Foucault's Fantastic Pendulum

The SHOCKING Truth

Wolfgang the cat is smarter than Leon Foucault ever was. When he
curls up for a nap, he recognizes the physical reality that he is at rest. Wolfgang's first application to Yale may have been rejected, but by gosh he is not deceived about pendulums. He knows that: They are not magical scientific instruments. They are nothing more than perturbed plumb bobs.

He knows that in terms of detecting /gauging Earth's rotation, a Foucault's Pendulum is no better than a radio antenna. If you take a long CB car antenna and rig it with a ball- bearing swivel base mount, and put some weight on the tip, you'll have yourself an upside-down Foucault's Pendulum. They operate on the same basic mechanical principles. Pull the CB antenna back and then let it fly. As the launch

energy is used up the antenna returns to its starting position (at rest). However, if the antenna is indeed mounted on a freely swiveling base, it will invariably turn somewhat as it whips back and forth. Theoretically, you would expect to be able to make the antenna whip in a plane if you were careful enough about your cocking and firing. But the theory doesnt play out. Similarly, in theory a truly spherical pendulum may be built. That the bob of a big pendulum can be cocked and fired so as to vibrate in a plane is a perfectly reasonable sounding theoretical proposition. But the theory doesnt play out. That neat theoretical plane crashes every time it confronts physical reality. It is like dropping one ball bearing onto another ball bearing. In theory, if the ball bearings are perfectly spherical, and if you perfectly align one with the other before dropping, then the dropped bearing should bounce a time or two and settle down perfectly on top of the other one. Try that one. See how that works out for you. The impracticality of the ball bearing drop trick, and of the make- a- big- pendulum- vibrate- in- a- plane trick is strictly due to the vagaries of the mechanics involved. It has absolutely nothing to do with Earth's rotation. But a sane person would recognize that the most Foucault could have hoped to accomplish was a pendulum bob whose oscillations approached or approximated perfect repetition (a plane).

Leon Foucault was a much better self-promoter than scientist. He was Professor Harold Hill but without any of Hill's redeeming human virtues. Foucault was fully aware of the quest for the Holy Grail dynamic proof of Earth's rotation-- and of the fame and fortune that awaited the maker of that glorious Discovery. Playing with his pendulum one day, he observed that if you nudge the bob of a huge pendulum right or left at launch, it will maintain that right or left yaw or bias during the course of its energy cycle. And he observed that you can't engineer the thing so it runs on a perfectly true course. And he knew that Gaspard Coriolis, a fellow Frenchman had identified certain properties of motion parallel to rotating frames of reference.

And he hijacked that finding and decided to hypothesize its application to the surface of the rotating Earth. He found that a big pendulum can be set up so that the angular displacement its bob experiences as it veers off course will be comparable to a translation of the east/west deflection the bob would theoretically experience if it were (actually) traveling, and (actually) traveling along an invisible azimuth or line above and (actually apart from) Earth's surface, and continually travelling in one direction, as opposed to retracing each northern swing with a southern swing, and so forth, which it actually does. This was the most convoluted, trumped-up, wishy-twisty Rube Goldbergish scientific hypothesis ever to come down the pike in all of recorded history.

But if someone were desperately--fervently (frantically?) seeking local dynamic evidence of Earth's rotation, they just might close their eyes, hold their noses, put cotton in their ears, and drink enough wine to disconnect any and all warning bells in their brains, and buy into it. It would depend on just how utterly shameless (i.e.: how eager to be deceived) they might be. There was a serious risk of public humiliation and career suicide in putting forth anything so nonsensical. But, on the other hand, the potential rewards were enormous. The finder of the Holy Grail would be practically deified as: THE DISCOVERER. What the hell? So: Foucault ran it up the flagpole with great fanfare in Paris in 1851. And the rest, as they say, is history. Luckily for the old halfwitted blowhard, his audiencethe world's intelligentsiawas as eager to buy his lies as he was to sell them. Truth and honesty were trampled in the mud and long forgotten by the desperate mob.

At that crucial moment, any honest application of the scientific method, any judgment, any reflection, any thoughtfulness at all, would have shown anyone with even moderate intellect that it would be foolish to expect ANY terrestrial manifestation of Earth's rotation in the first place, based upon the most fundamental nature of Gravity.

Because they would have comprehended / cognified what their eyes had told them. Earth is a gravitational field. If you are part of that gravitational field you simply go where that field goes. Movements of your mother field through space are part of your "own" very nature--and therefore do not in any sense represent change to you. So, for starters: THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE DIFFERENT LINEAR SPACEVELOCITIES OF DIFFERENT EARTH LATITUDES WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATEVER ON THE PATHS OF FLYING OBJECTS WAS PATENTLY BOGUS.

Not to mention the fact that the bob of a big pendulum does not travel. It merely leans. Glue your shoes to the floor and then see how much traveling you can do. You can lean this way and that-- that's all. And that's all a pendulum's bob ever does. There is a fundamental difference between vibration and transport. (Trying to ascribe the properties of an orbiting satellite to a lowly pendulum is beyond absurd: it is insane. Spend too much time delving into that twisted Dante-ish mind pit and you could seriously damage your mind.) So, Secondly: WHETHER THE EARTH GENERATES A CORIOLIS EFFECT ON FLYING OBJECTS OR NOT, A PENDULUM WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DISCUSSION. THE BOB OF A PENDULUM DOES NOT MOVE. ITS FEET ARE NAILED TO THE FLOOR. ALL IT CAN DO IS LEAN BACK AND FORTH WHILE PERMANENTLY LOCKED IN PLACE.

But in 1851 Scientists were Desperadoes. Big time. They swallowed Foucault's Pendulum with a smile, washing it all down with plenty of the wine of superficially impressive math formulas. Thus the biggest hoax in history was perpetrated on the intelligentsia, who have snobbishly passed it down from generation unto generation. But, Jesus! Can millions of brilliant scientists really have been so stupid for so many generations? Absolutely.

Wolfgang the cat understands this. When he is at rest, he is at rest. And in the absence of earthquakes, storms, wars, rumbling freight

trains and the like, Earth's surface serves as a safe and peaceful place in space.

Pressed for a comment about Leon Foucault and his disciples-- who dispute the fundamental peacefulness of Earth--and therefore believe in the existence of tangible terrestrial evidence of Earth's rotation through space-- Wolfgang pondered studiously, then produced disgusting hairball noises, which may be roughly translated thus:

"Pfffffft...hack...aaaaaccccckkkkk...spit... aaaauuuuugggggghhh!"*

The Author concurs.

ARE YOU SMARTER THAN STEPHEN HAWKING??

Forget the 5th-graders, for cryin' out loud-I want to know if youre smarter than Stephen Hawking (yeahthe History of Time guy).

Well, Uncle Charnoch is,

and theres a good chance YOU are, too. (I'm not talking about math here--this isn't about matching math-wits with Steve. The thing is, math is only a language--a tool. There is a BIG difference between reasoning and ciphering. Think of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. Could he balance your check book? You bet. Would you trade minds with him? Not hardly. You wouldnt trade math tricks for your intellectual and emotional properties. Math is NOT reasoning. Doing math is not the same as doing thinking. So if you ever have a choice between math and thinking, choose thinking. If intuitiveness means thinking, then sign me up! Flawed intuitive thinking is way better than NO intuitive effort at all.

Beware of math as a substitute for thinking. Math can get to be like drugs. It can impair your judgment worse than jailhouse home brew. Look at "physicists. Too much math, not enough thinking. Math to a "physicist" is like titties to a teenaged boy--

WARNING! NOT CONDUCIVE TO CLEAR THINKING!!! DANGER!! DON'T LOOK! STOP IT! STOP IT!!

Why the heck dont we feel the earth move?

This is a magical and mysterious question. Why is it so special? 1) its at the heart of understanding our world, & 2) its a question that Stephen Hawking has never honestly addressed. (Nor has anyone else in the post-Galileo era.)

WHY THE HECK SHOULD WE FEEL THE EARTH MOVE?

Logically, shouldn't the question really be: HOW IN THE WORLD COULD WE NOT FEEL THE EARTH MOVE?

Because she moves like a mother. Because she is part of the Solar System. You could figure her travel rates yourself, if you are inclined that way. (Lets ignore the bigger picture for this discussion. Forget about the galaxy we live in, and where our galaxy fits in beyond that, and so on. For getting ourselves oriented, our place in our Solar System will do just fine. Earth is positioned in an orbital path 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. You can work it from there. Circumference = pi X diameter. Due to her natural habit of annually orbiting the Sun-- day after day, year

after year-- the Earth flies through space at about 66,000 miles per hour (which is more than three times the speed a rocket needs to reach in order to get into Earth orbit). Oh, yes. And all at the same time, Earth is making a daily 360 degree rotation. Since Earths diameter is about 8,000 miles, you can figure it for yourself if you like. At the equator, Earth rotates Eastward-- day after day, year after year-- at about 1,000 miles per hour.

So, shouldnt we EXPECT to feel the Earth move? Wouldnt that be a rational thing to predict? If you strap into a drag racer and hit the gas you can be going 200 MPH before you know itand you will sure as heck FEEL your ass being hauled. So if youre strapped into a rocket ship which is going 66,000 MPH (while spinning around an axis)how come we dont feel itnot even a teeny bit? If this strikes you as worth asking, then you're already ahead of Stephen Hawking. Way ahead.

A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE (& VICE VERSA)

To understand why we dont feel the Earth move, we first need to understand what the Earth is.

This is not some unknowable, highly complex, mind numbing (non-intuitive) exercise. The answer is right there in front of our noses, readily available to anyone who wants to know. If you have: 1) 2) 3) a set of car keys , a picture of Earth taken from out in space, and a good mind,

then you have all the tools you need to figure out the reason we dont feel the Earth move.

Put your car keys in the palm of your hand. Imagine that millions of other people are doing the exact same thingall around

the world. Stretch your arm out. Rotate your hand. The keys will fall out of your hand and hit the floor. And all around the world, the exact same thing would be happening. Big deal? You bet. You have just seen the Principles of Gravity at work. Here is the First one:

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF GRAVITY

MATTER ATTRACTS MATTER, & OBJECTS ATTRACT OBJECTS, WITH A DEGREE OF FORCE COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE MASSES.

The reason your keys fell down was that the Earth is bigger than your keys. The power- to -attract of a big object is stronger than the power- to- attract of a smaller object. Although our entire existence is based on this phenomenon, it is hard to get our minds around itprobably because we are totally incapable of reproducing itor anything even really resembling it.

It is somewhat similar to the way heat radiates outward. Two charcoal briquettes put out more heat than one briquette, and so forth. But Gravity radiates IN-- not out. A big clump of matter wields more come here than a little clump. So little clumps gravitate to bigger clumps. The process is like a reverse explosion. Take a movie of something being blown up. Run it

backwards. That is the way Gravity makes clumps of matter behave. It imparts to all things the natural impulse to form groups. But there is nothing in our Earthly experience that is truly analogous to Gravity, so we have to constantly be on our toes. An explosion is something that has been causedthat has been done to something. Which fundamentally distinguishes explosions, and all other Earthly activities, from how Gravity operates. The mutual attraction of matter and objects isnt something done to the objectsit is part of the very nature of those objects. Objects simply possess a communal nature. This is the first principle behind the fact that there are millions of settlements (like Earth) scattered around the vastness of Space.

The second principle relates to the detailsof exactly HOW collections of matter are collected. A hot charcoal briquette puts out heat in all directions. A big space settlement like Earth puts out a come here force in all directions. I mean REALLY ALL DIRECTIONS. More directions than you can count. 360 degrees (or 6,400 mils) times the infinite number of circles that make up Earth. The attractive force of Earth operates omni-directionally. (Just as it did billions of years ago while Earth was being formed.)

The end result is inward shift toward a common center. Prolonged systematic inward shift produced a systematic arrangement of the bits a sphere. To Naturea sphere is the ideal form. It is Natures entity-Natures One. When a whole bunch of shapeable matter has a common center and the individual bits all have a mutual attraction, you have the natural makings of a sphere.

