because the earth is spinning, so the surface of the earth at the equator is moving faster than the surface of the earth in Europe and America. As air heated at the equator it rises and moves north, and as it is still traveling at about the same speed as the earth's surface at the equator, it is traveling west to east with respect to the ground now under it.

Islam
If you are in Egypt, visit the Child Museum in Cairo.
It is located at: 34, Abo Bakr EL Seddik Street Heliopolis, Cairo, Egypt
It "Looks at the history of science in Egypt, through both a static hands on exhibition that looks at stars, ships, astrolabes, telescopes, airplanes and space travel, and also an immersive 4D experience dome show, in which the pioneers of Egypt appear to tell the history of science and encourage visitors to participate in the future."

The Child Museum (Cairo) has "specialized working groups of Egyptian and world experts in fields of science, technology, physics, history, geography, civilization, geology, architecture, engineering and arts of exhibitions have all exerted concerted efforts to create a distinguished and unique museum for the Egyptian child."

Remember the holy books of the world (the Koran, Old Testament, New Testament, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Five Classics, Talmud, Tao-te-ching, Veda and others) are not science books.

Experimental science in the modern sense is only about 400 years old. Whereas the Quran is 1600 years old.

Visit the Child's Museum in Cairo, I'm sure you'll find the exhibit fascinating and learn a lot about astronomy and other sciences. Like all science museums, I'm sure it will be very interesting and educational for adults also. It sounds like a greate museum.

"I read a book and the reader proofed that earth don’t spin but the sun and moon is rotating around it"

Except it didn't. It gave a plausible explanation whilst not actually testing (the old and original meaning of the word "proof", which makes the homily "the exception proves the rule" sensible, where the modern usage makes it nonsense) it for proof.

Shooting a long range artillery shell produces a different track on whether you shoot directly west, directly east, north or south. And the differences are EXACTLY what are the result of a rotating earth.

"Can any body answer me if the earth spins how can we see the stars constant"

Go on a roundabout. Spin round on it. Enjoy the movement. Now explain how you can see the rest of the playground contents as constant.

"how can an air flight takes the same duration for leaving and coming back??"

It doesn't.

"But, if we think that is true, we would be saying that the simple math of net forces is untrue"

And that led to Special Relativity.

"that the earth must be hanging still in the universe(because of the net forces)"

Nope, we have a non-net force. Our gravitational attraction to the sun is not zero and is not balanced out by objects elsewhere.

If the earth spins and its not perfectly flat (mountains and places below sea level), wouldn't there be some kind of wobble created or a vibration? I know with mechanical equipment that spins, any defect or out of true-ness causes imbalance, i think the earth would be effected the same way, especially the speed at which the earth rotates. Thanks

There's a reason Einstein's famous "man in a rocket-propelled trunk" experiment has a closed trunk. This is because, while the General Principle of Relativity says acceleration and gravitation as the same, and to always craft the laws of the universe as if your reference frame was stationary, this does not mean that there is never a reason to prefer one explanation over another.

For example, it is pretty trivial to conclude that the experience of gravity on the surface of the earth is caused by the mass-energy of our planet exerting gravity, and not constant uniform outward acceleration of the planet's surface.

Similarly, if the man in the trunk looked out and saw that there was no mass around him, he was in the middle of empty space, and there was a rocket on his trunk, he would conclude -- based on the laws of General Relativity -- that the apparent gravitational field he was in was caused by that rocket.

One could formulate the universe as if the stars were apparently moving at many times the speed of light via a coordinate transform from the straightforward explanation. But to prefer this system, one would have to explain where the source of gravity to perform this feat is. Clearly it's not the earth. This makes the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy look like trifles.

"Relativity" is not a "Get out of making sense free" card.

I meant "the General Principle of Relativity says acceleration and gravitation as the same, and *that you can* always craft the laws of the universe as if your reference frame was stationary"

@EAO

In mechanical equipment it is the imbalance around its spin axis which causes the "wobble". Any solid object in space can only spin around its centre of gravity, so it is in balance

I want to know the reason that "Why does Earth rotates about own Axis."
(plz give answer other than the nebula story)

By Ijlal Haider (not verified) on 26 Dec 2012 #permalink

Why?

The nebula story is correct or at least extremely plausible given we are seeing it in action.

