Ok
The wiki cite did not include reference to the necessary components of the scientific method and is therefore not a scientific experiment. Specifically

A) the observed phenomenon ie dependent variable
B) the presumed cause, the independent variable
C) what the control variables are and how these are isolated to ensure they do not interfere

Helloooo?
Let's explore this Foucault pendulum business a little more:

'if earth rotates we will see a spiraling pattern made by the pendulum. We see a spiralling pattern made by the pendulum therefore earth rotates.'

Or in general

"A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

A scientific investigation requires that the independent variable (earth rotation!) be manipulated to prove it is the cause of the observed phenomenon (spiral motion).

A second problem is that the observed phenomenon is not naturally observed in other settings (ie there is no demonstrable earth based coreolis effect) rather it is a phenomenon observed only within the context of this 'experiment'.

Thirdly, how have the control variables been specifically isolated as not to cause the spiralling effect?

Foucault pendulum is therefore a hatrick of non adherence to the scientific method, yes?
Any other evidence of earth rotation?

Go outside and spit straight up

WTF????????

The experiment is done at North pole





How do you get the pendulum to appear to have a rotating oscillating plane during the 24h day?

Would you be happy to have the same experiment on Mars and detect its different slightly rotation?

In science you can never permanently prove something in the absence of a final theory, only disprove it. But when the proposed minimum explains almost everything one can imagine then what is the problem now? What is the alternative, that little angels rotate the pendulum?

The 'experiment' cited hasn't been done anywhere, because it is not a scientific experiment:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-sc...ic-method.html

Please confirm how these criteria are met. If not then concede this is not a scientific test and we can move on to look for some scientific evidence of earth rotation

The 'experiment' cited hasn't been done anywhere, because it is not a scientific experiment:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

https://www.livescience.com/20896-sc...ic-method.html

Please confirm how these criteria are met. If not then concede this is not a scientific test and we can move on to look for some scientific evidence of earth rotation

Here is the f*cking (lol) falsifiable you are looking for. If the system is not rotating you will not see the pendulum plane appear to change with respect to the ground. You can do the experiment in several places on earth and variations you get in the behavior are perfectly explained by the location of the experiment and the rotation period of earth.

So if there was something instantly obvious not ok with the idea you would be getting in different places on earth something other than the predicted behavior due to rotation.

Go and do the experiment in different latitudes and you will see different period. You do not get a problem because the rotation is correct.



"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."

Basically the blue curve tells you the period you should have and you can go and do it at the location you wish and see if it deviates from prediction. So yes you can prove the claim is false if it fails to follow the equations that depend on the rotational frame analysis. How can someone predict something so seemingly complicated mathematically in terms of formulae but still very simple in logic and the experiments verify it and people can dare to call it not falsifiable. Are you kidding me?

Furthermore in case you are wondering if there is another way to prove rotation take a look at this;

We are still begging the question, 'if earth rotates around axis, then we will see precession x at latitude y. We see precession x at latitude y therefore earth rotates around axis'.

Presupposition of earth rotation -

[I]You can do the experiment in several places on earth and variations you get in the behavior are perfectly explained by the location of the experiment and the rotation period of earth./I]

Scientific experiment requires

A) observed phenomenon ie dependent variable
B) control variables
C) independent variable ie presumed cause which must be manipulated

These must be identified for foucault pendulum to be considered a scientific experiment.

Image is a demonstration of something rotating, not of earth rotation. 'scientific proof' was claimed and therefore must follow the scientific method.

Furthermore regarding earth rotation and coreolis, if foucault demonstrates earth based coreolis effect then the earth is always a rotating reference frame with freely moving objects being in a separate inertial frame. Unfortunately there is no such demonstration except that claimed within foucault.

You are not being serious here.

The observed phenomenon is the rotation of the plane of oscillation in time as the earth rotates in such a way that can be studied locally as function of the latitude and confirm the theory. How much better can it get?

You can also create a toy model where the planet is like a sphere of 10m radius and the pendulum is set at the north pole and verify to scale the effect of the rotation. In other words replicate what is observed with something that you know for sure is rotating.


As i said you do not eliminate the chance that in fact angels move it around with harps and hymns but this is exactly how science works, by proposing a simple explanation and the math behind it and then testing it in a variety of settings. Go ahead and test it on Mars eventually too.

