Author Topic: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame (Read 1515 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** August 28, 2018, 01:39:56 AM »

.
Anyone who wants to know why nobody should believe flat-earthdom "research" here's a great example!
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-HYWYEZYc&feature=youtu.be

.
Anthony Riley had a venerable reputation among flat-earthdom syndromers.
However, it has all come to a crashing stop with his publication of just one video.
This is where he shows a description given of one Foucault by a speaker in which he calls Foucault out as a
------- Pederast
------- Post-Modernist philosopher
------- Drug addict
------- Attempted murder
------- Knew he was HIV +
------- Deliberately infected many others for years
------- Died of AIDS
.
Then Anthony Riley ends his video by asking, And you think this pendulum proves the earth moves? Really?
(His so-called research never found anything about any pendulum -- because he was reading the wrong bio.)
.

MAJOR FAIL FOR FLAT-EARTHDOM SYNDROMERS!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2018, 02:00:46 AM »

.
Riley posted this stupid video with the really, really bad research on his channel.
.
This was a video he had edited, added features to, reviewed it, dubbed in music, and put all his regular work into it.
.
One thing he forgot to do, was to actually think about what he was doing.
.
The Foucault Pendulum was made public in about 1851 so its maker must have been at least in his 20's.
.
Do you suppose a quick check on that would be too difficult when you're doing "research?"
.
The man Riley is all focused on for his devastating report (he was trying to devastate the globe) was the wrong man.
.
Looks like Riley put Foucault into Google and just read one Wikipedia article which was the first hit on the page.
.
That was his "research" and he found nothing strange about no mention of any pendulum in the article.
.
This is how flat-earthdom syndromers look stuff up. They're only looking for what they want to see.
.
If they find anything unseemly or negative they'll go for it like flies to s**t, without considering if it's wrong or off base.
.
If you can stand the noise, here is another video that describes the whole process:
.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2018, 02:02:38 AM »

.
Anyone who wants to know why nobody should believe flat-earthdom "research" here's a great example!
.
(The system switched me to a third post while I was trying to edit the OP that's why this one is here - I wanted to add this....)

Quote

Published on Aug 18, 2018
SUBSCRIBE 618
Sleeping Warrior aka Anthony Riley published a video tonight that demonstrated the full extent of his research & critical thinking skills. He seems to have realised his mistake and removed the video, but the www is a wonderful thing which means we can all enjoy a good laugh at his expense.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-HYWYEZYc&feature=youtu.be

.
Anthony Riley had a venerable reputation among flat-earthdom syndromers.
However, it has all come to a crashing stop with his publication of just one video.
This is where he shows a description given of one Foucault by a speaker in which he calls Foucault out as a
------- Pederast
------- Post-Modernist philosopher
------- Drug addict
------- Attempted murder
------- Knew he was HIV +
------- Deliberately infected many others for years
------- Died of AIDS
.
Then Anthony Riley ends his video by asking, And you think this pendulum proves the earth moves? Really?
(His so-called research never found anything about any pendulum -- because he was reading the wrong bio.)
.

MAJOR FAIL FOR FLAT-EARTHDOM SYNDROMERS!

happenby · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2018, 09:59:48 AM »

The Foucault pendulum has been so completely and utterly debunked in so many places it is less than yesteryear's news. No glober worth his salt even tries to raise that corpse. And when they do, they get a dead body.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2018, 12:33:26 PM »

.
Here is happenby trying to jump topic again ----------- scared of something, happenby, as usual?
.

Quote from: happenby on August 28, 2018, 09:59:48 AM

The Foucault pendulum has been so completely and utterly debunked in so many places it is less than yesteryear's news. No glober worth his salt even tries to raise that corpse. And when they do, they get a dead body.