"earth rotate around the sun" this sentence written early 1400 years ago in the book of islam the "QURAN"

By mdwasefali (not verified) on 19 Jan 2013 #permalink

The earth doesn't spin,the sun does. You going to tell me everything in the universe rotates around the sun? Bullshit!

Earth and othes planets don't spin but the sun is rotating around them.
From the charastracts of nine planets and the visible evidences, we can see that earth and other planets are not vkrevolving. As astronomers say that nine planets are revolving round the in a circular orbit and at diffrent distance from the sun with diffrent speed which lead to diffrent time for completing theirs revolution round the sun. As mercury takes 88days,Venus 225days etc to complete their revolution round the sun, during the revolving, the distance between planet to the sun e.g
57,600,000km the distance of sun from the mercury will be constant and unchange but, the diffrence of distance between one planet to another will quaitly diffrent from time to time that is some time to be long and some time to be short due to their revolving at diffrent speed. For example when in september the distance from the earth to mars is 20,000km but may be in June it can be decreares or increase to about 10,000 or 40,000 respectively.
But in the current study of planets there is no diffrence of distance from one jplanet to another. And in my proof there most be diffrence of distance from time to time.
This proof that earth and other planets are not revolving. There evidences and research I made before proofed this and I found how the season,year,varying length of the day and night and change of season tempreture are occur with the revolution of the earth. Than I made a drawing of how the sun rotate the planets. 5v

By IBRAHIM ABDULL… (not verified) on 22 Feb 2014 #permalink

All agree that you cannot feel motion in a strait line, only acceleration or deceleration, and Kepler proved that the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular. His 2nd law states that planets sweep thru equal areas in equal periods of time. This would mean that when approaching nearest the sun the planet must accelerate for this to be true. (See Wikipedia on Kepler's 2nd Law) It would then have to decelerate until it came to midpoint where it had constant velocity. Opposite the sun the planet again must decelerate until midpoint where it again will have a constant velocity only to accelerate again as it neared the sun and so on. We feel none of this change in velocity although we can feel a faint breeze on our cheek on an otherwise still day, or a slowing on the velocity in a wind tunnel.
I have conversed at length with an ascentist who agrees with Einstein that you cannot determine if it is the earth moving or the sun and stars in order to make the earth 24 hour day/night event. He stated that there were innumerable possibilities for this. When pressed he could not argue that there were only 2, that is, the heliocentric model or that proposed by adherents to the geocentricity position. Only 1 can be the TRUE frame, relativity notwithstanding. How can we know that? Which way does the moon go? Our eyes tell us it goes east to west just as the sun and stars. But the heliocentrist MUST BELIEVE that it goes west to east. The moon is not going in both directions, its going one way or the other.

By Manny Clay (not verified) on 23 Feb 2014 #permalink

I would like to see you do the experiment with a wooden, or non magnetic pendulum please

Is this the best you can come up with in 2014? How can the Foucault pendulum be the only experiment we can come up with to prove that the earth is rotating? If the Foucault pendulum acts like this, how do cranes work? How do other equipment work, if the rotation of the earth is so effective to cause the Foucault pendulum to behave this way?

The world is still. Aviation proves this. On a rotating sphere, with latitude, you would get different rotating speeds. While rotating at 1,670 km/h on the equator, you would get 1,180 km/h at 45' latitude. http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10840.html
so if a fighter jet travels directly from the north pole to the equator, say at 2,500 km/h, it is passing through 22 degrees in an hour. so the rotation for the plane goes from 0 km/h to 625 km/h in an hour. This is never accounted for in aviation. The plane would have a counter this, otherwise it would be impossible to keep course. If a stationary pendulum can be effected by the earths rotation, what happens to the fighter jet?

The world does not rotate or spin or wobble. It is definitely still. All your life experience proves this. You would never believe otherwise if you were not indoctrinated. It is against logic, intuition and senses to believe that we are rotating both around own axis and around the sun (supposedly at 100,000 km/h).

By Can Attal (not verified) on 30 Nov 2014 #permalink

Cranes are operated and the operator changes the path of the crane "bob". It takes 24 hours for a full circle to happen, and this rate of change is easily corrected for without even knowing it exists. Manipulation of the crane for far more prominent effects easily subsume this effect.