From thoughtco

A good experimental hypothesis can be written as an if, then statement to establish cause and effect on the variables. If you make a change to the independent variable, then the dependent variable will respond. Here's an example of a hypothesis:

If you increase the duration of light, corn plants will grow more each day.

Ie we can manipulate the amount of light to cause an effect of the level of growth. The independent variable is amount of light. Dependent variable is amount of growth.

You say

the observed phenomenon is the rotation of the plane of oscillation in time as the earth rotates in such a way that can be studied locally as function of the latitude and confirm the theory.

The presumed cause, earth rotation, cannot be included in the observed phenomenon else it is begging the question.
At best we can say, 'changing the position of the pendulum (or I guess any form of gyroscope) causes a change in the plane of oscillation'. The change in position is the cause. I'm not certain that 'position' is a legitimate independent variable in any case but it certainly does not follow that earth necessarily rotates underneath the pendulum.

The toy model is replicating the same reified model of earth rotation.

Moving away from the scientific method, which must be followed if it is to be called science, a general point:
If the earth is a rotating reference frame separate to inertial frames above it then we would see these effects all the time: missiles, tennis balls, planes, hot air balloons.

This is all bs standard flat earth trolling. You do not understand how science works.


The truth is if something is not rotating and the frame experiences constant acceleration or has gravity the pendulum will not rotate its plane of oscillation. The moment you introduce rotation the behavior is different . We do observe a behavior that is described very well by the assumption of rotation but not just any rotation , the exact 24h one and in latitudes other than the pole you see periods other than 24 exactly as expected from the rotation of the entire planet.

What exactly do you mean by begging the question? If earth was rotating differently you would get different results. If it was not rotating you would not get anything.

You can go do the experiment in all kinds of places and it remains consistent. You introduce massive complexity and still the simple model takes care of it. What else do you want from it? What you are asking in this case is bs. In science in the absence of a full final theory you can claim all is fake and accidental and you have been lucky or manipulated so far to see these things. That can be true if for example you observe one U238 atom for millions of years you will not see it decay likely and conclude its probably stable if you have no other details or theory in place. You are only gradually more sure about something positive in science and never 100%. You can be sure 100% of negative things. In this case you need to find an alternative theory to rotation. Feel free to call it simulation and that the world is not real. That is all is worthless as an approach. It will take you nowhere. Instead you propose simple explanation and check if they can describe the world in a variety of cases. This is the case here.

A form of circular reasoning

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

For instance

If earth was rotating differently you would get different results. If it was not rotating you would not get anything.

You have assumed your outcome, or begged the question, prior to even conducting an experiment.

I am self evidently not trolling, the thread is 'debunking', I am debunking your claim that foucault pendulum is scientific evidence for earth rotation.
'i dont understand science' yet I have given numerous citations to the method necessary for science to be claimed.

Science can prove things, eg. 'the more light applied to corn, the more it grows'. Scientific method can be applied, ie observed phenomenon, independent variable, control variables.

Do you accept that a rotating system will show the pendulum plane rotating too?

Do you accept that a rotating sphere would show different period of rotation at different latitudes?

Can you propose a simple alternative that would cause the same effect?


Do we know energy is conserved? How? Some lunatic can always claim that energy is conserved only when humans check for it or when they check for consequences that conveniently always avoid those ones that would show violation because it is human nature. The wise person would take the step to imagine that yes energy as we defined it is conserved but there is still room for something more general to be happening that requires exotic conditions. We do not have a theory yet for any of this but one could become possible one day and i will not close the doors to the possibility but i have no evidence for it yet and no reason to take it seriously until something else happens.

In Physics you never prove anything positive in as clean manner as in math. You only enhance probabilities of various alternatives if you assume some starting position for all of them. But guess what. It is the only thing you have that has given you so much so far.


You want to manipulate earth's rotation? Do the experiment in other planets that have different rotation. Do it in toy models that you know they rotate (eg proper electric fields instead of gravity) by other means and then use it to predict the rotation speed that way.

My understanding of the model is that a pendulum will swing back and forth in a vertical plane in an inertial frame of reference. If the floor it is sitting on rotates then we will see an apparent rotation of the plane. The apparent effect is caused by having 2 references frames, one inertial, one rotating. In other words the coreolis effect.