So-- looking at those pictures of Earth from space is kind of cheatingits like having someone give you the answers before the test. But if you were blind and you were given the First Principle of

Gravity, you could work the rest out in your mind. The sphere is the logically predictable result of the systematic physical application of the principle of matter- attracts- matter. It works backward and forward. The way the magnitude of a clumps comehere is based on its massiveness predicts spherical formation. And the existence in fact of a sphere proves that spherical forces have been at work on that particular clump of matter. Thats the principle behind the shape of Earthand the way Gravity regulates our existence.

SECOND PRINCIPLE OF GRAVITY: GRAVITY

WORKS SPHERICALLY

Because Earth was built according to that principle: if you split Earth in half, from any conceivable angle, her two hemispheres would be equal in mass. Which means that as you face in any direction, the forces pulling you down- and- to- your left will equal the forces pulling you down- and- to- your- right. The sideways forces (left / right) dont pull an object apart. And they dont cancel each other outbecause they are all part of the weight of an object. The working direction of those multi-directional pulls is their aggregate. Their aggregate is a pull in a single, dominant direction (straight down). They work in concertlike guy wires on a TV tower. Guy wires dont pull a tower apart. They exert tugs from geometrically balanced (symmetrical) angles, and the net working angle is the aggregate-- straight down.

Which is the same way the sum total of the multi-directional Earthly Gravitational forces at work on your body translate into a single, simple sensationa pull in a single direction straight down (on a line which would run through Earths center, of course). Earths attractive force works as if it derives from a single pointEarths center of mass. When your car keys fell to the floor they didnt feel competing and conflicting tugs from all around and beneath them. No. They felt a tug from a single direction from Earths center of mass.

Try and imagine the gravity connections between your body and every other single person, animal, car, house, rock, mountain, and so forth in Earth. Every single thing comprising Earth is connected. And inherent in the connection is the systematic organization. Things are collected based on their density and their rigidity, and it works out sort of like the way you take your hands and make popcorn balls out of hot caramel corn. Except Gravity shapes from within. And the product is marvelously predictable. When everything works according to plan, Gravity produces a sphere.

With or without any conscious thought, every human activity always has been, and always will be, based on the way Gravity works spherically.

Thats the working premise behind plumb bobs, bubble levels, sophisticated inertial navigation systemsand the good old originalthe human bodys equilibrium mechanisms. These orientation tools show us the center of Earth's mass, and work on the principal of Gravitational equilibrium. The top of the bubble in a bubble level is perpendicular to a vertical (orthogonal) line to the Earth's center of mass. How reliable is the premise that Gravity pulls us straight down toward Earths center? Well, for one thing, if that's a false assumption, then so is everything else we believe we know about Gravity. If matter attracts matter systematically, then we have to believe that the attraction is based on something. What better system than one based on magnitude of mass?* So: as Gravity forms communities, simultaneously a variation on survival of the fittesta survival of the massiest takes place.

If Earth were shaped like a brick (unless we lived at some weird geometric address, like a corner) it wouldn't fundamentally

change our daily routines. Gravity would still orient us to the center of mass of our local clump of matter. But to the extent that the components of this particular clump are malleable, such as the water in our lakes and oceans, Gravity inherently tries to create spherical form. And Gravity simply cannot collect without sorting and arranging. It's like a non-separable vector. So one of the major things Earth's form can tell us is whether Earth's component matter is malleable (is now or used to be at one timeit works the same). It makes our surface navigation a more rational and reliable process.

So if a photograph from out in space shows Earth to be a sphere, that is cause for celebration. It simultaneously validates the assumption that Earth's bits are / were malleable, that Gravity operates this local corporation as an independent entity, and that Earth's center of mass is not only the heart of Earth's Gravitational force field, but is also the geometric center of that community. It's equilibrium all the way, baby! Gravitational, geometric, navigational, you name it. Sweet!

Oh yes. I almost forgot. Back to Where the heck are we?. We are in the surface of a spherical gravity field called Earth (which happens to be flying and spinning through space).

HUSH!

Is this all really necessary? Only if you want to understand the rules of Earth-motion. Which has to start with a true foundation. What you have just learned isnt pointy-headed pocketprotector nerd stuff. It is the blood and bones-- the very foundation-- for the Rules of Motion. You have just learned the significance of Stillness. We all know about stillness. It is the continuation of a geographic location, isnt it? Yes and no. Absence of geographic change is the sign of stillness. But there is a critical principle at work in a still pond, a still glass of water, your sense of total rest when youre stretched out in your hammock.

When you are under the pure and unadulterated power of Earths Gravity you are in a state of serenity, stillness, placidity equilibrium with the rest of Earth. Here again, this is a phenomenon which flows logically from what we know about the nature of Gravity. Once Earths Gravity had formed her parts into a sphere, its agenda changed from Construction to Maintenance. Today Gravity works to maintain Earths spherical arrangement.

All of Earths movable bits-such as you, your car and your private jet-are constantly compelled downward on a line through Earths center, with a force commensurate with their respective weights. Weight is actually the ratio of a particular objects mass to the total mass of Earth. An objects weight and location are inseparable aspects of the objects Gravity-given identity. If you have weight then you also have an assigned place in Earths surface. Gravitys spherical nature imparts a natural state to individual bits of a sphere. That natural state is

Stillness. THIRD PRINCIPLE OF GRAVITY STILLNESS IS THE STATE OF SPHERICAL HARMONY / EQUILIBRIUM WITH EARTH And stillness is a permanent condition. When you plop down in your hammock, as far as Earths Gravity is concerned, you are supposed to stay there permanently. Gallivanting around is NOT EARTHS IDEA. Earths idea is for everybody to sit still. Sitting still is spherical behavior. It is a state of harmony with Gravitys spherical nature.

If you understand these basic principles of Gravity, then you have established a solid foundation for truly understanding motion. (and you are so far ahead of Stephen Hawking your face should be a bright shade of red right now!)

MOTION

All of the bits of a gravitational sphere have an assigned weight / location. Lateral movement is the result of lateral force sufficient to disrupt the natural stillness of an object. In essence: lateral movement is spherical relocation. Since Gravity works spherically, so does the movement process which Gravity permits within its sphere of influence, or realm.

The Laws of Motion in Earth are simply spherical applications of the spherical nature of working Gravity. A Movement event begins with one Gravity-assigned location and ends with another Gravity- assigned location in the spheres surface.

FIRST PRINCIPLE OF MOVEMENT: MOVEMENT IS CAUSED BY THE APPLICATION OF LATERAL FORCE SUFFICIENT TO PERTURB THE SPHERICAL HARMONY OF AN OBJECT

This means that movement is regulated by the matterattracts matter principle. Which means that the Gravitational pull of the entire sphere continues during the moving process. Which works as if object in transit is balanced by an infinitesimal number of invisible rubber bands during the move. Which means that things naturally move straight. (Which actually means along a geodesic line. A geodesic is the largest circle you can draw in the surface of a sphere. Thats what we really mean when we say something runs straight.) This means: That the minimum force required for a move is dictated by the weight of the movable object, & The greater the forcethe greater the movement, & During the move an object is in a state of disrupted equilibriumof uneaseof disrupted stillness, & Equilibrium and disequilibrium are both palpable states.

Contrary to one of the widespread urban myths, we can easily determine whether we are moving or not. The human inner ear contains a fairly primitive equilibrium mechanism. But far more sensitive and objective instruments are readily available, from simple fluid-based levels to the latest accelerometers. Make no mistake: as stillness is perceptible, so is disturbance. Either both are parts of our physical environment , or neither. SECOND PRINCIPLE OF MOVEMENT: WE CAN TELL WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE IN MOTION

Whether your body or some other movable object is currently in a state of spherical harmony with its fellow congregants is knowable. If you want to check the equilibrium of your desk vs Earth's center of mass of you can easily do so. Take a bubble level and use it to level your desk (if its off, youll need to adjust the legs). When youre done, the bubble will remain centered in the fluid. Then tap the level from the side. Shove it around. The bubble will dance. This movement manifests the state of disequilibrium of the fluid in the level during the process of spherical relocation. As long as you continue to move the level along the surface, the bubble will continue to be off center. Only when you stop moving the level will the bubble once again center itself in the fluid.

Take your bubble level along on a train ride. When the train first starts up the bubble moves wildly. This is big (obvious) torque. But even as the train levels off to a steady cruising speed, the bubble will never re-center itself. Because: as long as the train is in motion (behaving non-spherically) the fluid in the level is in a state of perturbation / disequilibrium.

Or: hang a laser pointer by a string inside your car and make an X or stick a pin where the beam hits the floor. Then drive along a perfectly level road. When you take off, the point of the beam will move dramatically (big, obvious torque) toward the rearopposite the direction the car is being displaced (moving). Then, as you stop gaining speed and settle into a cruising speed the laser beam will partially return toward the original X. But as long as your car is still moving forward, the laser beam will always point somewhat rearward.

Because even a constant, level speed is a constant, level disruption of the spherical harmony Gravity desires. (But of course movement of Earth objects at constant, level velocities is a relative, as opposed to absolute, concept. All movement of Earth objects is limited by the magnitude and duration of the application of the disrupting forceand therefore fundamentally sporadic. The movement of Earth objects depends on the expenditure of energy. And Energy is expended in spurts-of different strengths and different durations.

Two engines can pull a heavier train than one. And if an engineer pulls back on the throttle, his train will slow down. And if the caboose is cut loose, its momentum will carry it

only a finite and entirely predictable distance forward. And if you bounce a ball while on a moving train the ball will begin to expend (lose) its momentum the instant it leaves your hand. During the time it is falling, its forward speed will decrease, relative to the train. At close quarters this degradation of kinetic energy will be negligible. But it is part of the true nature of horizontal terrestrial motion which flows from the local nature of Gravity.

THIRD PRINCIPLE OF MOVEMENT: NO FREE RIDES. ALL RELOCATION COSTS AN EXPENDITURE OF ENERGY.

Every inch of lateral movement of every ounce of an object costs the expenditure of energy. Exertion is the antonym of inertia. Disturbance is the opposite of placidity.

There are many more things to be deduced about how things move here in Earth, but I am going to stop right here. Because we have already spelled out everything we need to know to understand Why We Dont Feel the Earth Movewhich is why we came here in the first place.

We have written down all of our Blues Clues in our handydandy notebook. Now we just need to sit down in our Thinking Chair and THINK.

THINK

Now weve articulated some of the basic truths about how things work here in Earth. And Im proud of us for not getting the big head. Because, upon reflection, we can see that weve not made any huge discoveries. Weve simply put a little structure to things that ought to have been obvious to us for all our lives. Weve put down on paper some little elementary, baby-step facts about the "physics" of Earthly life. The only real puzzle here is why we never found these elementary, baby-step truths in any science textbook. (And why Stephen Hawking and the boys never recognized them-or thought about their implications.)

Yes, Thinker. Thats right. Youre ready to move on to the implicationsto (easily) solve the riddle of Why Dont We Feel the Earth Move? Lets THINK. Lets start as basically as we did when we began pondering upon Earthly motion. Back then we figured out the answer to, Just where the heck are we, anyway? So, now if Earth asks you, Hey, Thinking Man. Just where the heck am I, anyway? What do you tell her? You tell her that her location is an orbital path around the Sun. Her address is a tubular patch of Space 8,000 miles in diameter , in the shape of an oval with a radius of 93,000,000 miles. And she constantly sails around in that orbital path at a rate of about 66,000 MPH (while spinning).

Then she asks you, So, how come I dont feel any of that crazy movement? And you tell her, Its because your movements dont represent any CHANGE for you. It is your Nature to perpetually travel at that velocity in that orbital path. What you WOULD feel is if something disrupted your natural behavior. That would involve the application of Force to yourself. Which would create a temporary energy vibration. Which would cause a change from your natural state of behavior. Now THAT would be news! THAT you would FEEL.

You know these things because you are a THINKER. You understand that the solid Earth is different than the vast void of space in which it lives. . You understand that Earth is a Gravity- Created and maintained solid object. Space is the opposite of a solid object. Thats what Space is nothingness. Duh.

Q: So: Do the Principles we have figured out about Earthly movement apply to Earths movements through space?

A: NO. Duh.