.
So you're an expert at debunking it? Prove it. Go ahead, show us your debunking skills.
.
Or is the problem that you're an Anthony Riley fangirl and you can feel his pain?

aryzia · « **Reply #5 on:** August 29, 2018, 12:08:04 AM »

Pointing to a pendulum in attempt to prove earth moves is stupid. Heliocentric theory has been condemned anyway.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** August 29, 2018, 02:44:47 AM »

Quote from: aryzia on August 29, 2018, 12:08:04 AM

Pointing to a pendulum in attempt to prove earth moves is stupid. Heliocentric theory [strawman!] has been condemned anyway.

.
So the claimed "debunking" never happened..........
.
Anyone who wants to know why nobody should believe flat-earthdom "research" here's a great example!
.
.

Joseph Noonan

Joseph Noonan

1 week ago

I think Riley did this on purpose. He knew his subscribers would just listen to whatever he had to say, and he wasn't planning on making a valid argument anyway, so he went through with the video. Flat earthers KNOW that they can't debunk the Foucault pendulum. That's why Riley tried to use ad hominems instead of actual arguments. He didn't even look up Foucault pendulum because he is willfully ignorant. He knows he can't debunk it, and he doesn't want his viewers to see and realize that he's peddling BS. If he had looked up Foucault pendulum, the first thing he'd have seen would have been, "The Foucault pendulum, or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault, is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth."

.

.

But there is something that the tour guides/science representatives at any of the many museums or observatories where the pendulum is on display can't answer. Guess what that is?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #7 on:** August 29, 2018, 03:21:55 AM »

.
This whole topic goes right over the heads of flat-earthers!
.
The topic is not the pendulum, but the fact that a renowned flat-earth "researcher" made a whole video about the wrong man.
.
IOW flat-earthers can't do the most basic research, and after the fact, they can't recognize how the "research" was garbage.
.
You guys keep making yourselves look so foolish -- this is hilarious!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** September 01, 2018, 12:32:41 AM »

.
The MAJOR FAIL of flat-earthdom syndromer Anthony Riley (YouTube channel Sleeping Warrior) won't go away.
.
Riley has tried to post two videos in the past 2 weeks and then has to pull them off his channel page.
.
Why?
.
Because his comments sections are being overrun with taunts regarding this Foucault fiasco (OP here).
.
See for yourself - his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgc9BMkY5M3lslgp6HdyznQ
.

happenby · « **Reply #9 on:** September 03, 2018, 10:33:32 AM »

Earth isn't moving, so FP is a farce.

Through government declassified docuмents, publications, books, and manuals - we find the truth -- if we know where to look.

▪Official NASA site, admitting they cant leave "low earth orbit".
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/…/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-b…

▪Docuмents on the CIA website mention the firmament starting on page 19 in a series of tests on the atmosphere.
Page 20 says "...only the assumption of a flat Earth"
>>>
https://www.cia.gov/…/do…/CIA-RDP86-00513R001343720008-3.pdf

▪ NASA and The Ames-Dryden Flight Research tells us again in the concluding remarks. The Earth is flat and nonrotating.
>>>
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

▪In 1986 The US Air Force repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment, published in the Nature Journal Volume 322.
reproved the motionless earth.
>>>
http://palgrave.nature.com/…/jo…/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf

▪The Federal Aviation Administration denotes, in their Aircraft Dynamics model, that the earth is flat 5 separate times.. as well as referring to geocentricity 3 times.
>>>
https://www.faa.gov/…/l…/tgf/media/AircraftDynamicsModel.pdf

▪The United States Coast Guard's geographic range table lists distances as visible that should be behind the curve of the earth. Such visible distances could only be possible on a flat earth.
>>> https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/p…/lightLists/LightList%20V6.pdf