I am happy to accept that a model sphere would show variations in the period of rotation dependent on the latitude ie full rotation at a pole and none at the equator.

Do I need to propose an alternative reason for an apparent rotation of the plane in the context of a foucault pendulum? What is the natural phenomenon observed? The effect takes place only in the context of an 'experiment' designed to prove its presupposed outcome of earth rotation, see the problem here?

https://study.com/academy/lesson/sci...ples-quiz.html

The dependent variable is the main focus of the experiment; it is what's being examined in the experiment. What's changed in the experiment is the independent variable. It's changed in the experimental group only - this is sometimes called manipulation of the independent variable. The control group does not have any changes in the independent variable.

At the end of the experiment, the scientist examines the difference between the two groups to see if there was any effect on the dependent variable. If there is a difference, it is reported as a cause-and-effect relationship. In other words, when the independent variable is manipulated, there is an effect produced.

Ie science explains cause and effect relationships. Whatever the foucault pendulum is, it is NOT a scientific experiment!

You say we can manipulate earth spin by setting up pendulums on other planets? We are talking science not sci-fi and toy models.
Back to reality - you can't apply the scientific method to prove or disprove earth rotation, you can speculate, you can set up models but this is not science, it is pseudo-science, using the label of science and appearing to speak in the language of science but disregarding the principles on which it stands.

Because the first law of thermodynamics has never been disproven, hence law. As opposed to a theory which itself depends on rigorous testing in accordance with the scientific method. 'earth rotation' is something like philosophy I would argue.

lol you are cleuless sorry to say the way you operate. Earth's rotation is up there in the same conviction as first law and higher actually because first law can have exceptions if we investigate more seriously or redefine concepts like energy and geometry eventually but the rotation being a macroscopically solid result can only be invalidated if this is a simulation world.

You know earth has magnetic field also right? You know it has weather and motion of clouds etc? All meteorology uses Coriolis 24/7.


You are beyong trolling. Rotation is based on fundamental physics that has been tested repeatedly endlessly everywhere. You cannot get the result of the pendulum without rotation but only with some ridiculous complicated theory that will not be able to predict anything else further lol.

You know that we can tell things related to rotation with neutrinos too right?

Hey man masque de Z ever look into flat earth, #LookIntoIt . . .

The actual Science can tell You everything You need to know do some research masque de Z first, When You look into it, It's a Flat Earth You just haven't #LookIntoIt . . .

Citation please

Citation please

Would that be a scientific test?

I didn't, citation?

I am the citation

Pay respect to logic and you will see details.

Unlike you apparently i have taken meteorology and atmospheric physics. The very nature of weather patterns is a crystal clear evidence for rotation.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...riolis-effect/

https://www.pdfdrive.com/100-an-intr...-e8150547.html


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

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

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...riolis-effect/

The Coriolis effect describes the pattern of deflection

If you throw the ball in a straight line, it will appear to land

the ball will deflect to the right.

This apparent deflection

appear to bend

object or fluid being deflected

As air masses are pulled into cyclones from all directions, they are deflected, and the storm system—a hurricane—seems to rotate counter-clockwise.

these warm air currents are deflected

I count 5 claims of actual deflection and 4 claims of apparent deflection, 1 of each of these are in the same sentence.

The weather impacting fast-moving objects, such as airplanes and rockets, is influenced by the Coriolis effect. The directions of prevailing winds are largely determined by the Coriolis effect, and pilots must take that into account when charting flight paths over long distances.

So the pilot need not pay attention to the 1000mph earth rotation at the equator (since he is the same rotating reference frame as the earth) but he better watch those coreolis winds which are moving in their own inertial frame? Does the atmosphere as a whole rotate lock step with earth rotation? How do atmospheric gases decide which frame to be in?

Coreolis effect is an apparent deflection caused by having 2 reference frames, one inertial and one rotating.

Coriolis force is an inertial or fictitious force

Pseudo force

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force

Still need citation for 'first law can have exceptions' by the way.

Not sure what this reference is specifically relating to, but in any case

If the platform on which the ring interferometer is mounted is rotating, the interference fringes are displaced compared to their position when the platform is not rotating.

Which is fine but could not be applied to earth rotation since there is no possible comparison to the pattern observed 'when the platform is not rotating'. Another presupposition circular reasoning, no viable variables etc etc..