Earths movements through space are not at all analogous to movements of objects across Earths surface. Earth is a space entity. Which, by definition, means it is not part of any other space entity. Duh. The Suns Gravity does give Earths tubular orbital path a location-- a Place in Space. But a Place in Space is a whole different animal than a Place in Earth. Our concept of Place is based on our life experience here in Earth, and is rather primitive and provincial. In the big picture (Space), a Place is a safe orbital path. By definition, orbit occurs when an object travels a perpetually repetitive path through Space without disruption or resistanceor an element of Time. As long as she stays in her safe path and maintains her safe velocity, Earth wont be sucked into the Sun or collide with any other of Suns planets.

Q: What does it take-- in terms of exertion (expenditure of energy)-- for Earth to maintain her orbit velocity? A: Absolutely NOTHIN!

Neither Earths continued forward motion nor her revolutions must be paid for with energy. Because there is / was no resistanceno force field which orders Earth to sit still. So it is not Earths nature to be still. In fact, the opposite is true. It is Earths nature to be in constant, regular (orbital) motion. That characteristic is as inseparable from Earths physical existence as your DNA is from your body.

(This is the hardest part of this whole exercise. When you get your mind around this detail, you are entitled to puff your chest out and crow a little bit. This is the first thing weve covered that requires any real THINKING.)

Make a note: Earths constant and repetitious orbiting and revolving are-- to Earth-- what stillness is to you (as a captive part of Earth).

And So: A thinker would never have predicted that we should be able to feel the Earth move (under our feet). Because a Thinker would understand that Earths monotonous, steady, perpetual movements ARE NOT CHANGES vs Space-- they are part of her same-ing in Space. They are not in contrast to her nature--they ARE her nature. And So: a Thinker would know that there are no Dynamic evidences of Earth's planetary movements to be found. Earths movements do not represent the expenditure of any energy. If new energy were being continually added to the mix, then Earth's angular velocity would have been steadily increasing for a few billion years. No telling what we'd be up to by now. A day would probably be about 2 seconds. Space and gravitational fields are in no way analogous.

And So: Nothing we know about In-Earth Movement transfers to the "physics" of In-Space Movement. They are in fact different physical dimensions. Movement in Earth is disruption of the natural state. Movement of Earth in Space is Earths natural state. One involves the expenditure of energy, one does not. One assigns Earth-weight to objects, one does not.

Therefore everythingevery single PRINCIPLE we so carefully worked out before-both as to Gravity and to Motion-are only germane within the sphere of influence of a gravitational field (e.g.: Earth). All of those principles need to have an asterisk and a note that they apply to objects which are a part of Earth. Thats pretty darned obvious, now, isnt it?

So-- there you have it. If you understand Why We Cant Feel the Earth Move, then I pronounce you SMARTER THAN STEPHEN HAWKING. You know something profoundwhich Stephen Hawking has never even wondered aboutmuch less sorted out. And you are now qualified, if you are so inclined, to rewrite every modern "physics" textbook, every encyclopedia article about the Coriolis Effect, every "physics" course taught in every school in every country in the world. Way to go, You Thinking Man, You!
(or Woman, according to your persuasion).

Foucaults FANTASTIC Pendulum is what got me started on my own current journey. I had a spotty early career as a boy genius in what we call Middle America. That's me on your left, in this old clipping from 1966.

When I took the LSAT, a score of 662+ qualified you for MENSA. I scored 726. I was above average, aptitude-wise. Fast-forward 22 years. As a former- boy- genius-turned-middle-aged-underachiever I did a whirlwind Smithsonian tour back in 1988. The Foucault's Pendulum display rang my inner camel bell. I read the scientific rationale posted there on the wall, but it didn't even begin to sink in. I wasn't skeptical-- I was just a Foucault virgin. I hadn't ever been interested in science. Like the millions of tourists who had preceded me, I assumed that the rationale was right, and my failure to comprehend was a defect on my part. I went back home to my Middle- American-desperately- unsatisfyingunderachieving- life, tossing Foucault's Pendulum into my brain's basement (onto the pile with all the other life- projects I never seemed to get around to.) Then--in about 1993-- I embarked on a sort of a personal salvage project. I decided to make a belated attempt to get a grip. Like Hercules Poirot, I needed to arrange my little gray cellsand had needed to for a long time. I decided to dust off my brain and see if it still workeda do-ityourself intellectual restoration project. Was I still capable of getting a grip? I assigned myself the task of understanding* the workings of Foucault's Amazing Pendulum. It was to be like a way-way advanced crossword puzzle. It was a diagnostica test to see whether my mind was a salvageable artifact.

(*It is critical to appreciate what I mean by understanding. At the stage in my life where I dove into Foucault's world I possessed at least one positive mental health trait. I was healthily skeptical. On matters of importance, I trusted myself above anyone else. No matter the source, I applied my own personal test, based on good old-fashioned contemplation. When I commit to a project, I commit. This means it is like an itch I cant scratch. Ill be driving down the highway or watching TV or walking my hound dog when some aspect pops into my head for consideration. Ill wake up at night with a new thought and have to get up and scribble down some new notes. I always try to break a concept down to its true meaningits essence. Broken down, does it add up? Does it make sense? Does it fit? Does it work? That this analytical method is taboo in "physics"-land is probably key to the acceptance and survival of the absurd dogma of Foucault's Pendulum all these centuries.)

So: off to the library I wenta skeptical inquirer. A former-boy-geniuson a major new learning expedition. I looked up Foucault's Pendulum in texts and encyclopedias. To understand Foucault, I found that I had to first understand the Coriolis Effect associated with Earth's rotating surface. I checked out books. I made copies of various articles from journals and magazines and took them home to study. I read. I underlined. I made notes. I imagined myself an artillery shell and tried to experience the Coriolis Effect as I flew North toward my target. It didn't work. I couldn't get around the stability all Earthly objects enjoy. To travel along a straight road you just keep your wheels straight. And I could see no difference between things that crawled, walked, rolled or flew (except for space shuttles). I just couldn't see it. Foucault was nuts. That was my impression after a day or two of serious study of Foucault's Amazing Pendulum. Now, fifteen years later, I have found nothing to shake my original impression. I have been told that my thinking is intuitive, meaning, in "physics"-speak, that it is inferior. Bullshit. There are instances where Nature has played little tricks on Earthlings, so that Reasoning and Common Sense yield bad science. But big pendulums are not such an instance. Each case must be studied on its own merit. The more I have actually studied Foucault, the better my intuitive first impression looks, and the crazier he seems. Travel is broadening, as they say. Since this project began, I have visited Coriolis , Fluid Dynamics, Classical Mechanics, Rocketry, Ballistics, Gunnery, Astronomy, Geo"physics", Meteorology, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, NASA and Orbital Mechanics along the waystopping to read historical markers, taking pictures, collecting postcards. No matter how you look at it, Foucault's Pendulum is absurd. The most amazing thing about Foucault's Pendulum is that it ever deceived anyone with an IQ bigger than a mushroom's for even five minutes. Any scholarly discipline that embraces Foucault's Pendulum is neither scholarly nor disciplined.

STILLNESS,
and other facts of life.

Where would you send your children to gain a solid grounding for learning about the basic, physical facts of life? Perhaps to "physics". After all, isnt "physics" supposed to be that specialty devoted to articulating the physical hows and whys of the world we exist in? A pretty good starting point might be to learn about the default setting for everything Earthlythe state of stillness. But go to any "physics" textbook or encyclopedia and look up stillness. Youll find nothing. Think of it! Every act, every deed, every movement, our every experience- of- being starts from, and is measured against, a state of stillness. "Physics" is supposed to be about understanding the physical facts of our lives. And yet the keepers of the Big Book of "physics" majestically ignore this basic subject. What ought to be on page one of chapter one is simply nowhere to be found. Its like a catechism that doesnt include any description of God. Good Grief! How curious. How quaint. How dumb.

The state of stillness has been appreciated by real humans forever. This appreciation was the root of the mans early belief in a stationary Earth as the center of the universe, most famously articulated by good old Aristotle. Then thinkers-- like Aristarchus of Samos-- questioned that belief as early as 200 B.C. But such thinking was just a novelty-- until Copernicus took it to the next level, working out the truth about our Suncentered local universe and publishing a detailed mathematically verifiable heliocentric model in 1543. Many years later Kepler came along and improved on Copernicus. Then Galileo and Newton added their own unique endorsements, and finally, inch by inch, the world came to accept and understand that Earth is not in fact stationarybut is constantly movinglike a mother. She orbits the Sun at about 66,000 MPH, all the time rotating 365 times per solar orbit! This process whereby heliocentrism became accepted knowledge is called the Copernican Revolution-- and is regarded as having wound down about 1650. By then the worlds smart people had all come to accept and acknowledge as scientific fact that the Sun is the Big Boss of our quiet little neighborhood of the Universethat Earth is merely a bit playerand that day and night are the result of OUR (Earths) turning.

But was that in fact the logical end of the Copernican Revolution? What about the quality of Earthly Stillness that had fueled the historical (Aristotlean) belief that Earth was the stable center of the universe? What was Earths true naturewas she flighty or sedate? How could smart people possibly ignore the need to reconcile those two conflicting perceptions of Mother Earth? The Copernican Revolution wasnt really over until someone solved this Copernican Enigmathis flighty Earth vs stodgy Earth contradiction. This was a whole new Puzzling Puzzler.

Yes--accepting heliocentrism was a major advance toward knowing the truth about this place we live in, but was a crossroad, not the destination. The elephant in the room was the elegantly basic, natural Earthly state of stillness. As soon as you accepted Copernicus model, the next logical step was to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory Earthsthe stodgy, serene and still one, and the one flying and spinning through space like a heart-stopping carnival ride.

WISHFUL THINKING

The end of the Copernican Revolution was a crucial stage in the advancement of knowledge. Intellectual progress hung in the balance. It was one in a series of crunch times by which the history of intellectual evolution is marked. It was a time to pause, take some deep breaths, and ponder, reflect and get re-oriented. Instead, the pooh-bahs of "physics" decided to disown and discredit and denounce pondering as a scientific tool. And the first blunder of that misguided revisionism was the way they dealt with the Copernican enigma. Incredibly, they swept it away with a crude broom-- a religioustype dogma. They dealt with the annoyance of the Copernican Enigma not with Real Thinking, but with Wishful Thinking. You can reconstruct their twisted thought process from the stark record of their decisions. OK, they told themselves, Earths flying and spinning personality were not to be argued. Stage one of the revision was to simply ignore the elephant sitting in the middle of the classroomthe fact that as an orbiter of the Sun Earth was flying through space at about 66,000 MPH. If that travel was anything at all like terrestrial travel, the dynamic forces of a mass like

Earth traveling at that kind of velocity would quickly destroy the Earth. She would disintegrate. So the first thing they had to do was to totally ignore the big motion, and to henceforth think only of the relatively tiny, incidental motion; Earth's daily rotation. Putting Earth's 66,000 MPH flight out of mind, they proceeded to decide that the serenity of Earth had merely been a beliefa perception, so they simply needed to un-believe any and all empirical data indicating a serene Earth. How to convince themselves and others that the stillness of a quiet pool of water was only an illusion? Easy: all they had to do was perform a sort of mass-hypnosis, to join hands and believe it away. They had believed it into their culture. They could believe it out. The new belief-fact was that if you were smart enough you could spot some tell-tale sign, some Earthly manifestation of Earths flighty, carnival-ride side. Since ponds APPEAR to be still, the manifestations of Earth's rotating are obviously muted down, filtered somehow, muffled, camouflaged They are way to subtle for the unwashed, unschooled masses to detect. It would take advanced and superior thinking to identify themprobably something non-intuitive. Manifestations were out there. They had to be, By God! But the only ones with any chance of identifying them were the non-intuitive elite. Voila! They wished it, assumed it, and willed it into life.

So here mankind was at a historic crossroads on the pursuit of truth-- and the leaders all rushed down the wrong road. Yee-haw!

