RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Back

Scientism - Recent Articles

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part four). The Foucault Pendulum

Proves nothing about the Earth's rotation or Heliocentricity.

Bookmark and Share


(The former medical student Foucault, at the Pantheon in Paris in 1851, with his 200 foot bobbing block)

 

Prologue

The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, previous post deals with this)

2.     The Stellar Parallax (ibid)

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)

4.     The Foucault Pendulum (this post)

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites

7.     Space probe measurements

8.     Retrograde motion

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism

 

This post will look at the mighty Foucault pendulum.  Across the world, there are probably thousands of shrines in secular buildings and desacralized churches, which show a replica of Foucault’s apparatus.  Museums, the UN, laboratories, university labs, and former churches offer a chapel to the ‘great man’ Foucault and his machine, which in the mid-19th century, ‘proved’ heliocentricity and made a mockery of those geocentric religious ignoramuses and their mystical dogma.  A fine story which sadly does not stand up to scrutiny. 

 

Foucault the college drop out

 

Foucault was a mid-19th century French Catholic medical school dropout and part-time photographer.  He has been historically repositioned as a ‘physics researcher’.  Maybe ‘opportunist’ is a better career description.

 

At the ripe age of 32 he performed a public experiment which delighted the Sun-worshippers.  In 1851 he suspended a 61-pound ball from a 200 foot wire at the pantheon in Paris and set it swinging.  He drew a line in the sand below the apparatus and predicated that the pendulum would move 11.25 degrees in 60 minutes, which it did.  Applause all around.  This apparently proved the Earth’s motion.  So, we are told.

 

The logic is the following:

1.     Foucault’s first and primary assumption is that the Earth rotates itself once per 24 hours, moving west to east

2.     In one day based on this assumption, the pendulum should swing between 0, or not moving (which would be equivalent to the equator) and 360 degrees (the poles), meaning that at the poles the pendulum should rotate the full 360 degrees

3.     If we draw lines in the sand for this swinging pendulum, n would be the intersection angle between the first line witnessed after the swinging begins, and a line drawn 24 hours later (in reality the specific day time is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds– this is a sidereal day or star time, slightly different than the solar time of 24 hours)

4.     Another assumption is that there is no relative motion.  This means that if we swing the pendulum north to south it won’t affect the plane it moves in, this is due to the underlying assumption that the Earth rotates west to east and cannot ‘twist’ itself underneath the pendulum

5.     Foucault’s equation predicts the Earth’s movement based on the object’s latitude, with n=360°sin(θ), where θ is the latitude

 

What does it all mean?

 

Long before Galileo, medieval naturalists and scientists had studied the pendulum and time keeping.  Mechanical clocks were first built in the 14th century and were complex instruments.  In these clocks the pendulum is anchored in one plane, it does not move, it is stationary.  Foucault’s contraption allowed the anchor to rotate, which allowed the pendulum to move and rotate over a given time

 

Using Foucault’s apparatus, we could start swinging it between the 12 and 6 o’clock position, rotate the anchor and within one hour the pendulum should move to swing between the 1 and 7 o'clock position.  Over 12 hours and 24 hours, the pendulum should again be swinging back at the 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock position. 

 

To be fair, if you have tried a Foucault pendulum replica, they often don’t work (personal experience), but let’s assume it can work.

 

What ‘convinced’ the heliocentrists was the rather obvious fact that at different latitudes, there should be different effects on the pendulum.  At the North Pole or 90 degrees, the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour.  As one moves farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will slow down its rotation.  

 

In Paris, Foucault found that the plane of the pendulum rotated 11.25 degrees in the first hour – just as he predicted.  At the equator there would be no movement of the pendulum, given it is at ‘0 degrees’.  Below the equator the rotation begins anew but in the opposite direction to that observed in the northern hemisphere.

 

There are many models to explain these observations, by themselves they don’t prove anything. More here

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part three)

Stellar parallax and Stellar aberration don't prove anything

Bookmark and Share



“If, therefore, under all circumstances, and especially in the comparison of days when the sign of aberration has changed, the apparent value of the geographical latitude [i.e., column (B) - (A)] is sensibly constant, it proves that the True Aberration is the same as the Received Aberration, or at least that one is not a multiple of the other.” (George Airy, 1871, p. 37)


Simply put, Airy could not confirm Stellar aberration. And he is far from alone.


The dogma

There are 11 commandments which are deployed as proof of Copernicanism.  The observed phenomena used as proofs are however, cogently explained from another viewpoint and model.  If another explanation can be applied, than Copernicanism with its attendant scientific theology and observational support is just a theory, and cannot be accepted as proof.


The standard list, used in textbooks and by online gatekeeps of what constitutes ‘proofs’ for Copernicanism beyond the ‘law of gravitational attraction’ includes: 

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (dealt with in 2 previous posts)

2.     The Stellar Parallax

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun

4.     The Foucault Pendulum

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites (this post)

7.     Space probe measurements (this post)

8.     Retrograde motion (this post)

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism


This post will cover points 1 and 2, namely the Stellar parallax and aberration.  Further posts will go through the rest of the standard list of supposed proofs for heliocentricity. 


