-
How does FE explain Foucault pendulum (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)s?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.
-
How does FE explain Foucault pendulum (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)s?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.
Why not refer to one of the hundreds of other threads on the subject?
-
How does FE explain Foucault pendulum (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)s?
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.
-
How does FE explain Foucault pendulum (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)s?
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums)
Why don't you go see one near you?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/California_Academy_of_Sciences_Foucault_Pendulum_Clock.jpg)
-
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 (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)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
It's pretty hard to plug in a desktop computer, huh? ::)
Sure, ask your question.
Are you mentally handicapped?
-
Should I report you to the teacher for that? I'm not sure I've got a hang of the etiquette.
Of course I'm not.
I have a question though, do you believe that robots stop me from seeing the sky? Or is that a lie?
-
I have a question though, do you believe that robots stop me from seeing the sky? Or is that a lie?
What kind of robots are we talking about here?
-
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building . After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud & others viewing it became interested to hear what I had to say on the topic. Was it life threatening no, But their behaviour was very hostile & intimidating to insure I left the building & never returned.
-
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?
Are you aware that earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass that means gravity is not pulling centre to a spherical & it is total nonsense to imply that the swinging pendulum progressing in a rotatable motion is in any way related to a rotating earth. It acutely proves the opposite.
-
What kind of robots are we talking about here?
Tiny ones. Most of them are no more than 3cm tall. But there are so many that I still can't get past. Plus there's the big one to consider.
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building . After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud
Did you get agitated? You get fairly worked up on here even with anonymity, unlimited time to compose replies and the option to walk away at any time.
/edit:
Are you aware that earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass that means gravity is not pulling centre to a spherical & it is total nonsense to imply that the swinging pendulum progressing in a rotatable motion is in any way related to a rotating earth. It acutely proves the opposite.
I've personally linked you (twice) to real measurements of how spherical the earth is. So you know what I'm aware of - it's pretty much a sphere, but not quite. What I don't understand is how the centrifugal force acting at 39.6° to the vertical on the slightly oblate earth is somehow a qualitatively different thing from it acting at 39.1° on an ideal spherical body.
Btw, this is a serious question, what is your first language? It might help us communicate.
-
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.
It's pretty hard to plug in a desktop computer, huh? ::)...
I'm space limited. You are the king of asking for evidence while never presenting any so you will just have to believe me.
-
Tiny ones. Most of them are no more than 3cm tall. But there are so many that I still can't get past. Plus there's the big one to consider.
I'm not sure about the "big one" you refer to, but I do know that the Government does release tiny robots (they are actually called nanobots or simply: nanomachines) into the air via chemtrails in the sky. They cause mind altering effects on the human brain. They also put Nanomachines into drinking water. If you stop drinking tap water and drink straight from a private stream or lake you will start to experience feelings and emotions that you never thought you had, it will also increase your IQ tenfold within weeks. Also, if you get air from oxygen machines (which you would need to steal from hospitals) and stop breathing city air you will experience the same thing.
I'm space limited. You are the king of asking for evidence while never presenting any so you will just have to believe me.
I provide a lot of references and sources for everything that I claim. I'm always correct. Do you think I would just go on these boards and make things up? It's not my problem you choose to ignore the evidence I present.
Space limited is not a satisfying answer. All you need to do is plug your tower into the wall and hook a monitor to it. You can do this at any outlet in your home. Since it seems like you need some help, here are what outlets look like:
(http://i.imgur.com/e9cBTZ5.jpg)
Or you might have these
(http://i.imgur.com/9qBKFbD.jpg)
Let me know when you've got it hooked up, buddy.
-
Hang on, I claim to be under house arrest by a horde of unidentified little robots and you try to help me figure out what they might be, but sokarul claims to be one of millions of people who've seen a large pendulum and you demand evidence? Funny place this.
Also, I thought there was no such thing as oxygen, only lack-of-phlogiston.
Btw, the big one has six manipulating limbs, I think of them as three legs and three arms because of how it usually stands, but they're all identical. It's limb-span is a little over 2 metres.
-
I'm space limited. You are the king of asking for evidence while never presenting any so you will just have to believe me.
I provide a lot of references and sources for everything that I claim. I'm always correct. Do you think I would just go on these boards and make things up? It's not my problem you choose to ignore the evidence I present.
You have actually never provided evidence.
Space limited is not a satisfying answer. All you need to do is plug your tower into the wall and hook a monitor to it. You can do this at any outlet in your home. Since it seems like you need some help, here are what outlets look like:
(http://i.imgur.com/e9cBTZ5.jpg)
Or you might have these
(http://i.imgur.com/9qBKFbD.jpg)
Let me know when you've got it hooked up, buddy.
