5 hours ago, kwilco said:

PS – Do you have a speech impediment? Do you find it hinders your appreciation of physics? I hope you're not implying that if I had one, it would affect my cognitive powers?

You've already said last month that you had one:

On 3/27/2026 at 5:01 PM, kwilco said:

I’m dyslexic, so I use tools like Grammarly.

I'm sorry that you suffer from this ailment, I can only assume that it hasn't been easy. But the way you sometimes attack people (often those who are your side of the argument) with irrelevant and unwarranted pedantry gives the impression you have a chip on your shoulder and are trying to prove yourself on specific semantic and diction-related issues, though nobody has prompted you to.

You're doing fine, kwilco, and have created a successful thread, there is no need for this.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

TPS means Terrestrial Positioning Service, gamb00ler.

....and has nothing to do with the existence or usefulness of satellites for geolocation. TPS is about as useful as a Thomas Guide when on the ocean.

@rattlesnake You'll love this info...

Yes, multiple permanent Foucault pendulum installations exist worldwide for public observation, primarily in science museums, observatories, and universities to demonstrate the Earth's rotation. Famous installations include the Panthéon in Paris, the Houston Museum of Natural Science, and the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles.

Key Permanent Installations:

• Paris, France: The Panthéon features a prominent, historically significant installation.

• Houston, Texas: The Herzstein Foucault Pendulum is located at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

• Los Angeles, California: The Griffith Observatory houses a large, popular pendulum in its central rotunda.

• Kraków, Poland: A 46.5-meter pendulum operates in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul.

• Sydney, Australia: The Queen Victoria Building (QVB) features a permanent mechanical pendulum.

• Dallas, Texas: The Hunt building features a publicly accessible pendulum in its lobby.

These pendulums often feature magnetic drives to keep them swinging continuously, with, as Wikipedia notes, some installations having operated for decades.

So,

The cell providers are in on the hoax

The GPS developers are in on the hoax

The pilots are all in on the hoax

The military is in on the hoax

The map makers are all in on the hoax

Everyone that is not blind and has been on the open sea is in on it.

Did I miss anyone? That can't be more than a couple dozen people keeping he secret.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So,

The cell providers are in on the hoax

The GPS developers are in on the hoax

The pilots are all in on the hoax

The military is in on the hoax

The map makers are all in on the hoax

Everyone that is not blind and has been on the open sea is in on it.

Did I miss anyone? That can't be more than a couple dozen people keeping he secret.

The entire world was initially in on it through belief. McLuhan's famous quote is quite fitting here:

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity."

3 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The entire world was initially in on it through belief. McLuhan's famous quote is quite fitting here:

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity."

But why? Give me one good and reasonable reason why anyone would want to hide the truth.

If this were a simulation, that could at least serve as an explanation. But if all of this is real, then there is no good reason to claim that everything we take for granted about the physical world is false.

The worst part of discussing these matters is how quickly the algorithm starts feeding you one conspiracy after another. Once it gets going, it feels never-ending.

8 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

@rattlesnake You'll love this info...

Yes, multiple permanent Foucault pendulum installations exist worldwide for public observation, primarily in science museums, observatories, and universities to demonstrate the Earth's rotation. Famous installations include the Panthéon in Paris, the Houston Museum of Natural Science, and the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles.

Key Permanent Installations:

• Paris, France: The Panthéon features a prominent, historically significant installation.

• Houston, Texas: The Herzstein Foucault Pendulum is located at the Houston Museum of Natural Science.

• Los Angeles, California: The Griffith Observatory houses a large, popular pendulum in its central rotunda.

• Kraków, Poland: A 46.5-meter pendulum operates in the Church of Saints Peter and Paul.

• Sydney, Australia: The Queen Victoria Building (QVB) features a permanent mechanical pendulum.

• Dallas, Texas: The Hunt building features a publicly accessible pendulum in its lobby.

These pendulums often feature magnetic drives to keep them swinging continuously, with, as Wikipedia notes, some installations having operated for decades.

Foucault's pendulum was a failed experiment and proves nothing. Models of it are generally equipped with an electric, adjustable motor.

Why does a crane wrecking ball not swing?

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

But why? Give me one good and reasonable reason why anyone would want to hide the truth.