The post-Copernican battle-cry was, All of you NON-INTUITIVE ELITE GUYS get busy and find Earthly proof of Earths rotationbecause it has GOT to be here someplace. The opinion-makers sold it, and sold it good. Way to go, guys! All of your focus, all of your resources went racing down the Wrong Road. Which is how a major infection began to grow in the body of "physics", and why350 years after man learned the truth about our Solar System-- the worlds elite thinkers are still lost on this subject. No one has yet found that elusive manifestation of the flighty Earth not a rational, physical one-- but that hasnt ever bothered the "physics" poohbahs. Oh, no. 200 years after the end of the Copernican Revolution, in the mid 1850s, the worlds smart people were still looking around for that elusive dynamical (non-astronomical) evidence of Earths rotation. There is no record of their belief ever shaking, or of anyone standing up and saying, Hey, guys, maybe weve been on the Wrong Road all this time. Maybe we ought to go back to that crossroad and start fresh on that Copernican Enigma. But,no. That never happened. Thats the kind of intellectual housecleaning that makes for progress. Thats what the original Copernican Revolution was all about. But instead of relaxing their resistance to such periodic re-thinking in that enlightened period, that resistance hardened, then petrified. They had been traveling down that

road too many miles, for too many years, to even permit the smallest doubt that they might have made a wrong turn. They were committed. They had long since merely believedgoddammit they KNEW-- there was dynamic rotational evidence to be found, somewhere, right there in front of them. But the years went by, and still no evidence turned up. But they kept preaching it, and believing it. And as time went by, they got testier and testier. They became shorter and snappier with anybody who dared to question their beliefs. But in the wee hours of the night, they had to occasionally wake suddenly in a sweat, having had a horrible nightmarethat their beliefs might somehow, in some small way, be flawed. Unacceptable! Get away, Satan! And so I am surmising that the atmosphere was getting a little desperate. Such was the stage of modern science when an ambitious Frenchman, Leon Foucault, struck up the band and announced to the world that the search was overhe had discovered the Holy Grailthe dynamic rotational proof everyone had been so diligently seeking. He served up a pseudo-scientific soup to the smart people, who bought it, swallowed it, smiled, complimented the chef, leaned back and patted their tummies, and took a nap. And thats where the modern science on that subject has been stuck ever since. Foucault saw that different points on the surface of a rotating sphere (like Earth) will have different linear velocities in relation to neighbor beings like stars, and hypothesized that those sphere-surface velocities ought to manifest themselvesto a smart enough person. Foucault promoted a swinging pendulum as precisely such a manifester. As far as the science establishment was concerned, the case was closed. This garbage has been revered by scientists ever since. If anyone noticed that this was a tawdry and half-assed way to deal with the Copernican Enigma, nobody spoke up. Or if they did they were hooted down, shamed and shunned into silence. Until now. Until I came along. I am the perfect storm the scientific elite never imagined was possible. I am a mortally intrepid skeptical inquirer. But, lest I bore you, let's liven things up. Let's bring out something sexy on stage. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS! Here now, merely 350 years after smart people ought to have demanded it, I am about to help you

reconcile the two apparently conflicting Earth personalities. To point out how simple it is that:

is perfectly compatible with

Earths flighty & serene personas are not mutually exclusive. There is no need to twist, convolute, lie, imagine, pervert and cheat (like Leon Foucault and his cult). Peace, Brother. Earth is in fact an inertial environment. Earthly Serenity is NOT just a primitive illusion. Serenity is a fact of life. (In fact, as Ill expand on later, serenity is one of the most basic facts which any true Laws of Motion ought to include

and explain.) All you need is a brain-- and the courage to use it just an itty bitty bit-- to perfectly reconcile the flighty and the serene.

Heres the deal: the Laws of Motion in Space are entirely different than The Laws of Motion Within a Gravitational Field (like Earth). All movement here in Earth is the result of the application of energy, and every rearrangement of Earths particles can be told as an energy story-with a start, an end, and a chronological order. In Earth, all movement represents change (acceleration), in contrast to the natural status quo. On the other hand, Earth's movements in space are NOT the result of the application of ANY energy. This is because the workings of the planets in our solar system do not represent a rearrangement, a change, or any contrast with the natural status quo. Those workings represent the solar systems serenityits equilibrium, its same-ness, its stillness. When Earth and Jupiter orbit and rotate they are merely maintaining their ordered serenity. They are NOT changing. Their movements accelerate nothing. They are (somewhat) like components of a watch movement. Individual watch components move in perfect harmony, so that the machine represents a wholeness. But: a watch is a consumer of energy. The systematic dynamics of the individual bodies in our solar system is not. Our solar system operates by means of perpetual, nonenergy-driven, non-energy-consuming motion. This is natural Spacemotionsomething Earthlings do not experience in their primitive Earthling lives here inside Earth's gravitational field. In Earth, the tiniest little movement represents disruption /change. Our local Solar Systemby definitionis a ballet of gravitational fields operating in equilibrium on the stage called Space. So what an astronomer sees as movement within our orderly little solar system is not change, but rather samenessperpetually repetitive self-

sustaining motion. Just because Earth-motion represents change does not mean that Space-motion represents change. Yes, yes: Earth flies and spins like a mother. But in the context of the orderliness of our galaxy, that is the Space counterpart of Earthly stillness. Accept it. Get your mind around that. But dont ask your local "physicist" to understand it. You'd have a better chance of teaching your puppy the Gettysburg Address. A physicist is smart in some ways, dumb in others.

Now Hear This: Earths flightiness and serenity are both true.
Both facts of life. Recognize it. Appreciate it. Accept it. Marvel at it. Enjoy.

WOW!

BIG BLOW TORCH

The Sun is very hot. Space is very cold. Without the heat that radiates to Earth from the Sun, Earth would be an uninhabitable icy ball. Think Antarctica on steroids. The North and South Poles give us a clue as to Space: it is Cold & dark. That is one of 2 major constants involved in the Earth-surface weather we happen to be experiencing at any given moment. The other is that a blast of solar heat , centering near the Equator, is constantly moving across Earths surface from East to West at a rate of 1 (1/360th of Earths circumference) every 4 minutes. So there is a constant competition going on within Earths atmosphere, and the process creates a fascinating piece of natural choreography. Space keeps trying to freeze us, from all directions. The Sun keeps trying to blow torch us, from a single direction. Earths spheriosity dictates that the Suns influence is greatest at the equator, weakest at the poles. And of course the tempo for the dance is the rate of Earths rotation.

Wherever the Suns rays reach, they try to convert cold to hot. And as soon as the heat of the Suns rays go on their way, the cold of Space immediately rushes back in to try and reclaim the field. This competition is played out as changes in the atmospheric pressure. Hot air is low pressure. Cold air is high pressure. In the competition between hot and cold, pressure translates into strength, or forcefulness. Cold air pushes hot air out of the way. The observation that hot air rises is true, but misses the point of the basic principle involved. Cold gases move like water and other liquids, which seek their own levels. To cold air, a pocket of hot air is a space it needs to fill. This is merely the spherical nature of Gravity at work. It is Gravity which causes heavy, cold air to stake claim to the lowest level, and to displace any light, hot air in its way. Gravity sorts all mattersolids, liquids and gases-- based on density. The heaviest stuff tends to end up at the bottom of a pond (or Earths atmosphere). Stand beside a highway as the big semis careen by you. Feel the shock waves of the wind they stir up as they roar by. See how the weeds whip aroundthe dust and candy wrappers jump, sail and whirl around. That is how the Suns heat affects Earths atmosphere. A big semi roaring by you dramatically alters the atmospheric pressure. So does the heat of the Sun. When the air over the Equator is heated up, its pressure is lowered. Picture the radiant heat from the Sun as a big stationary blow torch aimed at our Earth. As Earth rotates Eastward, she is constantly exposing cooled-off surface air to the blow torch. And any surface air that is heated up is guaranteed of one thing: it is going to be travelling. The weakness of its altered pressure state means that the cooler adjacent air will naturally be seeking to claim that patch of the Earths surface and occupy it, pushing the weaker hot air out of the way. Heat disturbs the surface atmosphere of Earth very much like a speeding boat disturbs a lake. Its all Fluid Dynamics.

ButbutbutBut EVERYBODY knows that the Coriolis

Effect is a big part of our Earths weather system. Well, yes and no. Yes, everybody believes this is true. Because Physicists are extremely smart and careful people, and every one of them KNOWS that there is a Coriolis Effect upon terrestrial air movements. And the sign painter hired to put up this sign was a sign expert, wasnt he? And didnt he check everything twice? And didnt three or four people from the customers staff check it out after it went up and OK it before they paid for it? Well, yes, of course. But. just because somebody who is supposed to be an expert KNOWS something to be true is no guarantee that it is true.

We dont always see what we think we see. And the truth we etch into our minds isnt always true. Thats why wisdom and questioning go hand in hand. No self-respecting TV Weather Man (or Damsel) can get through a single broadcastespecially during hurricane season--without talking about the Coriolis Effect. From the cradle they have been taught that circular air movements are affected by the different space-speeds of different Earth-latitudes. They would bet anything they own or ever hope to own on it. They know it in the marrow of their college-educated bones. Of course its just bunk. Pretentious nonsense inherited from Science-doms NobilityThe Physicists (trumpets and drums!)

Suppose I picked up an old 172mm Artillery piece at my local Army-surplus store, and decided to one-up the teen-aged boys in the neighborhood on the 4th of July by squeezing off a round from my back yard. And since theres a car dealer about 20 miles north of my house whose TV ads irritate the hell out of me, Ill plot his car lot as my target. Lets see. How should I compensate for the Eastward linear velocity Ill lose as my artillery round flies 20 miles north? Lets use our heads. Q: Now, if there is no local physical manifestation of the space-speed of my back yard, and no local physical manifestation of the space-speed of the car lot 20 miles north of here, how in the name of Dick Tracy can there be any physical effect from comparing or contrasting those two space-speeds? A: There cant be. There isnt. Nebber hoppen, GI. The physical value of Earths eastward rotation at the gun placement is 0. The physical value of the Earths eastward rotation at the latitude of the car dealer / target sight is 0. Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt the sum of 0-00? Huh? Whats so cotton pickin hard here? Dear Meteorologist: The Physicists have been blowing smoke up your ass all of your professional life. In reality, there are absolutely NO physical terrestrial ramifications of the space speeds of Earthly latitudes. So get Coriolis Effect out of your mind and out of your vocabulary. To explain everything formerly explained with the Coriolis Effect, find scientifically accurate replacements within the structure of Gravity-based Fluid Dynamics. Hint: key in on vortices and reverse-vortices before next storm season. Hint #2: dont just swallow truths given to you by others. Establish a routine of independently checking information for yourself before you etch it permanently into your brain.

STARTING FROM SCRATCH

ISN'T "physics".........supposed to be
about how things actually work? Shouldn't "physics" be where any curious person should be able to find a basic guide book for Life On Earth? Well, that is certainly the conventional wisdomand certainly was a view I once shared. Reverence for Science is part of the fabric of Western Civilization. We are taught that if we are lost or feel in danger, look for a friendly policeman. And if we are curious about the physical realm of our human existence, we should consult with our friendly local "physicist". At this relatively late day in human development, there is absolutely no reason for any curious person to be in the dark, or to be confused about the elementary facts of life on planet Earth. A clear set of basic start-up Physical Facts of Life should be readily available. They ought to be right there in Chapter One of every "physics" 101 textbook. The "physics" Bible should include a safe and sound learning foundation for curious people. They should be able to find the basics all nicely laid out for them, so they can scribble them on post-it notes or on their shirt sleeves to take with

them, as reference points for all their subsequent journeys into every field of inquiry based in our physical world. Ha, Ha!

Have you ever been driving West down an interstate highway and wondered how Earth's rotation affects our terrestrial travels? I mean, if Earth is spinning Eastward at, say, 500 MPH under our wheels, and we're heading West at 80 MPH, how does that all come together? What the heck is really going on here? Which is one way of posing the question:

WHY DONT WE FEEL THE EARTH MOVE OR DO WE??

This is not an idle little question. It goes to the very heart of a basic practical understanding of human existence. What kind of place is this planet we call Home? We accept the fact the Sun is the center of a systematically moving arrangement of Gravity fields, and that Earth is one of those Gravity Fields, which we call planets. If you were making a movie about Earth, you could start from out in space, giving a view of the whole Solar System, and then gradually zoom in on Earth. Or you could start with a microscopic view of something tiny, and then zoom out, backing away, until you had our entire planet, and then our entire solar system, in sight. Either one would serve as an introductionan orientation-- to the rudimentary basics of our physical lives. And wouldn't you expect those basics to include the practical, down-toEarth, local, every-day effects on our existence of Earth's movement patterns within the Solar System? I did--until about 15 years ago, when I wandered into the "physics" field looking for some simple, basic answers. Instead, I have learned that physicists do not value simple, basic answers. They are not beacons of Truththey are agenda-driven liars, phonies, hypocrites. They are not kind to strangersthey are like a snotty turf-protecting clique of teen-aged girls. Physicists have never bothered to bring the basic facts of life here in Earth into focus. Part of a physicist's shtick is to explain ordinary events in a totally

unintelligible way. Look around on the internet for official explanations from scientists as to basic questions like :

Why Dont We Feel The Earth Move?.