This heliocentric idea is RETARDED, as is the idea of evolution. So your proof is a swinging Satanic pendulum, designed to cause you to be hypnotised into believing that there is proof when it loudly proclaims that there is none?

"Spinning Earth"? It is just the devil spinning you around. Now try to think.

@Richard #63: I much prefer to believe in your kind of deity, the one who deliberately creates a seemingly self-consistent Universe, one full of apparent "laws of physics" and other scientific nonsense, just in order to test our faith. And when we fall into the trap of actually believing that what we observe is real, that deity laughs maniacally and casts us into a pit of despair.

Yup, that's the kind of deity I want to believe in. Thank you so much, Richard!

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 13 Dec 2014 #permalink

Michael #64 You are confusing the devil as being God. You don't know God, otherwise you wouldn't associate him with the devil and his servants who "laughs maniacally" at you; because you can bet your bottom dollar that there are those who know what they are doing in deceiving you with false images (such as of galaxies & close up pictures of other worlds and space travel etc.) of the universe and blatant lies and nonsense.

A "self-consistent Universe, one full of apparent 'laws of physics'” you say. Well, the idea of nature causing nature is ridiculous to the extreme. Before foolish Copernicus and others like him decided to change the apparent picture of the universe, people believed for thousands of years that some kind of deity (albeit most had wrong ideas about him) was responsible for all design, including the apparent laws of physics, because it couldn't all just happen accidentally. And seeing that design is not an accident (basic logic), it couldn't all have happened accidentally.

How is it a trap to believe what you observe is real? Why are apparent laws of physics a test of faith? That makes no sense. What appears to be the laws of physics is just design. And what we observe is real; and this observable reality is what the heliocentric believers deny as being real. The Sun appears to go around the Earth, because it does. The Earth appears not to move, because it doesn't. But the fools say it is an illusion. I don't hear them say, how nicely the Earth is turning today, but they say "sunrise" and "sunset". The Moon appears to go around the Earth once every 24 hours and 50 minutes, from east to west, because it does. But they say this is an illusion and it goes around monthly, and that it is really travelling from west to east! The fixed stars appear to be at the same height, because the are. Because they are fixed/set inside an outermost rotating sphere. But they say they are suns (for which also there is no evidence) and that they are all at different, unimaginably vast distances (which they claim to be able to measure!)

The Sun and Moon appear to be exactly the same size, but this is again just another "accident" (what hogwash), and they say that really this is an illusion, because for them the Sun is far bigger and far further. The stars are not observed as Suns, and not only are the Sun and Moon much smaller in appearance than the Earth, but so are the stars much smaller than them. Yet for the Sun and stars this is all deemed as being yet another illusion, resulting from them being so unimaginably far away (of which again, there is only assumption and no real proof).

So who are the ones creating illusions and mocking and "maniacally laughing" at you? Not God.

For me, I prefer to believe in God rather than (lying) man.

Michael #64 You are confusing the devil as being God. You don’t know God, otherwise you wouldn’t associate him with the devil and his servants who “laughs maniacally” at you; because you can bet your bottom dollar that there are those who know what they are doing in deceiving you with false images (such as of galaxies & close up pictures of other worlds and space travel etc.) of the universe and blatant lies and nonsense.

A “self-consistent Universe, one full of apparent ‘laws of physics’” you say. Well, the idea of nature causing nature is ridiculous to the extreme. Before foolish Copernicus and others like him decided to change the apparent picture of the universe, people believed for thousands of years that some kind of deity (albeit most had wrong ideas about him) was responsible for all design, including the apparent laws of physics, because it couldn’t all just happen accidentally. And seeing that design is not an accident (basic logic), it couldn’t all have happened accidentally.

How is it a trap to believe what you observe is real? Why are apparent laws of physics a test of faith? That makes no sense. What appears to be the laws of physics is just design. And what we observe is real; and this observable reality is what the heliocentric believers deny as being real. The Sun appears to go around the Earth, because it does. The Earth appears not to move, because it doesn’t. But the fools say it is an illusion. I don’t hear them say, how nicely the Earth is turning today, but they say “sunrise” and “sunset”. The Moon appears to go around the Earth once every 24 hours and 50 minutes, from east to west, because it does. But they say this is an illusion and it goes around monthly, and that it is really travelling from west to east! The fixed stars appear to be at the same height, because they are. Because they are fixed/set inside an outermost rotating sphere. But they say they are suns (for which also there is no evidence) and that they are all at different, unimaginably vast distances (which they claim to be able to measure!)