To Airy is human

George Airy in 1871, could not prove Stellar aberration, a claim that had gone unchallenged by that time, for almost 150 years. Using a water-filled telescope, Airy proposed to confirm both Bradley’s 1725 claim of stellar aberration, and that of the German Klinkerfues in 1867. As with Arago’s attempt in 1810, along with many others who tried and failed, Airy could find no proof of stellar aberration or light aberration (Antonello, 2014) . Airy was a committed Copernican who was dismayed at his own findings.


Many experiments have since reconfirmed Airy’s findings as other posts here have outlined (Michelson, Sagnac, Miller etc). Unfortunately the flat-earthers enthusiastically refer to the Airy experiment, giving ‘The Science’ a convenient and easy target to disparage the reality of what he and others discovered. We should not conflate factual evidence from real experiments with the non-science that the Earth is a pancake surrounded by an ice wall.


Claim 1:  The Stellar Parallax Proves the Earth is Moving

This valid cosmological phenomenon has been consistently advocated as the vindicator of heliocentrism.  Science textbooks and online apologia will usually declare that Friedrich Bessel (1784–1846) discovered heliocentrism’s long-awaited proof when in 1838, he observed a very slight shift in the position of the nearby star Cygnus against the background of a more distant star. 


There are some who claim that Giovanni Pieroni, a friend of both Galileo and Kepler, may well have discovered the parallax in the early 17th century or 200 years earlier.  Copernican astronomers usually praise Bessel as the great proof-giver of heliocentricity ignoring Pieroni (he was a Catholic after all). However, the ugly reality is that parallax does not prove heliocentrism.


What is it precious?

standard definition of a stellar parallax is:

Parallax is the apparent displacement of an object because of a change in the observer's point of view.


This concept is of course central to the theory of Relativity which has been well savaged in other posts.  A parallax is used to measure the distance to a star.


From this image, using the heliocentric view of a parallax, we can describe how a parallax measurement would work (Ostlie and Carrol, pp. 57–59).

1.     In this model, the Earth is orbiting the Sun;

2.     In December, whilst on one side of the orbit, we pull out our telescope and observe 2 stars which are viewed at the same time;

3.     One star is near to the Earth, and the other appears further away;

4.     For simplicity let’s assume that both stars are aligned vertically in the same plane, that is, one star is at a higher position in our telescope lens than the other, but both are on the same vertical line;

5.     Six months later in June we take another look at these 2 stars;

6.     If the stars are not in a vertical alignment any longer, and have deviated from the y axis, than we have a ‘parallax’;

7.     The parallax motion means that the closer star appears to have shifted to the right off the vertical plane;

8.     The shifting of the nearer star is due to the mobile orbit of the Earth around the Sun, since we have viewed this star from 2 different orbital locations, one in December, one in June, now separated by 186 million miles (the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun);

9.     Since stellar parallax can now be detected among a select few stars, most astronomers have generalized this interpretation to include all Stars, and offer this as proof for the Earth’s movement around the Sun.


Sounds pretty good.  When analysing Copernicanism, I found this to be a somewhat convincing argument. 


Heliocentric Stellar aberration animation


Note that this evidence was proferred almost 300 years after Copernicus issued his theory, or in the case of Pieroni 80 years post-Copernicus, and was never referenced by Galileo in his dispute with the Church over evidence for heliocentricity. Stellar parallax is the second reported ‘observational proof’ in support of heliocentricity if we follow the standard narrative and credit Bessel in the mid-19th century.  Stellar aberration (below) was the first reported proof, some 200 years after Copernicus if we ignore Pieroni. When the Church asked Galileo for proof, this is what it meant.  The evidential proofs took hundreds of years to develop.


It proves…?

Yet when you look into the stellar parallax as with the Galilean phases of Venus, you will quickly uncover that the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system explains the same phenomenon quite nicely.  This information will never be given to you, nor is it discussed within ‘The Science’ and its ‘educational systems’.  This is called a bias.  More here

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part two). Forces which Copernicanism cannot explain.

Neither can the Sun-worshippers explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun.

Bookmark and Share


400 Years Ago the Catholic Church Prohibited Copernicanism | Origins

(The gallant Copernicus leading mankind to insignificance and irrelevance)

“Most scientists refused to accept [Copernicus’s] theory for many decades — even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology,the “geo-heliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. The most devastating argument against the Copernican universe was the star size problem. Rather than give up their theory in the face of seemingly incontrovertible physical evidence, Copernicans were forced to appeal to divine omnipotence.”

(The Case Against Copernicus by Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney)

 

The ‘star size problem’ was an early objection to Copernicanism, given that the stars must be far away, yet they are visible and defined. This implies a massive size, hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than our Sun for example. Yet their appearance in the sky is small and uniform. The only way to explain this is by invoking a divine presence, or appealing to the distortion of light and optical illusions.

