Foucault pendulums

How does FE explain Foucault pendulums?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.

How does FE explain Foucault pendulums?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.

Why not refer to one of the hundreds of other threads on the subject?

Quote from: V on May 18, 2014, 02:14:50 PM

How does FE explain Foucault pendulums?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.

Why not refer to one of the hundreds of other threads on the subject?

I actually searched and found very little that was useful.
Have you got any answers?

You can search, but all there is is a bunch of stuff about forcefields and Mach's "principle" which either ignore the problem or claim that the rotation of the heavens is the cause of any apparent rotation of the earth. Throw in some misunderstanding of coriolis, maths, vectors, mechanics, observation and common sense and here we are.

I suppose the OP was hoping for a new take on it.

The real FEer will say that Foucault pendulums don't exist and are all fake. If you point him to place X where the pendulum exists and works and anyone can see it, he will tell you that you are indoctrinated/brainwashed sheep with closed mind.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 18, 2014, 02:24:41 PM

Quote from: V on May 18, 2014, 02:14:50 PM

How does FE explain Foucault pendulums?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.

Why not refer to one of the hundreds of other threads on the subject?

I actually searched and found very little that was useful.
Have you got any answers?

Searching "Foucault" with this forum's search function turns up 14 pages. Did you sift through all the 14 pages before you realized none of it was useful? 

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

Yeah. This forum isn't exactly a treasure trove of knowledge that I fancy trawling through just to find one old dismissal of elementary evidence that I have no doubt people would now distance themselves from in any case because it's "that guy"s nonsense idea, not theirs. Although there are probably some odd coloured balls if I were to dig deep enough.

If only there were an FAQ that actually answered these questions.

What phrase is catching on?

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

Well, no shit Sherlock.  And it's never going to, is it?  For fairly obvious reasons...

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 12:37:43 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

It works the same as it does now. Because you have yet to prove your on a spherical earth.   

You're aware that what we're discussing is the fact that pendulum arcs rotate each day? The way they would do on a rotating earth.

The way they wouldn't do on a stationary earth. There's no need to "prove we're on a spherical" (or rotating) earth first, we're discussing an observation that's easily explained and predicted by the earth rotating. Does FET predict the behaviour of Foucault's pendulum? Now that it's been observed, can it explain it?

Now that it's been observed, can it explain it?

No.  The FES standard reply seems to be that every Foucault pendulum is a hoax that uses motors/magnets/whatever to create the effect.

Basically, they got nowt.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 12:37:43 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

Well then, it's a good thing I thought to include a second option.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 19, 2014, 08:41:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 12:37:43 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

Well then, it's a good thing I thought to include a second option.

Can you answer my original question or not?

What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

RE is notorious for posing a question as if the little details in the question were fact.

"I read this in a textbook, it doesn't jive with FE. I know that textbooks are always right, so therefore FE is false" Do you see the jump you've made here?

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.

What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

RE is notorious for posing a question as if the little details in the question were fact.

"I read this in a textbook, it doesn't jive with FE. I know that textbooks are always right, so therefore FE is false" Do you see the jump you've made here?

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
Why don't you go see one near you?

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 19, 2014, 08:41:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 12:37:43 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM

1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.

1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.

It works the same as it does now. Because you have yet to prove your on a spherical earth.

Lots of proof we are on a spherical earth.  Please list the fe proof, eg maps, distances etc.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 12:51:53 PM

What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

RE is notorious for posing a question as if the little details in the question were fact.

"I read this in a textbook, it doesn't jive with FE. I know that textbooks are always right, so therefore FE is false" Do you see the jump you've made here?

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
Why don't you go see one near you?

A long time ago this question was brought up to me and I actually made a trip to observe a Foucault pendulum. I'm not going to tell you which one I visited (to protect my identity), but when I went to the facility I was greeted by suspicious looking men in suits and was told to leave. When I tried to push the issue they practically threatened my life. I had no choice but to leave. I never saw the pendulum.

Have you ever tried to see one for yourself? I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing that happened to me happened to you.

Quote from: V on May 20, 2014, 01:16:48 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 12:51:53 PM

What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

RE is notorious for posing a question as if the little details in the question were fact.

"I read this in a textbook, it doesn't jive with FE. I know that textbooks are always right, so therefore FE is false" Do you see the jump you've made here?

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
Why don't you go see one near you?

A long time ago this question was brought up to me and I actually made a trip to observe a Foucault pendulum. I'm not going to tell you which one I visited (to protect my identity), but when I went to the facility I was greeted by suspicious looking men in suits and was told to leave. When I tried to push the issue they practically threatened my life. I had no choice but to leave. I never saw the pendulum.

Have you ever tried to see one for yourself? I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing that happened to me happened to you.

Interesting. I actually have seen the one in the Buffalo Museum of Science.
Also, it seems that this Foucault pendulum is not guarded by men in suits.