▪The U.S. Army Research Laboratory's "Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth"
>>> http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2352.pdf
• (http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2009/ARL-TR-4998.pdf) page 1: Trajectory of Spinning Projectiles: “These equations assume a flat Earth.” •(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-TR-5118.pdf) page 2: “These equations assume a flat Earth..” •(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2011/ARL-TR-5810.pdf) page 216: "assuming a flat Earth"
•(http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2007papers/paper21.pdf) Page 1: “...so that a flat-earth approximation provides the best estimate.”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TN-175.pdf) Page 39: "model works over a flat earth"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2003/ARL-TR-2696.pdf) page 1: transmission loss over flat earth
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2000/ARL-TR-2156.pdf) page 9: “...input to a flat earth”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2003/ARL-MR-563.pdf) page 3: “The first is the Earth-fixed coordinate system, which is fixed to the Earth with a flat Earth assumption.”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-CR-650.pdf) page: 1 "flat earth approximation provides the best estimate"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2002/ARL-TR-2683.pdf) page 32: "This model works well over a flat-earth"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2000/ARL-TR-1812.pdf) page 168: "equations of flat-earth trigonometry." (http://www.irig106.org/…/106…/106-17_Telemetry_Standards.pdf) page 8: "The Earth is flat and nonrotating." •(http://www.navair.navy.mil/…/comm…/Inplace.aspx/LoadFile/531) General Equations of Motion for Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft, Page 1: “...equations of motions must properly reflect the underlying physics.” page 2: "In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed...”
•(https://ntrs.nasa.gov/…/…/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf) Approximate Optimal Guidance for the Advanced Launch System, On page one this docuмent does mention a spherical rotating earth but then states that “...these schemes” [based on a spherical rotating earth] 1) “...are difficult to prove” and 2) “...not suggested to be used as a basis for an online real-time guidance law.” Page 32 goes on to say: "Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** September 03, 2018, 11:59:05 AM »

.
Anthony Riley did a major fail when he totally botched his so-called research for flat-earth.
.
That's because flat-earthdom syndromers are incapable of doing any real research.
.
It's surprising they manage to spell "research" correctly. Maybe that's another mistake!

happenby · « **Reply #11 on:** September 03, 2018, 12:56:48 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on September 03, 2018, 11:59:05 AM

.
Anthony Riley did a major fail when he totally botched his so-called research for flat-earth.
.
That's because flat-earthdom syndromers are incapable of doing any real research.
.
It's surprising they manage to spell "research" correctly. Maybe that's another mistake!

The only syndrome is yours and is called cognitive dissonance.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** September 04, 2018, 04:37:42 AM »

.
The flat-earthdom syndromers are so predictable!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** September 12, 2018, 03:18:34 AM »

Quote from: happenby on September 03, 2018, 10:33:32 AM

Earth isn't moving, so FP is a farce.

