You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.
Go do the research. It's not that difficult. I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it. It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.
The one explanation I find is simply a superimposition of a rotating frame of reference on top of the real Newtonian model. That really comes under the heading of cheating, a violation of the basic Baconian precept to avoid introducing unnecessary entities. Of course, if you feel that geocentricism requires explanation, then it isn't "unnecessary", but since geocentrism isn't a phenomenon, I don't see the need to explain it.
And it isn't the "inspired canon of scripture" that you expect me to trust; it's your interpretation.
You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.
I am unaware of whether any of the various luminiferous aether experiments have been carried out in space without using the earth as part of the baseline. Of course, if you don't believe in the aether, then the fact of whether the earth is or is not moving in relationship to it is not detectable.
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.
Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93. Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity. Space is moving, not earth. Same-same in relativistic terms.
OK, I don't believe you. I'm not even going to bother to ask my father or the various people I know who actually do work at NASA whether they use geocentric coordinates because I don't need the "why do you want to know anyway?" questions, followed by the "why are you arguing with that idiot?" ridicule. But at any rate I don't really need to ask them, because I've programmed this sort of behavior. And like everyone else I worked from a heliocentric basis because the math is easier that way; if I wanted to work out the various bodies' positions with respect to the earth (or any other arbitrary object) I do the trig.
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.
You might want to check again. NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.
No, they don't. I don't feel it's worth the trouble to work out whether it makes a difference, for objects going into earth orbit, if a launch occurs at noon or midnight. However, even for such launches they take the rotation of the earth into account; it's why launches generally head east after takeoff. For interplanetary launches they invariably work from a heliocentric basis, because that's what makes the math possible.