Youll find dozens of different answers, (none of them accurate, understandable or believable). For this or any similar questions as to the basic physical facts of life, you will face a stark choice. If you want any practical physical Truths, you're on your own. You'll find no such information in the authorized "physics" library. Looking for basic, practical facts of life in a Physics text is like walking down a highway searching the ditches for a part you need after your car has just broken down. I'd suggest that you take advantage of the years of slogging I've put in. If you're at all curious about the basic physical facts of life here in Earth, read on. (Unless you don't care all that much about the truth, or are perhaps a glutton for punishment, and would rather do it yourself.)
Using my work as a solid starting point, and with a minimal

intellectual investment, anybody really interested in that question --about feeling Earth move-- can readily work out an answer which is accurate, understandable and believable. Here's what they'd realize: EARTH'S PLANETARY MOTIONS MAY NOT BE SENSED WITHIN EARTH'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD... BECAUSE : EARTHS PLANETARY MOVEMENTS THROUGH SPACE ARE: UNRESISTED

WHICH MEANS THAT EARTH'S PLANETARY MOTIONS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO ANY KINETIC ENERGY. WHICH MEANS THAT THERE IS NO TERRESTRIAL DYNAMIC EVIDENCE OF EARTH'S PLANETARY MOTIONS. There. And when they understand WHY we dont feel Earth move, then they'll have learned one of the most basic Facts of Life. And so-- as they go about their own particular life's journey of discovery-- they can take along some basic facts that they can always refer back to, as needed. Such as: an appreciation of the marvelous way that Earths planetary motions do not (and can not) influence ANY terrestrial activity, including:

high-tailing it down their local interstate in their hot rod, (short or long range) artillery, rocketry, space shuttle launches, weather systems & (last but not least) Foucaults Fantastic Pendulum.

THE HOLY GRAIL

From 1650 forward, the fashionable Earth paradigm had two brand new components, one central, one corollary. The central component was the accepted fact that Earth is a planet which systematically orbits the Sun, while rotating. The corollary was the accepted fact that terrestrial dynamic evidence of Earth's rotation was here for the finding. Western Science-dom henceforward possessed both a new Earth-view, and a new Holy Grail. The quest was afoot! Get out there and find dynamical proof of Earth's rotation! Unimaginable Prizes to the Winner! HURRY! Fame, Glory, Adulation Await!

OR DID IT???
HOLD UP THERE, PILGRIM!

Yes, Copernicus' discoveries demanded a paradigm shift in the scientific perception of Earth. Too bad that THINKING had been outlawed right then. Tacking on the existence of dynamical terrestrial proof of Earth's rotation was a paradigm lurch, not a shift. A stretch, not a reasoned application. Jamming on a wrong-size shoe because they loved its looks. A goof. Classical "physics" infected by a classic case of oversteering.

Where the hell in any of Copernicus' discoveries does it say that Earth is not a stable environment? Nowhere. Where the hell in any of the scientific advances in the 450 years since Copernicusthe vastly improved technology, the vastly improved astronomy, the vastly improved processing aids (computers) is there any evidence that Earth's stability is any different than as Aristotle perceived it?

Today's linear accelerometers can detect it when a baby mouse takes a baby hop. There are some fabulously sensitive dynamic sensors available today. But have you noticed that the most sophisticated accelerometers cannot detect Earth's eastward rotation? Or that today's most sophisticated seismometers cannot detect any dynamical impulses from Earth's rotation?

Steadfast refusal to revise beliefs when confronted with overwhelming contradicting evidence is insanity.

SANITY
Intellectual progress is a two-part process:

1) 2)

learning new stuff & applying that new stuff.

Q: Is there anything inherent in the accurate perception of Earth's role in the Solar System which means that Earthly stillness is an illusion?

A: No.

Sit beside still water and watch a sunrise. You see the changing Sun / Earth relationship. You feel a stable Earth beneath you, and you see the still water of the reflecting pool.

Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler gave us some great clues for understanding still water on a mature and sophisticated level. The problem was, the process of contemplation, of meticulous, patient reflection had become an accidental casualty -collateral damage as it were-- of the Copernican Revolution.

And so, for 350 years the true meaning of Earth's astronomical self has eluded Science.

Irrational transference is the result of ignorance-- and is an everyday occurrence, regrettably. Leon Foucault and his scientific soul-mates assumed that terrestrial "physics" and space "physics" are analogous. They were happy to transfer what they thought they knew about terrestrial motion to ANY motion, any time, anywhere. Terrestrial "physics" had taught them that the way things behaved here in Earth could all be broken down into repeatable mathematical formulae. So you could scientifically (i.e.:mathematically) express your physical observations of the movements of solid objects. For expressing the energy needed to make a body rotate, for instance, there was the concept of moment of inertia. And there was a simple formula for figuring the moment of inertia of any given rotating object /body:

I = mr

So when Foucault saw this:

..he knew, as a fashionably scientific scientist, that the scientific way to understand this still water was that -despite appearances-- this pool was part of a rotating body. A simpleton would think the stillness of the water in a pool signified that Earth was not a rotating body. But a really scientific scientist like Foucault had superior knowledge. He knew that because Earth rotates, every bit of it, including this little pool, is rotating, and therefore every drop of water in that pool has its own kinetic energy, its very own rotationderived moment of inertia. For 350 years this view has passed for science. If you wanted to pass any "physics" course, you have had to know this.

If

you wrote a paper and maintained that-- although

astronomy shows Earth to be a rotating body-- the stillness of an Earthly reflecting pool shows that Earth's moment of inertia (in Space) is nil:

I= 0r , or stated more purely: I=0

...you'd not only be flunkedyou'd be insulted, ridiculed, persecuted, abused, laughed at, maybe even punched and peed upon.

But every time the navigation officer on a modern submarine uses his boat's Inertial Navigation System, he is using that formula. He is relying on the principle that Earth is an inertial arena (frame of reference) for all Earthly particles (in spite of Earth's travels in space).

Which is perfectly symmetrical with everything we know about OUR Earth and the Solar System's Earth. Motion in Space and in Earth are different. Sir Isaac could have saved the world a lot of grief by so noting. But he didn't. As it is taught to every student, Newton's 1st Law of Motion is bad science. The only place a state of rest --as understood by Earthlingsexists is in a gravity field like Earth. The only place motion naturally follows a straight line is in Gravityfree space. An orbiting planet is at rest although it is whistling through space while rotating. Newton's 1st Law of Motion is in direct conflict with reality. So "physicists" in 2009 are still confused about the basics of what makes our little planet tick. They are befuddled about what happens to an arrow shot straight up in a theoretical big vacuum tube on Earth's surface. They are befogged about Why We Don't Fee;l Earth Move. They are bedazzled about the potential effect of Earth's rotationallatitude-based-linear-velocities on trajectories of low-flying (sub-orbital) Earthly objects like artillery, airplanes and rockets. They have never recognized the fact that Inertia in Space and in Earth are different concepts. They know not that: Inertia in Space means all post-launch motion is free,

nor that: Inertia in Earth means NO motionnot one teeny, weeny baby mouse hop--is free.

A glass of water is in fact at rest in relation to Earth's axis of rotation. If in doubt, place the latest, most sensitive linear accelerometer on the table next to the glass of water. Unless there's an earthquake, or you're living next to some railroad tracks, the accelerometer and the glass of water will both register their natural stillness.

In a gravitational field like Earth, the constant (level rate of angular displacement) rotation of an object / body encounters constant resistance. That constant resistance is the object's weight. Its weight is the ratio of the object's mass to Earth's mass. Constant rotation isn't constant, literally. Each degree of angular displacement relative to its axis is resisted by Earth's Gravity. So each degree of angular displacement must be purchased with an expenditure (pulse) of energy. In a gravitational field, there is no such thing as perpetual motion, which would be free motion, which would be unresisted motion. So any kinetic energy which a constantly rotating terrestrial object possesses has been previously bought and paid for with easily traceable energy. Kinetic energy is part of the energy biography of the object. Kinetic energy has a short shelf life. In order for an object to remain in a state of rotation, its kinetic energy must be continually replenished. If you cut off the energy flow, as by flipping the switch on an electric motor, then you have in effect established a limit, or end time, for the object's rotating (by non-replenishing the kinetic energy).

Not so for motion in space. Once an object (like Earth) has been placed in motion through Space ( e.g.: safely orbiting while rotating) it is in a state of perpetual (free) motion. So, in the context of the solar system, Earth's rotation isn't change. When we observe Earth to be orbiting and rotating our instinct is to think we are seeing change. But we mistake placidity for disturbance. We make the common, but entirely avoidable, error of transference. But a true scientist would always carefully study the context or environment for his / her observations. When we go to bed at night we are in fact observing Earth's equilibrium in our Solar System. Earth's angular velocity @ her rotational axis does not represent change. Since space literally means nothingness, nothing resists the continuation of Earth's rotation. It has a lifetime pass to ride free. Nothing we know about the way kinetic energy works in terrestrial motion transfers to space motion. Nothing Coriolis taught the world about work and kinetic energy applies to space motionsuch as Earth's rotation.

So the fundamental formula about a rotating object's moment of inertia applies to terrestrial motion, but not to space motion. And since the m(mass) in the I (moment of inertia) actually stands for the product of mass times Gravity (local resistance in that motion environment) then once an object has been launched or set or put in space motion, it thenceforth encounters no resistance. No resistance, no effective mass. For an object already orbiting or rotating in space, I = 0r simply put; 0) (or,

It all just means that Nature is even cooler than we thought. Here is Earth rocketing and spinning through space, while

providing a safe and serene (inertial) environment for us little old humans. Wow!

It probably doesn't really matter now how or why Science screwed up the Copernicus-generated paradigm shift. You are absolutely welcome to a different theory than mine. The point is that they screwed it up. That is not debatable. That's a fact. And each new generation of scientists for the last 350 years has proudly (arrogantly?) maintained the tradition. It's a sordid tale of generation after generation of intellectual inbreeding. Enough already. Desist!

There is just a wee difference between Space and Earth, between free and expensive, between nothingness and somethingness, between material and immaterial, between mortal and immortal, between black and white, between a vacuum and a rock.

The keepers of the Official Big Book of Science owe the world a BIG apology.

Turtles are Smarter

Turtles know that to get somewhere (else) they point themselves in the proper direction and put one foot in front of another until they arrive. Transit is the process of following a route between two points. To get to a distant mountain you simply get your bearings, aim for the mountain, and apply enough lateral force to get you there. It is a beautifully simple problem of angles and energy. "Physicists", on the other hand, contend its more complicated than that. They ridicule the turtle's perspective as ignorant, unsophisticated intuitive. The ultimate put-down a "physicist" can use is to call an idea merely intuitive. For the physicist, non-intuitive thinking is the cats pajamas. For instance: "physicists" believe that Earths rotation is a

factor in transportation. This is the unadorned gist of a myth which dates back to 1850, when a Frenchman named Leon Foucault hatched it. It is still mouthed reverently in words like this: Any object moving above the earth with constant space velocity is deflected relative to the surface of the rotating earth. In other words, the natural direction of terrestrial motion is a curve! In all of recorded history, there is no record that any turtle, not even a hatchling, has ever been taken in by Foucault. But somehow he has managed to hoodwink 100% of the card-carrying physicists. Life is strange, and much is happenstance. As it happens, Sir Isaac Newton had long been dead before Foucault came along. Otherwise, surely Foucault would have been corrected before the ink had dried on his absurd hypothesis. Have you ever heard it said that someone was too smart for his own good? So it is with our friends the "physicists. To understand the true meaning of Foucault is to reject him. "Physicists" think they understand him, which is an indictment of the sad state of analytical thinking in that particular branch of science. A turtle may not do quadratic equations in his head while engaging in sweaty romance with his girlfriend, but he knows the basic facts of transportation. "Physicists", on the other hand, just seem, by nature, compelled to seek ecstasy in confusion. They cannot help themselves. That said, I do not believe that it is OK for them to teach my children that the nature of motion is to curve. If they want to believe that, fine, but let them practice it in private. And let them issue public apologies to every student who ever lost points on a test for not perfectly reciting back the Foucault dogma. And the next time youre at a cocktail party and find yourself belly to belly with a "physicist", just look him in the eye and ask him, Well, Siegfried, how does it feel to be dumber than a turtle? If youre not a "physicist", God Bless You. Youre not confused by any of this, so you wont need to read on. Keep it simple. Enjoy life. Avoid confusion. Be happy.