The Sun and Moon appear to be exactly the same size, but this is again just another “accident” (what hogwash), and they say that really this is an illusion, because for them the Sun is far bigger and far further. The stars are not observed as Suns, and not only are the Sun and Moon much smaller in appearance than the Earth, but so are the stars much smaller than them. Yet for the Sun and stars this is all deemed as being yet another illusion, resulting from them being so unimaginably far away (of which again, there is only assumption and no real proof).

So who are the ones creating illusions and mocking and “maniacally laughing” at you? Not God.

For me, I prefer to believe in God rather than (lying) man.

I think it is invariably the arrogance of man to think that our small minds can explain God's creation. I personally lean toward the earth not rotating and the sun revolving around the earth. I believe God put the earth at the center of His creation. Do I have evidence to back it up? No more than those who believe otherwise. Mathematically either explanation is possible. I will, however know the answer to this some day as I will see my Savior face to face and all will be revealed to me.

It's man's arrogance to believe that merely because THEY exist, there MUST be a reason. It's arrogance to claim that just because we exist there MUST be a being looking after us in this massive and uncaring universe. It's arrogance to think that nobody can understand God, but YOU KNOW that he exists and why he's there.

It's cowardice to bow out of the above realisations by going "it is invariably the arrogance of man to think that our small minds can explain God’s creation".

I believe God put the earth at the center of His creation.

Then you have made up a false god, since this planet isn't at the center of creation. We HAVE EVIDENCE for that. LOTS of evidence. MASSIVE AMOUNTS of evidence.

For me, I prefer to believe in God rather than (lying) man.

Says a man who claims to always lie...

The Sun and Moon appear to be exactly the same size, but this is again just another “accident” (what hogwash),

Yup, in a few million years it won't be true. A few million years ago it wasn't. And they're NOT the same size optically, since the orbits of the earth and moon are NOT circles. Variations in size to the smaller cause something called an annular eclipse:

So its not as if it's a miracle that it is exactly the same size: they're not exactly the same size.

Other planets have moons that will eclipse the sun in our solar system.

Hardly a miracle.

No proof at all of a specialness of the earth or existence of god.

Why is it you dismiss Maurice Allais who observed the pendulum shifting in motion during solar eclipses? Pendulum's do not swing uniformly in one direction, they rotate sometimes clockwise, sometimes, counter clockwise, sometime no rotation at all. Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.” The behavior of the pendulum actually depends on 1) the initial force beginning its swing and, 2) the ball-and-socket joint used which most-readily facilitates circular motion over any other. The supposed rotation of the Earth is completely inconsequential and irrelevant to the pendulum’s swing.

There is not evidence in physics experimentation to provide proof the Earth spins. What you have done is shown only the exact observational evidence that is always true. Forget the geocentric model like galileo was wrong shows you from sungenis that you used in your last article.

Einstein invented special relativity to keep the Earth in motion and explain away the data proving Earth has no motion.

Though you know this right?

So, Is there no other option then heliocentrism and Sungesis' version of geocentrism? No not flat Earth! Don't be that ridiculous. I knew you are thinking Im a Flat Earther.

There is a better model then heliocentrism. Explains everything equally well but with far far fewer assumptions.

I like how you show polaris.. have you considered that earths axis can not possibly remain fixed at 23.5 degrees and continuously travel approx 300 million km elliptically around the sun and still remain always pointed at polaris during the huge amount of travel?

Have you considered explaining why during the summer the sun never travels in a northern arc as heliocentric explanation clearly shows?

The Earth has no motion. The so called visual evidence you provide works equally well on other models and does not provide evidence for earths rotation. Einstein is even aware of this.

Scientists who have repeated variations of the experiment have conceded time and again that “it was difficult to avoid giving the pendulum some slight lateral bias at starting.”

Maurice Allais [who] observed the pendulum shifting in motion during solar eclipses

We also have people, an entire town (near enough) that insist that, within modern recorded history, witnessed the sun being thrown down and the sky going dark.

NOBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET observed it.

