"Today almost 500 years after Copernicus, no mechanical proof exists for either the Earth’s diurnal rotation..."
Put a camera outside at night pointed at Polaris and snap a photo every few seconds and you'll have your proof. Either the camera is spinning or the entire heavens are spinning, take your pick.
You are a mind reader. Working on the Foucault pendulum as you speak. Will be posted in the near term. It is interesting, but even Foucault was unsure of what it all meant. In general: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), we can ask, what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary (back to relativity and its issues)? This is an “unresolved” force in physics. The probable answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is not stationary with respect to the Earth.
So now we are back at the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or is it the stars revolving around a fixed Earth? Foucault's experiment does not tell us (along with Michelson, Airy, Sagnac, Miller....) eg. The force that is moving the pendulum to change the plane of its swing could be the centripetal Coriolis force, not a moving earth. This possibility is never pursued by 'The Science'. There will be a post on these forces in 2 weeks. Not many have heard about them.
As Einstein said: “The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.”
So in summary the pendulum does not prove heliocentricity - but in the post will add a lot more meat as to why. It also does not prove geocentricity of course but like the stellar parallax and light aberration can be interpreted using different models. But of course 'The Science' won't discuss that.
Good idea and sensible if it could be done. I personally don't think the Americans went more than 50 miles up in the 60s/70s, and I don't see how any life form would survive the radiation in space or on the moon, without being covered in lead. But it is a good idea. Supposedly the Americans will be playing golf there in the next few years assuming that it is not a Spielberg CGI production. As Kubrick admitted, 'it was my greatest work'.
Hi David, good idea, will do a summary post and key bibliography list at the end of this series of posts (which will cover all the main proofs for heliocentricity). It is a complex area and a lot of it is inter-related. Most people don't really know what motivated Einstein for eg. or what he was up to. If they knew, they would be very surprised.
Aha, yes stellar parallax and light aberration - both discussed after the next post which deals with Newton and the claim that smaller bodies must orbit a larger (not true in all cases).
You are doing important work here. I wish you all good in the new year.
Thanks RPT. There is so much to ‘dismantle’. One theory and lack of proof at at time :) Best wishes for 2025 as well.
"Today almost 500 years after Copernicus, no mechanical proof exists for either the Earth’s diurnal rotation..."
Put a camera outside at night pointed at Polaris and snap a photo every few seconds and you'll have your proof. Either the camera is spinning or the entire heavens are spinning, take your pick.
That is a tautology. What is spinning? How do you know?
You tell me.
You are a mind reader. Working on the Foucault pendulum as you speak. Will be posted in the near term. It is interesting, but even Foucault was unsure of what it all meant. In general: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), we can ask, what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary (back to relativity and its issues)? This is an “unresolved” force in physics. The probable answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is not stationary with respect to the Earth.
So now we are back at the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or is it the stars revolving around a fixed Earth? Foucault's experiment does not tell us (along with Michelson, Airy, Sagnac, Miller....) eg. The force that is moving the pendulum to change the plane of its swing could be the centripetal Coriolis force, not a moving earth. This possibility is never pursued by 'The Science'. There will be a post on these forces in 2 weeks. Not many have heard about them.
As Einstein said: “The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.”
So in summary the pendulum does not prove heliocentricity - but in the post will add a lot more meat as to why. It also does not prove geocentricity of course but like the stellar parallax and light aberration can be interpreted using different models. But of course 'The Science' won't discuss that.
Good idea and sensible if it could be done. I personally don't think the Americans went more than 50 miles up in the 60s/70s, and I don't see how any life form would survive the radiation in space or on the moon, without being covered in lead. But it is a good idea. Supposedly the Americans will be playing golf there in the next few years assuming that it is not a Spielberg CGI production. As Kubrick admitted, 'it was my greatest work'.
Hi David, good idea, will do a summary post and key bibliography list at the end of this series of posts (which will cover all the main proofs for heliocentricity). It is a complex area and a lot of it is inter-related. Most people don't really know what motivated Einstein for eg. or what he was up to. If they knew, they would be very surprised.
Aha, yes stellar parallax and light aberration - both discussed after the next post which deals with Newton and the claim that smaller bodies must orbit a larger (not true in all cases).