If this were a simulation, that could at least serve as an explanation. But if all of this is real, then there is no good reason to claim that everything we take for granted about the physical world is false.

As difficult as it is to hear, heliocentrism is based on ideology.

Copernicus loved the pagan god-like figure Trismegistus and the pagan Greek philosopher Aristarchus, who are central figures of Hermeticism, the Sun-centered ideology which, according to Wikipedia itself, has "been a crucial factor in the development of modern science".

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

As difficult as it is to hear, heliocentrism is based on ideology.

Copernicus loved the pagan god-like figure Trismegistus and the pagan Greek philosopher Aristarchus, who are central figures of Hermeticism, the Sun-centered ideology which, according to Wikipedia itself, has "been a crucial factor in the development of modern science".

Science is full of ideas that emerged from messy philosophical, religious, or even mystical backgrounds. What matters is not the origin story, but what survives testing.

And that still leaves the same basic question: why the cover-up? There is no common sense in the idea of hiding the shape of the Earth, the structure of the solar system, the ISS, or any of the rest of it. The claim itself makes no practical sense.

And are we really supposed to believe that leaders all over the world are playing the exact same game in perfect coordination? Human beings are tribal by nature, that much is true, and that is one of our flaws by construction and evolution. But that is exactly why such a theory makes even less sense. We are too divided, too competitive, too flawed, and too self-interested for that many people, across that many systems, to keep playing along in total silence.

Unless, of course, all of us are just pieces in some larger game. But that is philosophy, not evidence.

37 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Foucault's pendulum was a failed experiment and proves nothing. Models of it are generally equipped with an electric, adjustable motor.

120% wrong..... a new record! But now I'm confused. Should that be called personal best or personal worst.

Magnets are used, not motors. The magnets do not cause a change in direction of the weight. The magnets are arranged to be radially symmetric so as to not affect the arc of the pendulum.

Those pendulums on display are designed to keep operating whereas the ones use for actual science are not. Without continual addition of energy the air resistance and the friction at the point of suspension eventually cause the pendulum to stop. The pendulum that doesn't have energy input only has to maintain its action for a few minutes to make the experiment a success.

28 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

120% wrong..... a new record! But now I'm confused. Should that be called personal best or personal worst.

I like 'personal worst'.

They use electromagnetic drives. Anyway why doesn't a wrecking ball swing?

On 4/11/2026 at 3:28 PM, gamb00ler said:

3. Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility: Experiments must be documented and repeatable; if your theory does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.

How do I reproduce water evenly sticking to a rotating ball?

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Why does a crane wrecking ball not swing?

I can see that one has stumped you... LOL

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

How do I reproduce water evenly sticking to a rotating ball?

get a very BIG ball made of lead, take it away from any other huge mass.... don't forget to write us with the results.... you'll be gone for a while.

21 hours ago, kwilco said:

You are trying to imply your arguments are based on evidence and reason, but in fact you don't have even basic scientific knowledge – so how can anything you say have any worth? Yet, like a flat-earther, you ignore the evidence and try to make up fallacious excuses for your blunder. Now bereft of argument and exposed, you resort to ad hominems – very weak. You're just a purveyor of technobabble.

PS – Do you have a speech impediment? Do you find it hinders your appreciation of physics? I hope you're not implying that if I had one, it would affect my cognitive powers?

So you are going to continue to make something of the use of the term centrifugal force which is used often used to explain a phenomenon of things being pushed from the middle outwards - as in the case of centrifuges. If I recall the clearly jokey post suggested that if you spin something fast - like say a lazy susan but in this case a flat earth - the objects on it would fly away from the middle in the absence of other forces to stop it - which is correct.

Not sure if flat earthers believe it spins. Planes in the air would be different but you could see the principle.

But - tell me if I'm wrong - your key point that has resulted in ongoing posts - is that this widely used term to explain this effect is incorrect as it is due to inertia .

Now not everyone is perfect like us - I did high school physics. But I would argue the way to win friends and influence people in your quest to debunk is to consider that the substance of what was said is correct in terms of the effect - in a jokey post mind you - and the use of a widely used term like centrifugal forces is not a substantial issue in the scheme of things.