P.S. When you tell Siegfried he's dumber than a turtle, that'll probably be the end of that chit-chat. But there is 1 chance in 1,000 that Siegfried will be man enough to engage youto dare you to explain yourself. Don't expect that to happen. But just in case, you'll need to be ready to roll. Here's one suggestion for how to move the discussion ahead. Here's a little script you can follow: Well, sir, you may have contempt for turtles, Aristotle and all other intuitives, but you believe in the teachings of NASA, dont you? It is proven fact that the Earth rotates beneath the orbital plane of a usual NASA shuttle mission. Everybody has seen NASA's big- screen -unfolded- globe -Earthmap, and the way it shows us a shuttle's ground track --which always seems to drift westward (as Earth in reality rotates Eastward). OK, then heres a fun little puzzler for you:

Q:

At precisely what point in the chronology of the usual space shuttle mission does the shuttle cease to participate in Earths rotation?
OK. The likely candidates for correct answer would appear to be: 1) at liftoff, 2) during ascension, 3) at the moment of orbital insertion . Lets look at those stages one at a time. OK?

A:

And what are we looking for? Why, some subtle but undeniable anomaly. Some variation in the shuttle /Earth relationship that isn't accounted for. Some ballistic quirk or glitch that isn't directly traceable to meteorology, aerodynamics, propellant burn, nozzle angle and so forth. Some behavior that is fundamentally incompatible with the serene and stable Earth we observe and experience all our lives (the same one that tells the Inertial Navigation Systems of the Navys most advanced submarines that Earths environment is a perfectly stable zero point).

At Liftoff? Good Grief No. Remember, we are looking for a horizontal boost vs Earth's rotating surface. Surely it makes no sense to suspect that the Earth's eastward rotation causes any geographic dis-positioning of the rocket at the instant of liftoff . At liftoff, there are hundreds of the very latest tracking, (positioning, locating) devices focused dead center on that big beautiful monster. All of those tracking devices confirm what we see: Initially, the rocket rises straight upas in: no shifting, zigging or zagging in relation to Earth's surface. In your mind's eye, imagine that you're watching a shuttle lift off, and that a still pool of water is just in front of you, beautifully reflecting the sight. Toss a rock into the water. It will plunge into the pool, making splashes and ripples. The same Gravity which pulled the rock down into the pool pulls the splashes down, then the ripples, soon removing any vestiges of the disturbance. The vertical movement of the rocket at liftoff is governed by Earth's Gravityexactly like a rock you toss up into the air. It risesand falls-- in perfect sync with Earth.
A Gravitational field naturally calms, collects and steadies everything from turtles to rockets--in its realm. If this is true, then -- if your aim is true-- you can shoot an arrow straight (orthogonally) up. And if their aim is true, NASA can shoot a rocket straight up. Now Leon Foucault's followers would say that the fact that the rocket rises straight up proves that the boost is already in playthat it is the boost that causes the rocket to rise straight up at liftoff. Which is so stupid it makes my teeth ache. Just hold that thought for a minute, and we'll get back to it.

2) During ascension? As it starts picking up speed NASA starts altering its trajectory, gradually lowering the angle of ascent down toward horizontal. Then, Voila, it reaches escape / orbit velocity. Go back over that process in your mind. Look for an Eastward boost, as in . There is plenty of boost as in: perfect synchronization with Earth's Eastward angular velocity of: 15per hour, 1 every 4 minutes. But that is just keeping pace. Every in the rocket's horizontal velocity vs Earth is accounted forpaid for with propellants bought and paid for by us taxpayers. The ascending rocket's flight path relative to Earth's surface is not affected by the flight of our galaxy, or by the flight of our solar system within our galaxy, or by the orbiting of Earth around our Sun, or by the rotation of Earth around its imaginary axis, or by Ouija boards or runes drawn on rock walls in the Himalayas. The rocket's own ballistics (thrust, aerodynamics, mass, meteorology, etc) completely determine its own movements, horizontal as well as vertical. It is wonderfully simple. At all sub-orbital speeds the rocket keeps in step with Earths rotation-- just like a crawling turtle. Airplanes work exactly the same going West as East, and at all altitudes, and at all latitudes. The same Gravity that becalms and be-stills pools of water resists the rocket's ascension. This is why every millimeter of

forward progress of the rocket during the ascension phase must be purchased with man-made power. There are no unexplained accelerations during the trip up. NASA gets EXACTLY the performance they pay for, not one millimeter more or less. Because throughout the ascension stage, the rocket retains its full Earthweight. One aspect of Earth-weight is to share in all of Earth's planetary motionsincluding her eastward rotation. This is mandatory. Our ingrained concept of here vs there are a hindrance to anyone studying the Physical facts of life in Earth. It is natural and human to think of a B-52 cruising at 40,000 feet as being way, way up there. But in the big picture that B-52 is still here, down below. So is an ICBM or the clouds and the rest of our atmosphere. They are just as much a part of Earth's body as the ground you are standing on right now. Still holding that thought about the boost being the appropriation by the rocket of the magnitude of kinetic energy corresponding with the geographic location of its launch pad? How many minutes does the ascension stage last25? How much of that kinetic energy is still left at the end? Wouldnt the rocket start to use up its Earth-rotation-KE from the instant of liftoff? How fast does it use up that Earth-rotation KE? As the kinetic energy is used up, and as the rockets trajectory becomes horizontal, wouldn't the rocket start slowing downlike someone had tossed out an anchor? So wouldnt the boost actually turn into a DRAG during the elapsed time of the ascension stage? Hmm. Keep holding that thought.

3) OK. How about at insertion into orbit? Let's take a look. Or, better yet, let's see what all the ground and satellite tracking systems see. Look closely at the rocket's ground track during the mission chronologyas projected by NASA onto an Earth map. Whoa! Wait just a doggone minute! Looky there! If you watch very carefully and patiently, you'll see that the straight line projection and the actual course of the shuttle begin to diverge -- precisely at the instant of orbital insertion! Which is precisely the instant when something happens to the astronauts as well. That is the instant when they begin to have an outof-body experience. That is the instant when they become

weightless (lose their Earth-weight). Coincidence?? I don't THINK so!

All of the distinguishing characteristics of this new identity are summarized in the fact thatfrom the instant of orbital insertion-- an orbiting satellite no longer participates in Earths rotation. Orbit is a highly sophisticated kind of motion, unlike anything known on Earth. Many people report having out-of-body-experiences. That is as close to feeling like an astronaut as a civilian will ever get. All sub-orbital movementfrom turtles to B-52s-- is just crawling around in Earth's gravitational field. Shuttles, and shuttle passengers, on the other hand, are different. They are having out-of-this-world (out-of-body) experiences. They are on vacation from Gravity, experiencing something amazing and unique. They are the exceptions which prove the rules for terrestrial motionwhich are all tied to the phenomenon of Earth-weight. Which is all surprisingly simple once you get itthe way real science ought to be. So, Siegfried, where does the boost come into play? The NASA records tell us everything we need to know about the Foucault-based boost notion. Which is: that a rocket remains under the direct control of Earth's (orbiting/rotating) Gravity field from the time every nut and bolt comes out of some mine as ore right up until the precise instant the rocket achieves orbit velocity. And at that very instant the rocket simultaneously SHEDS (as in loses) both its Earth-weight and its Earthly Eastward rotational velocity,-and is in business for itself as a semi-independent heavenly body. Which is when the plotted ground track begins to drift Westward, as Earth rotates Eastward beneath it. Run through that slowly and carefully with Siegfried. Watch him closely. Look into his eyes. Does a light suddenly switch on? Probably not. Don't bet the egg money on any light bulb switching on in Siegfried's mind. The longer he's been exposed to modern "physics", the less likely it is that he is still capable of rational thought. But YOU will know that you laid it out so that a Fifth Grader could understand it. And if Siegfried insists on being dumber than a Fifth Graderor a turtle--, wellthat's on him, not on you.

NOW I KNOW MY A B C'S

OK, you want to know about EVERYTHING. Here's where I'd start: with NOTHING. Close your eyes and use your mind's eye and focus real hard on the total absence of STUFF. No Earth, no planets, no Sun, no anything. Just emptiness. After a while you'll see how limited our little human minds areeven yours. Even the very best empty Space you can picture has a viewing pointfrom which your consciousness is visualizing. And a viewing point is a place--a Something, as opposed to a Nothing. How's that for a starting point, huh, Buckaroo? Well, sir, Nature is like that. She's a doozy! My point is that our minds are no matchnot even closefor Nature. Nature's mind is like a sweetly humming thought machine that analyzes things spherically (from all angles instantaneously), and never coughs, sputters or much less breaks down. The human mind, on the other hand, is a primitive machine, which at its very best may hum in spurts, during which it can perform some rudimentary single- dimensional analysis. It is prone to shorts, misfires, glitches, brownouts and breakdowns. So: when we're looking at the Universe, we need to never forget that we are Earthlings. We're like a school of little bug-eyed goldfish in a little goldfish bowl sitting on the window-ledge of an apartment in New York City. We have tiny minds, and limited vantage points, and very limited life experiences to fall back on. The absolute- tops -very- best- A+ BlueRibbon level we can ever, ever hope for is to (accurately) grasp bits and pieces of how Nature works. If you went to the library and spent a couple of weeks sleuthing around, here is what you'd generate as far as the basic setup we Earthlings have inherited a stake in: 1) Space. The context, or setting,for Everything (a.k.a: the Universe) is: Nothing. It is the stage where Nature puts on the play of our Reality.

2)

Matter. We can lump together all of the stuff that we are capable of observing on that stage and simply call it Matter. If we keep our eyes open and our wits sharp, we'll eventually catch on to some of the basic traits of matter,such as: A. Gravity. All matter has a mutual attraction for other matter. Which leads to... clumps, which grow up to become... Spheres B. Motion. All Spheres are always moving through Space.

C. Orbit-Rotation: All the spheres we see at night, all of the Heavenly Bodies constantly perform a highly specialized kind of motion-- orbiting while rotating. Nature has never really gotten the recognition she deserves for coming up with the idea of Orbit. It is a sad state of affairs that our science books don't even have the right words to explain how Orbit works, such as:

Earth-motion: what Earthlings experience all their lives. Motion in a totally Gravity-controlled world, where the benchmark status (default setting) is stillness. Because all Earth-motion is naturally resisted by Earth-Gravity, every millimeter of horizontal Earthmotion is change--the result of work.

Space-motion: fundamentally different than Earth-motion. Something only heavenly bodies (such as suns, planets, satellites and astronauts) experience. Pure and unadulterated freedom from resistance-- or drag- or deflection of any kind. Once set in Space-

motion, a body will naturally keep moving at the same rate and in the same direction. Since there is no resistance to be overcome, this motion doesn't useor depleteany energy. The perpetuation of Space-motion is NOT change, & does NOT represent work being done.

Orbit-Rotation-motion: An advanced, very sophisticated kind of space-motion.

Same-ing: is the natural perpetuation of the existing state of affairs. There are different types of sameing: Earth-same-ing is what Earthly objects do naturally--when they are not messed with. (Earth-same-ing is perpetual stillness.)