Einstein invented special relativity to keep the Earth in motion and explain away the data proving Earth has no motion.

No he didn't. For a start, there was no such data to disprove, for a second, it was to keep causality working consistently, not to keep the earth in motion. It already is in motion. Circular, which means an accelerating non-inertial frame, and this causes deviations from the phenomena of an inertial frame, which are observed: e.g. the oblateness of the earth.

Just because you want to believe your myth doesn't mean you can just accept someone saying there's proof.

You need to check the proof yourself. Test the thing to see if it is wrong, not assume it's right and look for how.

You take a plane and fly east to west or visa versa it takes the plane the same time. If the earth was turning it would be shorter time in one direction and longer time in the other direction, proving the earth dose not rotate. This checks out to be true.
You can only deceive the people some of the time not all the time.

By dennis savage (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

haha That's what Islam @45 said..

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

But it DOES take less time to go one way than the other, dennis.

Of course, the explanation is to do with winds, but then again you didn't include that in your "necessarily true" wild claim.

Ask someone in the Army Artillery brigade. Shells fall further one way than the other in the absence of wind. Same propellant. It also curves slightly if you're pointing North or South.

The earth turns.

You ignored the evidence and made up a "fact" to jump to a conclusion that you never supported with anything.

And they believe in the same god, believe in Jesus like you and have exactly the same religion, just a different sect, whose only differences are in the detail of the dogma, much like the evangelical/catholic/protestant differences.

Which indicates how similar you are to ISIS, Rag.

Well, then by your own circular reasoning there I would think you are just fine with the Islamic republic of IRAN acquiring "the bomb". Since you see no difference in the religiousness of the people in charge.

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 17 Apr 2015 #permalink

Actually, whoever said that the Heavens acting on a Geocentric Earth would also cause the Pendulum to move is wrong. In the same sense, those forces would cause the Earth to rotate. And that obviously doesnt happen. If the Earth is rotating, its from inertia. But, Geocentric Earthers argue that the Earth isnt rotating. So, this is a MAJOR contradiction. Also, what forces would that be? Gravity? Geocentric Supporters argue against Gravity. Another contradiction. Inertia? They also argue against Inertia. Besides the fact that these forces wouldnt even have an impact on the pendulums rotation, I would like to know which forces are you all talking about.

The pendulum doesn't answer it for me. IS it ferrous material? As to comment #78, conventional wisdom is the moons gravitational pull affects the water, not the planet. If the sun were rotating around the earth, it could be the sun or moon's gravitational pull on the pendulum. More difficault to explain is air and air travel on a planet rotating at 25,000 MPH at it equator. Airtravel doesn't jive with this theory.

You write, "[C]onventional wisdom is the moons gravitational pull affects the water, not the planet." That might be "conventional," but it certainly isn't wisdom. Tidal forces affect the whole planet, rock and water alike. The difference is simply that water is much more "stretchy" than rock, so the water moves more as a result. For a beautiful example of tidal forces on rock, see Jupiter's satellite Io.

"More difficault to explain is air and air travel on a planet rotating at 25,000 MPH at it equator. Airtravel doesn’t jive with this theory." Why? The air is moving at the same speed as the rest of the planet, and so is the airplane! Tell me, please, when you drive your car on the freeway, does all of the air inside the car suddenly rush out of it because it doesn't move when the car does?

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 16 May 2015 #permalink

Micheale, Hmm doesn't actually bother to think. The current AI is smarter than they are, so either

a) thick as pigshit
or
b) an old AI run by a moron

they don't bother thinking about their "evidence" since that only ever leads to finding themselves wrong. And they've been told that God tells them the truth, therefore they can't be wrong.

The fact that god doesn't exist and told them nothing isn't what they've ever been told.

The world spinners say that when flying from east to west, the air planes fly sideways, diagonally, backwards, (as the earth rotates eastward) and so on. Let me say that, if the Plane had a couple of legs and feet on its belly, and which legs and feet would be facing eastward, it would look as if the plane which is flying westward, wood seem be moon-walking towards the east...literally!) They also say the west-flying plane, also gets carried along very smoothly in the same direction, as the rotation of the earth, which is spinning, eastward, at, supposedly, "1000" super fully opened throttle, miles per hour, plus the super 400-500 miles per hour the plane has to fly, or travel at, to be able to reach its destination by the allotted time (and, that, without the aluminum shell even falling apart...hmm!).