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

get a very BIG ball made of lead, take it away from any other huge mass....

Can you point me to a video of someone doing that experiment?

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Can you point me to a video of someone doing that experiment?

this has, just absolutely has to be... the dumbest request of all time.

I guess it is possible to be that ignorant of the scale of the Earth (or any planet) to have enough mass to generate enough gravity to overcome the tendency of the water to continue in a straight line (inertia) and leave the Earth's surface.

7 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Can you point me to a video of someone doing that experiment?

this has, just absolutely has to be... the dumbest request of all time.

On 4/11/2026 at 3:28 PM, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility:

So not reproducible. But there is a very scientific explanation for that, no doubt.

I'll tell you how to reproduce how water works on a flat Earth: take a glass, fill it up with water.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

So not reproducible. But there is a very scientific explanation for that, no doubt.

I'll tell you how to reproduce how water works on a flat Earth: take a glass, fill it up with water.

As is typical of your approach to science you made a stupid ass assumption. You keep raising the bar on the stupidity of your posts.

Nothing I said or anyone has claimed that it is not reproducible ... it is reproducible... just not at a reasonable scale and cost.

It is reproduced many times over and shown to be true by careful observation of the other planets and moons in our solar system.

Your poor reading skills are causing you to appear really stupid. The reproducible requirement is not that science must match the scale of a natural phenomenon... its the science experiment that must be reproducible. Sheesh!

On 4/18/2026 at 10:08 PM, gamb00ler said:

Have you come across the proof that 1 = 0?

I asked ChatGPT for the fun of it.

Yes—there are several “proofs” floating around that claim 1 = 0, but they all rely on a hidden illegal mathematical step. They’re usually designed to look convincing until you spot the flaw.

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

As is typical of your approach to science you made a stupid ass assumption. You keep raising the bar on the stupidity of your posts.

Nothing I said or anyone has claimed that it is not reproducible ... it is reproducible... just not at a reasonable scale and cost.

It is reproduced many times over and shown to be true by careful observation of the other planets and moons in our solar system.

On 4/11/2026 at 3:28 PM, gamb00ler said:

Thou shalt prioritize reproducibility: Experiments must be documented and repeatable; if your theory does not agree with experiment, it is wrong.

So Science holds reproducibility as a sacred principle… unless it isn't reproducible, in which case that is OK because Science can explain why it isn't reproducible and if that doesn't make a shred of sense to you, it is because you are stupid and uneducated.

13 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Your poor reading skills are causing you to appear really stupid. The reproducible requirement is not that science must match the scale of a natural phenomenon... its the science experiment that must be reproducible. Sheesh!

Ah, okaaaay… Please keep educating me because this is Gold.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Why does a crane wrecking ball not swing?

If the ball doesn't swing, how can it cause damage?

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

So Science holds reproducibility as a sacred principle… unless it isn't reproducible, in which case that is OK because Science can explain why it isn't reproducible and if that doesn't make a shred of sense to you, it is because you are stupid and uneducated.

Didn't you get the memo.... it's about experiments... not complete natural phenomenon.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Why does a crane wrecking ball not swing?

11 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

If the ball doesn't swing, how can it cause damage?

I guess he missed the part where the wrecking ball hits a wall.

38 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

If the ball doesn't swing, how can it cause damage?

The plot thickens…

46 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

If the ball doesn't swing, how can it cause damage?

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The plot thickens…

I think I understand why you're completely clueless about pendulums, wrecking balls... and a bejillion other things.

A weight suspended on a line that is attached to an immoveable object..... doesn't just spontaneously start to swing. It has to obey Mr. Newton's rules. A weight on a line becomes a pendulum when kinetic or potential energy is added to it and then it is released to be acted upon by gravity. Of course a wrecking ball doesn't swing until something makes it swing... Duh!

1 minute ago, gamb00ler said:

Of course a wrecking ball doesn't swing until something makes it swing...

The question is why doesn't it swing over prolonged periods like a pendulum?

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

The question is why doesn't it swing over prolonged periods like a pendulum?

that is not the same question you asked previously.

ask AI....I don't really know exactly what determines how many times the pendulum swings back and forth... .probably mostly dependent upon the conditions when the weight is released