Space-same-ing is what a heavenly body does it is not messed with (Space-same-ing is perpetual continuation)

when

Orbital-same-ing is what a heavenly body does when it is in orbit around a larger body. A marvelously clever variety of space-same-ing

Orbit is absolutely essentialnot just to our Solar System, but to our Universe. What it amounts to is a very, very special relationship a

particular lesser sphere enjoys with a particular larger sphere. It is a peace treaty by which the lesser sphere receives permanent immunity from being captured by the Gravity of the larger sphere. The primitive relationship between any two heavenly bodies is one of dominance / submission, or hunter ' hunted. Which, when carried to its logical conclusion, leads to the Gravity of the larger body capturing the smaller, and appropriating its matter into its own: Space cannibalism Orbit is a much more advanced, more civilized relationship. Orbit is a sort of Treaty which replaces competition, or war, with a perpetual state of peaceful co-existence. Every orbit is different, and involves variations of the basic ingredients: the relative masses of the two bodies, their distance apart, the 3-dimensional plotting of the path, the set orbital speed, angle and direction, and the rotational speed, angle and direction.

Orbit is a RELATIONSHIP of Lasting Peaceful Co-existence between two heavenly bodies. It is what lets Earth exist as an (almost) independent heavenly body. She moves through Space at a constant, noninterfered-with speed, while rotating at a constant, non-interferedwith rate, but along a path that is interfered within fact was set up and is meticulously maintained by-- the micro- gravity component of its very special orbit relationship with the Sun. The precise level of intensity of Gravitational attraction needed to precisely steer a lesser body along an orbital path around a larger

body is called micro-gravity. We know it when we see it. Or, rather, when we see a body or object in a state of orbit, we know that it is being steered by micro gravity It is much weaker than the Gravity intensity we Earthlings are used to (which translates into everything having an assigned weighta heaviness relative to the REST of our sphere). The Earth vs Sun Micro-gravity attraction, on the other hand, is just strong enough to alter Earth's path by a little less than 1 per day (since Earth makes a 360 circle in 365 days). Which is not strong enough to alter Earth's speed, up or down. Which is just as well. If she slowed down, Earth would soon find herself being the Sun's breakfast. And if she speeded up she would soon find herself heading off into deep, dark space, away from the Sun. Orbit is like that. The more you look into it, the cleverer it turns out to be. Oh, yes. One last little detail about orbit. The Sun happens to be in an orbital relationship-- with our Galaxy-- where it (Sun) is the lesser body. And in that relationship the Sun is sailing even faster through space than Earth is. But because of the nature of Space-sameness, the net effect of the Sun's Space-motion on both the Sun and the Earth is nil. None. Nada. One aspect of an orbital relationship is that the larger body serves as a dependable, solid, still, or same-ing base / reference point for the lesser body. In the lesser body's reality, the larger body is stationary. The larger body's perpetual motion is its same-ness, and represents the lesser body's stillness. Orbital Spacemotion is analogous to Earth-stillness. If that is confusingdon't feel like the Lone Ranger. It has confused some pretty widely respected dudes, like Newton, Einstein and Stephen Hawking, too. And before I forget it, I need to say that those who equate orbital space-motion to Earthly falling haven't properly thought things through. Orbiting is floatingnot falling. When an Earthling falls, he experiences his weight being sucked toward Earth's center of mass (down). A NASA shuttle does experience falling, but only during the re-entry stage. What the shuttle and its cargo experience during orbit is floating. Falling is by definitionthe result of being tugged on. It is one type of movement that takes place in a Gravity environment. Space, by definition is a non-Gravity-- and therefore a non-weight-- environment. So: to be in orbit is to float, not to fall. Might as well get it right. The Sun doesn't feel its Space-motion, and the Earth doesn't feel her Space-motion, and the astronauts on a shuttle orbiting Earth don't feel their Space-motion, except as same-ing (absence of ). Which is precisely what you feel when you stretch out in your hammock. We Earthlings call the same-ness we experience stillness.

I hope you've got all of this. If not, we'll go back over it as many times as we need to . Because there's simply no point in going on until this is all clear to you. Otherwise you'll go off like a driver with a towel over his head.

All of this stuff is essential--part of the background you'll need if you're going to tackle the basic facts of Earthling life with nothing but an Earthling mind.

EARTH: So an intelligent definition of Earth begins with the fact that she is a lesser spherical heavenly body in an orbit relationship with the Sun. (Which means, not just incidentally, that an Earthling naturally doesn't feel the Sun's speed or rotation vs the Galaxy-- nor and this is a major point-- Earth's own speed or rotation vs the Sun.) And the fact that she is spherical shows that she is massy enough to be the proprietor of her own Gravitational Field. Which means, not just incidentally, that Earth's Gravitational field includes-- but certainly

is not limited to-- the hard substances of her surface. As far as Gravity is concerned, the air or atmosphere is just as much a part of Earth's surface as the mountains or the oceans. Even scientists sometimes forget that Gravity works on flying objects exactly as it does on objects in direct contact with the Earth's hard surface. Let's us not ever make that mistake, OK? And since Gravity is in charge, Earth is strictly a Law & Order place. Rule # 1 is Stay Put. Rule # 2 is: All horizontal movement requires the application of sufficient horizontal force to overcome the spherical resistance of Earth-Gravity. And since that resistance is exerted spherically, it is not just incidental, but rather is natural and fundamental, for objects moving horizontally to do so along a geodesic course. Rule #1 and Rule #2 are evident to any Earthling who is capable of observing and thinking. If you dig a hole in your back yard and fill it with water, and then sit down and observe ityou will observe your Earthly pool of water enjoying a perpetual state of perfect, beautiful (spherical) stillness. And if you happen to catch the reflection of the launching of a Space Shuttle there in the glossy surface of your little pool, it will remind you that-- even as it is roaring straight up off the launch pad, and as it goes higher and higher, faster and faster-- that ascending rocket is just as much under the Control of Earth-Gravity as you-- and the water in your beautiful little reflecting pool-- are.

When you can appreciate just what a beautiful phenomenon that

is, you'll have a pretty good insight into the specialness of the place we call Earth. And you'll have arrived at a pretty good starting point for learning about everything else. ______________________________________________________________ _ This is the end of my start-up suggestions to any Earthling who is interested in knowing about everything. Because, just like life, learning is a journey. There is a direct correlation between a traveller's success and his forethought.

The very first thing an intelligent traveler does is to get his / her bearings. Which starts with knowing where the heck you are. Now you know. Nothing you have just read is anything I have discovered, (although a lot of it is at odds with the long-accepted dogma of modern physics). Which, if you stop and think about it, is what heresy always isa new interpretation of old information. So those invested in the current institution of physics will cast aspersions &/or want to see me burned at the stake. So be it. That's on them. And this heresy is on me. That is the blessing and the curse of all heretics. They always mean well, and are driven by a compulsion to improve the intellectual atmosphere, even at the risk of the rack, the dunking pond, and the fiery stake in the town square. My contributionmy sinful heresyis

that I have done some thinking, then some sorting and rearranging of a few basic things man has long known about the basic setup of things in our Universe. It's a journey I've been on for the last fifteen years.

Chapter 5

EARTH AS THE BIGGEST LOSER, OR

WHERE, WHEN & WHY

I = 0r

Q: W hat's the main difference between a scientist and my coon-hound

Whistle-Britches?

A: Whistle-Britches is smartsmart enough to know when he's been

bad.

Good boy, Whistle

Scientists, on the other hand, are not. They have been behaving badly for 350 years, and there's no sign they'll realize itmuch less apologizeany time in yours or my lifetimes. As humans, we have 3 basic needs: water, food and comfort. Knowing the who, what, where and when about ourselves and our world is part of our comfort-seeking nature. Cave men had shamans. Scientists, by definition, are the appointed guardians of physical fact in current Western culture. The Shaman class in all cultures strives mightily to maintain their power vs civilians. Scientist-shamans are no different. They have their own way of projecting an aura of powerful mojo.

About 350 years ago, scientists adopted the modern understanding of the universe and our solar system--and Earth's proper place in that order. Up to then, the in thing to think was that Earth was sitting still- smack dab in the center of everything. Nicolaus Copernicus (14731543) really got the ball rolling. Evidently he was the first one willing and able to do the heavy lifting and slogging to put the astronomical proof of things together. Thus began what's known as The Copernican Revolution, which lasted for about 100 years. That's how long it took for the entrenched belief in an Earth-centered universe to be yanked out by the roots and be officially replaced by Heliocentrism. It was a hard process. Big time paradigm change. It meant putting a whole new context on the work of all the great Thinkers who had come before, such as Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle, the very Father of "physics", had turned out to be way, way off the mark. The mind reels.

But by 1650 the process was complete. Aristotle's Universe was out. The Copernican Universe was in.

Unfortunately, Scientists went overboard. It was a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, Aristotle-style thinking had led to a major miscalculation about the setup of the Universe. But, dammit, he had done the best he could with the data and technology available to him. He didn't deserve to be tarred and feathered and exiled by the science of "physics"which he had after all founded! There was nothing in any of Copernicus' (or Kepler's) revelations to warrant the wholesale discrediting of reflection, thoughtfulness, observation and deductionof everything that comprises good sense.

But that is what happened. From that point on, one of the major tenets of "physics" has been the pooh-poohing of common sense. They have a buzz-word for everything to be despised and rejected as unscientific: they call it intuitiveness. They say it like Russ Limp-paw says liberal*, with curled lips and condescending eyes.*

*(My own theory is that this all stems from the Scientific ego. Scientists have always been a vain bunch. Proud of themselves. Arrogant. But to accept Copernicus would be to admit that for most of their lives they had been just as wrong about the universe as Aristotle. How to shun Aristotle without any remorseany admission of their own fallibility? I think the dissing of intuitiveness was the grease that made it slide together. The headlines could read, BEYOND INTUITIVENESS--SCIENTISTS NOW THINKING ON A HIGHER PLANE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Thereby no apology for centuries of bad science was expectedand certainly none was offered. Redemption without confession. Sweet! So Scientists everywhere could totally Save Facewhich is very high up on a Scientist's list of essential survival gear. )

BANNED IN BOSTON (&EVERYWHERE ELSE)

BUT--BUT--HOLD ON! WAIT A MINUTWE! LOOKEY HERE: that Aristotle's conclusions turned out to be wrong did not mean that his observations were all wrong as well. Imagine that it's the night before Christmas. You've taken the pieces of your little boy's tricycle out of the box, and you're trying to assemble it. You try to use Bolt C where

Bolt E is supposed to go, but it won't fit. Do you automatically conclude that Bolt C is defective and throw it away? No. You keep going through the assembly process. You keep trying to work out how the pieces fit together. Isn't that pretty much the Discovery Process? Always keep in mind the difference between an observation and a conclusion. We've all heard about the blind men examining an elephant. One guy feels the tail and assesses the animal as very much like a rope, and so forth. The mistake was not in assessing the tail. The mistake was in mistaking a limited observation for a complete assessment. Go back 350 years. You have just learned that all your life you have been mistaken in your perception of the Universe. You had everything backwards. You thought Earth was the center, but just found out that Earth is just a tiny bit player. Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. So the way you have been perceiving the Sun-Earth relationship has been wrong. Perceiving the Sun as moving around a stationary Earth was wrong. Earth in fact orbits around a stationary Sun, while rotating. So what you thought was reality was just an illusionor was it?

There was nothing illusionary about the periodic change men had always observed in the Sun-Earth positioning. Copernicus found nothing amiss with that perceptionin fact confirmed it. What Copernicus had told you was that the old explanation interpretation reading-- of that periodic repositioning was wrong.

You had been unscientific in articulating the possibilities. Your observations had had at least two likely evaluations: either the Sun circled stationary Earth daily, ......or Earth rotated 360 degrees relative to the Sun once a day.

But mankindbeing inescapably human-- had for centuries made one of the most human of mistakesthey had selected the most appealing explanation for their observations and called it the ONLY explanation. To improve their understanding of the universe, they needed 1) and 2) . to be more skillful in their astronomical observations,

to be more thoughtful about the interpretation process

So, as a scientist in 1650, you might well have erased your blackboard and done a quick autopsy of how you and your colleagues had gotten so off track. You had looked around you and up in the sky and developed what looked like a plausible scenario, and pronounced it to be the only scenario, and therefore scientific fact. Earth HAD to be the stationary center of the universe.

But in hindsight you now realized that your observations of Earth as a stable, stationary platform had at least two possible explanations:

a) either a planet does not give off any dynamic evidence of its rotational / orbital nature, or b) there is dynamic terrestrial evidence of Earth's rotating and orbiting, ( but it just can't be detected /recorded intuitively).