Also, with the cannon ball experiment, they will say that the cannon ball is able to turn, or deviate itself from the straight line-path as it flies upward, (instead of admitting it goes straight up in a straight line-path as the first law of motion states) and that on its own, the ball, with the push of some, still undiscovered wave, or signal, called GRAVITY, will get the cannon ball, to, magically, and mysteriously, start moving sideways thru the air, and also diagonally, with self adjustments, where, and when needed..
Those unbelievably closed-minded, demented, irrational, mentality distorted statements, also translates into them saying that the cannon ball, will, somehow, also develop, or create some kind of propulsion system, ON ITS OWN, to be able to keep up to the rotating earth’s speed, and also a guiding system, to be able to steer itself, or curve to the perfectly correct angle, for it to also be able to land right into the Muzzle of the cannon, or right next to, or very, very close to it (as it DOES, when shot straight up from the non-revolving earth) ).
Not only that, with their nonsensical explanations, it also means the ball will have to be flying, even at a faster speed than the earths rotating speed, since the radius, or circumference of the cannon ball, will, at its highest altitude, will be larger than the circumference of the earth’s surface, so it will most definitely have to manufacture, (without any outside help whatsoever) some really damned good propulsion system, for the cannon ball to, continuously, be catching up to the speed of the earth and the cannon, from where it was shot, back on the surface of the earth.
With their ridiculous, capricious, insanely corrupt explanations, which make no freaking sense, they will continue pushing the ridiculous notion, that everything is being carried very smoothly in the same direction as the earth’s, supposed, rotation,, and speed, because, that is what was taught in school, and in physics class, but not only for that reason, but also because, NASA, the moon-landing-fakers, also say that, and because they also say that the earth is pear-shaped…no…oblate spheroid…no, wait a minute, a perfect ball, (Tyson the Grassed) as seen in that 1970s…one and ONLY, fake, NASA picture which pops up everywhere on the net, with its messed up photo shopping.
And so, now, the government's mesmerized, indoctrinated slaves, just can’t get enough of their spinning of the truth, of their, supposed, spinning pear-shaped world.
They’re so dizzy with the spins they were brought up with, that they just aren’t able to escape, or set themselves free, (to be able to think for themselves) from the rubbish they were conditioned with since childhood, by the Reptilians (Snakes), and their vile government-controlled educational system. All of them, or the great majority of them, say: There is no GOD, but still they say: The earth SPINS, and looks like a pear, and “that” is what YOU, must, and should, ONLY believe, my little children, Hansel and Gretel…cause, your pepi knows best…OK?!
Well, at the end of the day, and of it all, poor Hansel and Gretel!!!
Try the cannon ball experiment, and see how "WRONG" you are!
Start living in REALITY!!!

On fifth line, meant t to say, flying EASTWARD...

Whoever can afford, and sincerely wishes to prove the earth spins, then they should perform the following experiment, it will not fail. And whoever should indeed decide to perform such experiment, first, and foremost, should strictly, demand, (of those who may partake, especially if those others who partake be such who believe the earth rotates) that, if the earth’s motion from west to east is to be “proven”, a cannon ball, (or some other type of projectile or object) instead of letting it be dropped down into a hole, or dropped from the top of a high tower, should, instead, be shot vertically, upwards into the air, but which cannon should be, strongly and solidly, fixed to the ground.
It should be vertically adjusted with the highest precision that can possibly be had. The cannon, or whatever other firing equipment is used, should not have any angle other than, the vertically, (straight up, as precisely as possible) upward angle, so there should be no curvature of the fired ball or projectile, to where it can only follow a straight line-path, again…straight up. It should also be done when the day is as calm as can be, without neither any wind blowing, nor even when the slightest breeze can be felt. There are such beautiful days, so such day should be chosen for the experiment.

If this is done correctly, it shall be seen, that, after the ball has reached its highest altitude, after being shot straight up from the cannon, and in a straight line-path, then, from the moment of its beginning to descend straight back to the surface of the earth, (due to its weight/density, and NOT because of GRAVITY!) after its upwards force has been depleted, or expended, if the earth then is indeed rotating, then, the surface of the earth should (of course) have, moved, eastward, from the original position where that piece of earth’s surface-area, and the cannon/muzzle were located, and from where the ball was initially and originally fired.