 

Optical explanations were not forthcoming until the mid 18th century though even now there is dispute about the validity of these claims. Stars are still seen as ‘points of light’, and very few adequate explanations exist which satisfy the ‘star size’ issue, though it is generally ignored in modern science, which views the ‘optical illusion’ explanation as sufficient.

 

Putting this issue to the side, we can list the standard textbook ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity which will be discussed and analysed in sequence:

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false, see the previous post and this post below)

2.     The Stellar Parallax (#2-11 covered in future posts)

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun

4.     The Foucault Pendulum

5.     The bulge at the Equator

6.     Geosynchronous satellites

7.     Space probe measurements

8.     Retrograde motion (this post)

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism

 

Prologue

Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity.  Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’.  Other models can explain the same phenomena but are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’.  The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support this theory (posts outlining this are shown at the end).  This deposition follows from the problems with Newton’s law of gravitation which cannot explain how planets and constellations behave and why it does not support heliocentricity.

 

Models and problems

‘The Science’ and its heliocentric model explain that within our solar system the planets revolve around the Sun, and our milky way galaxy revolves around a center of the Universe whose location has never been identified.  In this theory, which is a part of the discredited Big Bang dogma, gravitational attraction between smaller and larger bodies ‘holds’ the patterns of orbits and the relationships between planets.  There are many issues with this theory.  A simple one is the following question.

 

Problem Statement:  Given that approximately 1 million Earths fit into the Sun, why doesn’t the Sun simply consume our Earth?

 

Related to this we can ask, why doesn’t the Earth consume the moon given that the Earth’s diameter is 4 times that of the moon?  The answer is that there are issues with the ‘laws’ of gravity, given they don’t explain the observed phenomena nor answer the simple question above. Gravity is a weak force, so some other ‘forces’ must be at work. 

 

A second model which offers an answer to the above question is the Tychonic-Ptolemaic concept, where the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe and the planets in our solar system either revolve around the Earth (Ptolemy), or the planets revolve around the Sun and this collection revolves around the Earth (Tychonic).  Tycho Brahe’s model is thus a mixture of heliocentricity and geocentricity, based on thousands of observations and calculations. Mathematically, even using modern scientific standards and observations, both the Ptolemaic and Tychonic models are valid, though no one is told this.

 

Video, summary overview of the Heliocentric, Tychonic and Ptolemaic models

 

In the Tychonic model the entire universe revolves around the Earth.  The Earth may still rotate (the neo Tychonic or semi-Tychonic model) or be immobile as Tycho Brahe believed. The massive force used to generate the phenomenal speeds to rotate the universe around the Earth is a logical objection to this model of planetary movement.  These objections, as outlined below, can however be answered using the standards and principles of modern science (Assis, pp. 190-191). 

 

I am not suggesting that the model is right or wrong, but as will be shown, mathematically using modern science’s own postulates there is no argument against this model. The model also explains phenomena that Newtonian and standard Copernicanism cannot. I am only looking at Socratic proofs to resolve the problem statement:

 

Why doesn’t the Sun consume the Earth?’

The point is that the observational evidence, the universal forces which are confirmed by modern science including the Coriolis force, the Euler force and centrifugal forces (which are discussed below), the existing mathematics and models, and the affirmed principles and ‘laws’ of modern science, do not disprove the Tychonic system, but actually confirm much of what it postulates.  The Tychonic model addresses the problem statement posted above, whilst heliocentricity does not provide an answer, hence the use of Dark Matter (a made up never-found constant to balance equations akin to Einstein’s steady-state model constant) and extended maths to Newton’s and Einstein’s equations.

 

Mach-o, Mach-o man

In the neo-Tychonic model, the gravitational attraction of the Sun with the Earth is balanced by a real gravitational-centrifugal force generated by the annual rotation of distant masses around the Earth (with a component having a period of one year).  In this model the Earth can remain at rest, a constant distance from the Sun.  Modern science can have no objection to this idea of geo-helio-centrism due to the duality of its own force laws and the theory of Relativity. 

 

Using Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which employs the same; we can see that the neo-Tychonic model where the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe and has the Sun revolving around it, is not madness.  Universal distant matter (e.g., galaxies) which rotate around the Earth could create a centrifugal force, which is like gravity, but actually counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the Sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth, namely, 91-94 million miles.  These forces would be the ‘Coriolis force’ (more below). This could help explain why the Earth does not fall into the Sun, or why our moon does not missile bomb the Earth (Popov, 383-391).   

 

As Einstein admits:

“We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K' as ‘at rest.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….

 

This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion.” (Einstein’s October 1914 pp. 69, 71).

 

Einstein has confirmed that a Tychonic or Ptolemaic universe is certainly feasible and possible.  It is as least as credible as the Copernican faith which has the Earth moving through the ether (a medium largely denied by ‘The Science’) at 108.000 km per hour. Quite a clip.  Many posts have discussed that no mechanical proofs for this have ever been presented (listed at the end).  It is only 500 years since the days of Copernicus.  Take your time.  More here