Through government declassified docuмents, publications, books, and manuals - we find the truth -- if we know where to look.
▪Official NASA site, admitting they cant leave "low earth orbit".
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/…/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-b…
▪Docuмents on the CIA website mention the firmament starting on page 19 in a series of tests on the atmosphere.
Page 20 says "...only the assumption of a flat Earth"
>>>
https://www.cia.gov/…/do…/CIA-RDP86-00513R001343720008-3.pdf
▪ NASA and The Ames-Dryden Flight Research tells us again in the concluding remarks. The Earth is flat and nonrotating.
>>>
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf
▪In 1986 The US Air Force repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment, published in the Nature Journal Volume 322.
reproved the motionless earth.
>>>
http://palgrave.nature.com/…/jo…/v322/n6080/pdf/322590b0.pdf
▪The Federal Aviation Administration denotes, in their Aircraft Dynamics model, that the earth is flat 5 separate times.. as well as referring to geocentricity 3 times.
>>>
https://www.faa.gov/…/l…/tgf/media/AircraftDynamicsModel.pdf
▪The United States Coast Guard's geographic range table lists distances as visible that should be behind the curve of the earth. Such visible distances could only be possible on a flat earth.
>>> https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/p…/lightLists/LightList%20V6.pdf
▪The U.S. Army Research Laboratory's "Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth"
>>> http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2352.pdf
• (http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2009/ARL-TR-4998.pdf) page 1: Trajectory of Spinning Projectiles: “These equations assume a flat Earth.” •(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-TR-5118.pdf) page 2: “These equations assume a flat Earth..” •(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2011/ARL-TR-5810.pdf) page 216: "assuming a flat Earth"
•(http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2007papers/paper21.pdf) Page 1: “...so that a flat-earth approximation provides the best estimate.”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TN-175.pdf) Page 39: "model works over a flat earth"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2003/ARL-TR-2696.pdf) page 1: transmission loss over flat earth
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2000/ARL-TR-2156.pdf) page 9: “...input to a flat earth”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2003/ARL-MR-563.pdf) page 3: “The first is the Earth-fixed coordinate system, which is fixed to the Earth with a flat Earth assumption.”
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2010/ARL-CR-650.pdf) page: 1 "flat earth approximation provides the best estimate"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2002/ARL-TR-2683.pdf) page 32: "This model works well over a flat-earth"
•(http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2000/ARL-TR-1812.pdf) page 168: "equations of flat-earth trigonometry." (http://www.irig106.org/…/106…/106-17_Telemetry_Standards.pdf) page 8: "The Earth is flat and nonrotating." •(http://www.navair.navy.mil/…/comm…/Inplace.aspx/LoadFile/531) General Equations of Motion for Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft, Page 1: “...equations of motions must properly reflect the underlying physics.” page 2: "In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed...”
•(https://ntrs.nasa.gov/…/…/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070030307.pdf) Approximate Optimal Guidance for the Advanced Launch System, On page one this docuмent does mention a spherical rotating earth but then states that “...these schemes” [based on a spherical rotating earth] 1) “...are difficult to prove” and 2) “...not suggested to be used as a basis for an online real-time guidance law.” Page 32 goes on to say: "Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a flat Earth are presented."

.
In the spam post above (which happenby did not write but rather copied from another site and pasted it here -- in 3 threads, no less) the mundane canard of flat-earthdom syndromers is repeated again, which claims that there are times when scientists, engineers, astronomers, meteorologists, surveyors and others sometimes presume a flat earth in their calculations; but flat-earthers can't seem to understand why this is done.

.

Flat-earthdom syndromers erroneously leap to the false conclusion that therefore the earth is "flat" and we're being lied to, etc.

.

The fact is, scientists, engineers and even governmental agencies often use simplified models of physics (e.g., in rigid body aerodynamics simulations) which assume a flat, stationary earth, because the results are close enough that having a simplified model is a worthwhile trade. These models are not used for navigation or location or anything that requires the actual shape and/or relative movement of the Earth to be considered.

.

What's funny is, that the only useful application of FE theory I can think of is in making simplified models that reduce computational complexity in exchange for introducing measurable error when compared with real observation.

.

"Flat" earth principles are only useful when you need a dumbed-down physics model for back-of-the-napkin math.

that bears repeating.....................

.

"Flat" earth principles are only useful when you need

a dumbed-down physics model for back-of-the-napkin math.

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** September 13, 2018, 12:43:49 PM »

'Debunking' Foucault's Pendulum.

'It cannot be debunked!' What does that actually mean.

In fairness let me clarify a few points.

Foucault's pendulum actually shows a swinging bob will in time move a maximum 90 decrees around a circle. That cannot be debunked.

But Foucault's pendulum claimed to show the earth revolves. That has been debunked, it is a fraud in regard to its interpretation. Anyone who wants to read about it let me know.

Geocentrists say the INERTIA that causes even the little circular movements could be that caused by the universe revolving around the Earth.

I have no doubt flat-earthers can claim this does not falsify a flat Earth, which it doesn't. A Foucault pendulum's limited movements could hasppen on a flat-Earth or a spherical Earth.

So sorry lads, this one is a draw.

Author Topic: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame (Read 1515 times)

Neil Obstat

Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

happenby

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

aryzia

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

happenby

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

happenby

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame

cassini

Re: Flat-Earther "Riley" Does Research on Foucault of Pendulum Fame