That particular surface-area, or location of the earth, where the cannon is located and from where the cannon ball was fired, should then have move, AWAY, from under the ball’s, straight downward vertical direction, to a further eastern direction as the cannon ball is falling back to earth.

Also, and obviously, with such experiment, if the earth does indeed revolve, then the cannon ball should fall, BEHIND, or to the west, from where it was shot, but it will be seen that, upon performing such experiment, no such effect as a revolving earth will be observed; the conclusion will be, without question, “PROVE”, that, THE EARTH, DOES NOT ROTATE!!! It is STATIONARY!!! Come on, try it, don’t be scared to prove yourselves…WRONG!!

THIS EXPERIMENT IS MUCH BETTER AND MORE RELIABLE, and EXACT, than the Pendulum experiment, (which has at times failed, cause at times, the Pendulum has given different results, and with such failures, the Pendulum experiment makes it unreliable, to be able to prove with it, that the earth really does rotates) because the cannon ball can, only, come straight down to the same location, if perfectly vertically aligned, and is something which would be impossible, if the earth really rotated.

Why do you not also give us the fact that the pendulum does not work during an eclipse? If earth's rotation is responsible for the movement it should continue to move during an eclipse. This pendulum can't be used as proof.

Well the reason not for giving that fact is that it's bollocks and not a fact.

That a pendulum does work in an eclipse is proof of that.

I admit that my physics courses are many years in the past, as they ended in my first semester of grad school, but I still remember a good bit of material. That said, I can't imagine using that to intentionally make up things as out of sync with reality as riomar9 or rowie. Someone really failed education.

A lot of that good bit of material you say you remember, only amounts to BS, such as when they teach the distance of the sun supposedly being "93 MILLION" miles from the earth...what a crock of DOO DOO!

The proposed above cannon ball experiment has already been performed, and it "proves" the earth does NOT rotate...period!

@riomar9 (at the risk of plunging into the dark abyss of ignorance):

It is well that you put the word "proves" in quotes since the experiment you suggest proves absolutely nothing. When the cannon ball is inside the cannon, it has a component of velocity directed eastward due to the rotation of the earth. If the ball is fired straight upward, there is no force acting on the ball along the east/west axis. Therefore, the eastward component of the cannon ball's velocity will remain unchanged (simple application of Newton's second law). The eastward component of the ball's velocity has exactly the same magnitude as the eastward component of the cannon's velocity, so it is to be expected that the cannon ball will come back down and land directly on the cannon, absent any confounding factors such as wind or deviation from true vertical firing.

In reality, your experiment is no different, and no more valid, than the old objection that the earth cannot be rotating because we would feel a strong wind as we rotate through the atmosphere. The cannon and the ball both move eastward at the same speed, much the same as we and the atmosphere both move eastward at the same speed.

If the cannon shot is long enough, you will see an effect, though, via the Coriolis effect.

Thank you! I have posted a link to this page in reply to a YT video entitled "Absolute Proof the Earth Does Not Spin"! I was looking for a simple rebuttal and your site gave it to me. How do you explan the fact that our oceans do not "slosh around" as this guy posits in his video? Here is the link in case you want to jump in.

As for the proposed "cannon ball experiment", lol, as pointed out, he forgot that the cannon moves as well as the ball, at the same speed! Oops!

"How do you explan the fact that our oceans do not “slosh around” as this guy posits in his video? "

Because the rotation is constant. Therefore there's no difference between the equilibrium rate of movement of the water and the instantaneous movement of the earth it sits on.

If you have a chemistry department at school that has a centrifuge or a university chemistry department, you can see what happens with water in a test tube when you spin it at a constant speed.