Quote from: V on May 20, 2014, 01:16:48 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 12:51:53 PM

What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

RE is notorious for posing a question as if the little details in the question were fact.

"I read this in a textbook, it doesn't jive with FE. I know that textbooks are always right, so therefore FE is false" Do you see the jump you've made here?

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums
Why don't you go see one near you?

A long time ago this question was brought up to me and I actually made a trip to observe a Foucault pendulum. I'm not going to tell you which one I visited (to protect my identity), but when I went to the facility I was greeted by suspicious looking men in suits and was told to leave. When I tried to push the issue they practically threatened my life. I had no choice but to leave. I never saw the pendulum.

Have you ever tried to see one for yourself? I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing that happened to me happened to you.

Many are in science centres open to the public.  Nice try, but fail.

V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

Many are in science centres open to the public.  Nice try, but fail.

Are you calling me a liar? Do you have evidence to support this claim? If not, I'm going to report you AGAIN for slander.

Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

Your implication seems to be that nobody actually gets to see one and that all the photos of crowds of people around public ones are staged or doctored, usual story.

An illustrative example: I have never seen the sky, any time I try to go outside or near to a window, I'm stopped by sinister robots with FET livery on their weapons.

Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

Your implication seems to be that nobody actually gets to see one and that all the photos of crowds of people around public ones are staged or doctored, usual story.

An illustrative example: I have never seen the sky, any time I try to go outside or near to a window, I'm stopped by sinister robots with FET livery on their weapons.

What you're doing now constitutes abuse of normal regular users of this website. Every post you make ridicules our userbase. You're a worthless user and I have never seen you bring anything to the table other than "they'll say it's doctored or lol FE is stupid".
Most photos are doctored, yes. It's not my fault if you don't believe these things. You don't have to believe us. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just giving my personal account of things that have happened to me. You come to a Flat Earth website and expect photos not to be doctored?

Clown, I have one question for you. If you're interested, please respond back by saying "What is your question" or some variation of that.
(Also I have reported you for aggressive posts)

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 02:53:47 PM

Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

Your implication seems to be that nobody actually gets to see one and that all the photos of crowds of people around public ones are staged or doctored, usual story.

An illustrative example: I have never seen the sky, any time I try to go outside or near to a window, I'm stopped by sinister robots with FET livery on their weapons.

What you're doing now constitutes abuse of normal regular users of this website. Every post you make ridicules our userbase. You're a worthless user and I have never seen you bring anything to the table other than "they'll say it's doctored or lol FE is stupid".
Most photos are doctored, yes. It's not my fault if you don't believe these things. You don't have to believe us. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just giving my personal account of things that have happened to me. You come to a Flat Earth website and expect photos not to be doctored?

Clown, I have one question for you. If you're interested, please respond back by saying "What is your question" or some variation of that.
(Also I have reported you for aggressive posts)

I do not understand how Clown's post was "aggressive."

V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

Quote from: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 02:15:29 PM

Many are in science centres open to the public.  Nice try, but fail.

Are you calling me a liar? Do you have evidence to support this claim? If not, I'm going to report you AGAIN for slander.

I am calling you a liar. I have also actually seen one unlike you. The one I saw was in the Pantheon in Paris. No guards to speak of.

Also you would sue for libel, not slander. Learn the difference.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 02:18:12 PM

V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

Quote from: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 02:15:29 PM

Many are in science centres open to the public.  Nice try, but fail.

Are you calling me a liar? Do you have evidence to support this claim? If not, I'm going to report you AGAIN for slander.

I am calling you a liar. I have also actually seen one unlike you. The one I saw was in the Pantheon in Paris. No guards to speak of.

Also you would sue for libel, not slander. Learn the difference.

And I am calling you a liar.
Please post pictures of this trip to Paris and the pendulum. Surely one going on such a magnificent trip would take video/photo record of the trip, yes?

Didn't you already report me? By all means do so again, I'm not concerned about anything I've written.

I "came to a flat earth website" to see how a belief like that arose first place and how it stood up to scrutiny.

Sure, ask your question.

Oh, and I have never seen the sky, by the way. Those robots stop me every time. I've seen pictures though.

Quote from: sokarul on May 20, 2014, 03:09:16 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 02:18:12 PM

V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

Quote from: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 02:15:29 PM

Many are in science centres open to the public.  Nice try, but fail.

Are you calling me a liar? Do you have evidence to support this claim? If not, I'm going to report you AGAIN for slander.

I am calling you a liar. I have also actually seen one unlike you. The one I saw was in the Pantheon in Paris. No guards to speak of.

Also you would sue for libel, not slander. Learn the difference.

And I am calling you a liar.
Please post pictures of this trip to Paris and the pendulum. Surely one going on such a magnificent trip would take video/photo record of the trip, yes?

I have posted about seeing the Foucault Pendulum before. I do have pictures from the trip and a picture of the Foucault pendulum, but they are on my desktop which has not been plugged in since I moved. Too bad for you.