If that seems to you like a logical position from which to begin thoughtful assimilation of Copernicus' news into the big book of science, you might wonder why that's not the way the scientists back then reacted. And well you should. What was wrong with them? How could they conclude that in the post-Copernicus world the ONLY way to re-

process mankind's centuries of observations of Earth as stable and stationary was to throw them outto exclude option a) entirely, and to go with option b)? Seems crazy, doesn't it?

But those are the cold, hard historical facts. From that point forward, to be a Scientist was to understand that Earth is NOT an inertial environmentnot absolutely. Earth is almostbut not quite really an inertial world. That feeling of perfect stillness in your bed at nightthat glass of water that looks really, really stillthose are unscientific, uninformed mis-perceptions. Illusions.

These things were deceptive-- to the non-scientists (like Aristotle). They were examples of the danger of putting too much stock in mere thinking, mere observation, mere reasoning-- mere common sense. Reliance on those things had led us astray, and henceforth were to be left to the unwashed masses, the amateurs, the unclean. (Curl your upper lip and practice sneering while saying, intuitive.)

The whole stable Earth concept had to go. It was replaced by the new and improved non-intuitive view that Earth was noninertial. Earth moved. Ergo: dynamic proof of Earth's movement exists. So the post-Copernican scientific rationale went like this: 1) Now we know that The Sun is the center of our neighborhood, &

2) Earth and the other planets are just houses in the Sun's neighborhood. The planets orbit the Sun, while rotating.

3) Since Earth's rotation is a physical fact, there must be terrestrial dynamic evidence of that fact. (But history shows that that terrestrial dynamic evidence probably can't be detected by mere intuitive observation & processing.)

VOILA! Science had changed course (somewhat hysterically). Thinking was out. Non-intuitive solutions were in. Non-mathematical articulation was out.

WHY SHOULD WE CARE

if a sub-culture has gone mad? After all, dont they just hurt themselves? Regrettably, the answer to that is, No. The desire to share good news is basic. That desire can come in a variety of degrees. At one end of the scale is simple altruism: no strings attached, Here, friend, is something I think will benefit you.. The

other end of the scale is where the fanatics hang out. In their world they have a solemn duty to try and convert non-believers. And the extreme of that extreme is where religious wars come from; Repent or die, you heathen!. The non-violent sub-cultures may be ranked by their openmindedness-- whether core beliefs may be discussed. Some non-violent cultures not only allow-- but encourage-- questions. These are superior sub-culturesthe exceptions which prove the rule. But most sub-cultures have at least some tabu topics. If an outsider approaches an ideological group and seeks to open a rational discussion about one of their off limits subjects, the group will respond with condescension, smugness, sneers, tut-tuts or anger. Rather than answer your questions civilly, theyll say: it is well-accepted fact, it is obvious, everyone knows, we have known for hundreds of years, or some similar euphemism for: We are not permitted to think about this, so neither are you. Go away. One such inferior sub-culture is the institution of "physics"in many more like a fraternity or a political action committee or a religion than a Science . If you have ever trusted or respected or deferred to someone because they were a credentialed "physicist"-- If you have ever been in an environment where someone was in a position of authority over you in whole or part because of their "physics" credentials-- If any of your tax dollars have ever been funneled to a person in whole or in part because of that persons "physics" credentials-- then you have good reason to want to know just what someones "physics" Credentials do and do not bring to the table.

Chapter 6

CLEANING UP THE MESS

That scientific screwup 350 years ago has polluted the intellectual landscape ever since. For the first 200 years after the Copernican Revolution, from 1650 to 1850, the Western world's best and brightest fervently pursued the Holy Grail of "physics" (that dynamical terrestrial proof of Earth's rotation). All in vain, of course. (As any Thinker would have predicted). So by 1850 they were no doubt getting pretty darned desperate. Remember, they hadn't been looking for evidence one way or the other about Earth's

rotationthe way you'd enter into an experiment. No, they already KNEW the answer. The KNEW that such terrestrial dynamical evidence EXISTED. They were so invested in the outcome that they pre-believed it. (Sounds just like Biblical FAITH, doesn't it?) So what they were really seeking was not evidence, but vindication. Talk about moving the goalposts! The scientists of 1850 desperately needed positive reinforcement--affirmation-- of their own genius.

Gaspard Coriolis (1792-1843) has been linked to this bad science from the outset. But I now suspect that he was framed. Set up.. He appears to have been sane. He coined the term work for the product of force and distance. He identified and analyzed kinetic energy as a form of work. He knew that kinetic energy was a temporary commoditynot perpetual motion. He identified and analyzed how the laws of motion would translate in rotational motion, and how motion across a rotating frame of reference would be deflected. I find no record that he thought of Earth's surface as providing such a rotating frame of reference. Which is very much to his credit. It looks like it was only after his death that desperate seekers of that Holy Grail hijacked his work on rotating frames of reference and applied it to Earth's surface.

The most notable of these hijackers was one Leon Foucault (1819-1868). He combined Coriolis' work on motion across rotating frames with the astronomical fact that Earth was a rotating sphere. So if you didn't know Earth's shape, a long range artillery shot would show you, by reacting to the change in eastward linear velocities of the rotating surface beneath its flight path. And while conducting the gunnery to demonstrate this pre-believed theory wasn't practical, Foucault opined that a big pendulum would make a perfect stand-in. Thus he was lauded as THE CHAMPION, the actual

finder, at long last, of the Holy Grailthe dynamical evidence of Earth's rotation.

Dr. William Tobin summed it up well in his definitive book The Life and Science of Leon Foucault :

The slow clockwise veering of the swing-plane of the bob demonstrated that the Earth was slowly turning anticlockwise below. ..this first dynamical proof....ended a quest that had begun....over two centuries earlier. It established Foucault's fame then and subsequently.

That was when a major mind-warp took place. I credit Foucault with taking the fool's errand for the Holy Grail from bad science into the realm of insanity. To confuse flight just above Earth's surface (e.g.: birds and artillery rounds) with flight through space (e.g.: planets) was bad (really bad) science. But to confuse the vibration of the bob of a stationary pendulum with flightor any other type of geographic relocationwas insanity. A pendulum's location is its axle. The vibration of the bob is merely a temporary shift in its center of balance. The latitude of the bob is the latitude of its axle. It flies nowhere. To launch the bob is to disturb its balance. The energy invested by pulling it off balance is dissipated, oscillation by oscillation, until it returns to its state of rest (hanging on a line between its axle and the Earth's center of mass). Only madmen would deliberately confuse a slow-swinging fixed pendulum with a turtle, a gyroscope*, an ICBM, an orbiting space shuttleor a planet.

*The gyroscope ( invented by Leon Foucaultwhat irony!) uses the rotational forces of a rapidly spinning wheel. Sufficient gyroscopic force can overpower the Gravitational force on the wheel. So when properly gimbaled, as in an airplane's artificial horizon indicator, the spinning wheel will ignore, Earth's rotation. Thereby the gyroscope can serve as an accurate clock in an airplane parked on the ground-- recording Earth's eastward angular displacement relative to her axis. Which is neatbut by definition does not amount to dynamical evidence of Earth's rotation. The gyroscope is real sciencebut isn't the Holy Grail. Sorry, Leon.

But Science was all ears. If they hadn't all been so desperate to see the grailto touch it, to gaze in rapturous wonder at itthe way a teen-aged boy gazes at his first Playboysome grownup surely would have pointed out that it was all nonsense. That those latitudinal velocities relative to points in space were irrelevant here in Earth. Earthly stillness was overwhelming evidence of that. If those latitude-based velocities had any physical relevance to life in Earth, a glass of water-- or a fanciest accelerometer in the latest submarine's Inertial Navigation System-- would tell us so. And water had spoken the truth from the first time the most primitive mind had made the most primitive observation. This is a case where intuitive observation and processing has stood all the tests of time and technological advance. The starting point, the benchmark, for all terrestrial motion is spherical equilibrium. Which we recognize as a state of rest, of terrestrial stillness (inertia).

And if the space velocity of your starting point is irrelevant, then per se the space velocity of your target point is equally irrelevant. 0 +/- 0 = 0, eh? Which, incidentally, also means,

by definition, that said Space Velocity is irrelevant to any discussion of terrestrial dynamics. No energy pulse: no dynamical implications. So if the Holy Grail of dynamical terrestrial evidence of eastward linear velocity was a fool's errand, then the theory about latitudinal velocities affecting the flight paths of really long range artillery were just travel plans for that fool's errand. (Go sit in your Thinking Chair. Think about why the Earth's surface rotates beneath the flight paths of typical space shuttle missions in low Earth orbit. Think about the differences between terrestrial flight and space flight.)

So the theory about deflection between flight paths of long range artillery and the Earth's surface was doomed from its outset. A little bit of Aristotelean reflection on the nondynamical nature of planetary (gravitational field) motion in space would have forced Seekers of the Holy Grail to toss the whole idea of proving the nature of a gravitational field by the repositioning of surface particles of that same gravitational field. That was ignorance born of laziness.

But the next progression--Foucault's belief that a big lazy pendulum was the same as an artillery round-- was plain and simple insane.

So there's a little Charlie Manson in every "physicist". To tweak Jack Nicholson's famous line, "physicists"....

can't handle the truth

.about the non-applicability of Coriolis' innocent formulas about rotating frames of reference to our rotating Earth. All attempts to do so,-- and all the corollary twists and contrivances-- are insanityside-trips down the rabbit hole, for conversations with the Mad Hatter..

Here is a list of some of the most obvious bits of Foucault's true legacy which continue to pollute the body of knowledge called "physics":

Failure to appreciate the basic terrestrial nature of stillness.

Failure to appreciate that Earth's spherical form is important empirical evidence as to the final product of Gravity vs matter in a given gravitational field.

Failure to appreciate that part of the nature of any particular Gravitational Field is its systematic orbiting and revolving.

Failure to appreciate that the first nature of any particle belonging to a Gravitational Field, regardless of whether it sits, crawls or flies*, is that it has no separate identity from the whole field.

Failure to appreciate that even an ICBM is not separated from Earth's Gravitational Field, and so rotates constantly eastward at a rate of 360 degrees per day-- on the launch pad, at launch, and at all points along its sub-orbital trajectory--regardless of latitudinal position.

Belief that Earth's surface is not (quite actually) an inertial frame of reference.

Failure to delineate the fundamental differences between the laws of motion inside a gravitational field vs in space.

Misrepresentation of the human senses as being the definitive sensing mechanism (I:e: talking about Why we don't feel Earth move as opposed to Why no sensors can detect dynamical evidence of Earth's motion.)

Unfounded belief that impetus (torque) transmitted to a passenger diminishes to zero when a vehicle moving in a gravitational field settles at a cruising velocity.

Unfounded belief that passengers on an airplane don't feel any impetus while the plane is cruising at constant speed.

Failure to recognize the instantaneous partial loss of vehicle-derived forward velocity (due to Gravity) of flying objects upon launch in

theoretical relative motion examples (e.g.: tossing a ball on a moving train).

Failure to appreciate the finite life cycle of terrestrial kinetic energy.

Failure to recognize the instantaneous partial loss of velocity (due to Gravity) upon launch in calculating the theoretical sideways (as a component of Coriolis Effect) as well as the forward velocity in theoretical artillery or rocketry ballistics.

Myth that rockets headed for Earth orbit will receive an eastward launch boost from the rotation- derived- linear- velocity of the terrestrial launch latitude.

Confusing the product of the interaction of coldness of space and the way Earth's cold surface rotates relative to the forces radiating from the Sun-with imaginary dynamical effects of an imaginary conflict between the atmosphere and the harder parts of Earth's surface.

IN CONCLUSION
My advice to all innocent civilians is to: ALWAYS TACKLE A THORNY PROBLEM BY REFLECTING ON IT &

NEVER TRUST A "physicist".

My advice to all card-carrying "physicists is:

BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO SOLVE ONE MORE PROBLEM, GO SOMEWHERE QUIET AND SIT DOWN & FORCE YOURSELF TO REFLECT UPON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THINKING AND MATH.

GET A GRIP . CLEAN UP YOUR ACT APOLOGIZE TO THE WORLD.