The F. Pendulum has noted several times in history to change it's progress and even to REVERSE itself during a solar eclipse. This shows it is NOT tied to rotation to the earth but to electro-magnetic forces. (See the Electric Universe Theory which many respected scientists are more and more embracing). Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gayle, among others showed that it was not the earth moving but an Aether around the earth spinning around a central point - the earth (See WMAP Probes show Geocentric Universe) , a STATIONARY earth. Yet, with all of that, the best proof the earth does not move is called "Airy's Failure" - a simple experiment costing \$50 and easily repeatable - performed first 140 years ago PROVED with 100% no doubt - that it is the Aether moving around a stationary earth which causes Stellular Abberation and NOT a moving earth. Airy expected the opposite result - hence it is called a failure. A good YouTube video explains this experiment and is produced my Malcom Bowden. Just search for Airy's failure explanation on YouTube and become educated in mere minutes. Why wasn't that experiment or the others I mentioned and others yet I didn't mention end up in this article? The fact is, and it is a simple fact - there is 100% NO PROOF of the earth moving - period. You can twist a pendulum and its causes all day but you can't escape Airy's failure - an experiment which should be easily overturned and yet it never has been.

By Mr. Thrive And… (not verified) on 07 Oct 2015 #permalink

Can you use Einstein's theory of relativity and just make the earth the pinpoint center of the massive universe and then propose that the pendulum on earth swings because the force of the universe's rotation is pulling it that way?

What about the Allais Effect? It puts the whole test in question.

@Hugh #96: Nope. Not replicated, inconsistent and opposite sign "measurements", measurements at or below apparatus sensitivity. All indications of flawed experimental results.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 02 Jun 2016 #permalink

I use a plumb bob in my line of work...if that experiment proves that the earth is rotating then it also proves all my points are wrong. The thing is not one of my points have moved in my entire career

If the earth is indeed rotating the only way a cannon ball shot straight up comes back down in the same spot is if it is at the mid point of the rotation...which would be the top axis....at the bottom axis it would continue to go outward and the same would be true at the equator

So, if the universe is traveling around the earth, how fast would a galaxy 40 billion light years away be moving? How do all the galaxies, stars etc. remain in sync and relative position to each other?

Bert,

Perhaps you missed my post #89 above. While it's sitting in the cannon, the cannon ball has an eastward component of its velocity due to the rotation of the earth. Firing the cannon does not change this, so the ball moves at the same speed in an eastward direction as the earth's surface does, causing the ball to land at the same place on the surface as it was fired from.

From an alternate reference frame, an observer watching your cannon shot would state that the velocity of the ball in any horizontal direction relative to the cannon is zero before the cannon is fired. The cannon is fired directly upwards, i.e. vertically. This imparts no force in the horizontal direction, so our observer watching the whole thing would still say that the horizontal velocity of the ball relative to the cannon is zero, which is to say it lands back at the point where it was fired.

First, when a pendulum, constructed according to the plan of M. Foucault, is allowed to vibrate, its plane of vibration is often variable - not always. The variation when it does occur, is not uniform - is not always the same in the same place; nor always the same either in its rate or velocity, or in its direction. It cannot therefore be taken as evidence; for that which is inconstant cannot be used in favor of or against any given proposition. It therefore is not evidence and proves nothing! Secondly, if the plane of vibration is observed to change, where is the connection between such change and the supposed motion of the Earth? What principle of reasoning guides the experimenter to the conclusion that it is the Earth which moves underneath the pendulum, and not the pendulum which moves over the Earth? What logical right or necessity forces one conclusion in preference to the other? Thirdly, why was not the peculiar arrangement of the point of suspension of the pendulum specially considered, in regard to its possible influence upon the plane of oscillation? Was it not known, or was it overlooked, or was it, in the climax of theoretical revelry, ignored that a ‘ball-and-socket’ joint is one which facilitates circular motion more readily than any other?

This airplane thing just don't seem to make sense to me. Let's just use round numbers for simplicity sake. If I am flying a plane at the equator. The earth and the atmosphere are going 1000 miles per hr. Got it. Technically speaking if I am traveling against rotation I actually did not speed up 500 miles per hr but I slowed down 500 miles per hr less than the earth underneath me. So we started out on the ground facing west but traveling 1000 mph backwards so as we accelerate to 500 mph we are technically just now traveling at -500 mph. I can wrap my brain around that. Here is what I don't get. So now I move up towards the North Pole. Obviously at either pole, at the exact precise point there is no rotational movement. So say we pick a latitude where the speed of the earth and the atmosphere is 250 miles per hour. Same plane. Against rotation. Accelerate to 500 mph from east to west. I should now be traveling + 250 at which holding that latitude above the equator I would now be traveling 750 miles per hour faster than down at the equator. Am I missing something here cause this don't make sense?