Apparently you don't know what space means. I went from a two bedroom apartment to one room in a house.
This thread is about Foucault Pendulums. A few of us have seen them. No evidence has been provided to discredit them from working, only opinions. No one has explained why a Faucault Pendulum rotate differently at different latitudes. A rotating earth does though.
-
What kind of robots are we talking about here?
Tiny ones. Most of them are no more than 3cm tall. But there are so many that I still can't get past. Plus there's the big one to consider.
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building . After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud
Did you get agitated? You get fairly worked up on here even with anonymity, unlimited time to compose replies and the option to walk away at any time.
/edit:
Are you aware that earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass that means gravity is not pulling centre to a spherical & it is total nonsense to imply that the swinging pendulum progressing in a rotatable motion is in any way related to a rotating earth. It acutely proves the opposite.
I've personally linked you (twice) to real measurements of how spherical the earth is. So you know what I'm aware of - it's pretty much a sphere, but not quite. What I don't understand is how the centrifugal force acting at 39.6° to the vertical on the slightly oblate earth is somehow a qualitatively different thing from it acting at 39.1° on an ideal spherical body.
Btw, this is a serious question, what is your first language? It might help us communicate.
Well with shit talkers its very trying at times. Would you care to point to where the earth centre of mass is on your pear. So we can confirm your mathematical configurations, to be more then just metaphors.
-
Not perfect means not perfect, It doesn't mean perfect . That's as good as someone claiming they never soiled their pants. They only slightly soiled their pants & We wont worry about including any of that shit. hoping no one will notice the smell.
-
The earth is a regular oblate spheroid which has its centre of mass located at exactly the same point as its centre of gravity (or CoG). And if one connects the CoG of any body on or above the earth's surface with the CoG of the earth, that line (x-y) will be perpendicular to a tangent drawn at its intersection with the surface of the earth. It doesn't make any difference as to where the body is located on the earth—10ºS or 45ºN or at the equator—simple geometry proves this to be true.
The line x-y will also correspond exactly with the line of action of the force of gravity acting on the body on the earth's surface.
And the force of gravity is the only externally applied force acting upon the Foucault pendulum. There are zero horizontal forces acting upon it, and which explains why the plane of its swing arc never varies. (For the purposes of the exercise, the tiny frictional resistance caused by the air is ignored.)
-
Would you care to point to where the earth centre of mass is on your pear. So we can confirm your mathematical configurations, to be more then just metaphors.
You keep asking me that, and I keep pointing you to the internationally recognised standards and I'm not sure what other answer you're looking for. Let's try again.
The centre of mass of the earth is below you. It's down. That's not a joke, wherever all the 'down's meet, that's the centre of mass. I mean, where else would it be?
A huge amount of effort has been put into accurately measuring the geoid over the years because of it's value to surveying, meteorology, cartography and many other things. As always, this information isn't a secret that you need to pry out of me, it's on the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy). The geoid is the gravitational surface of the earth rather than the physical one. The earth isn't a uniform density, nor is it -as you are fond of pointing out- a perfect sphere. That means that gravity is slightly variable in strength and direction as you move around the surface - if a dense area is to your right, gravity will be slightly off to the right, if the dense area is the other side of the world, gravity will be a little weaker. However, it still all comes down to a point. The centre of mass.
Are you unsure about how an irregular shape can have a centre of mass? Or do you want me to say that it's 40 miles beneath Nairobi? Or what? You ask where it is, but the answer never seems to satisfy. If none of that was enlightening, instead of asking for a fourth time, maybe tell me what's inadequate about the previous answers.
-
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.
Yes. This one HERE (http://bit.ly/1sS0lAr) at the University of Sydney in Australia.
I also recommend this particular site for its clear and graphic explanations of this sort of stuff.
-
The earth is a regular oblate spheroid which has its centre of mass located at exactly the same point as its centre of gravity (or CoG). And if one connects the CoG of any body on or above the earth's surface with the CoG of the earth, that line (x-y) will be perpendicular to a tangent drawn at its intersection with the surface of the earth. It doesn't make any difference as to where the body is located on the earth—10ºS or 45ºN or at the equator—simple geometry proves this to be true.
The line x-y will also correspond exactly with the line of action of the force of gravity acting on the body on the earth's surface.
And the force of gravity is the only externally applied force acting upon the Foucault pendulum. There are zero horizontal forces acting upon it, and which explains why the plane of its swing arc never varies. (For the purposes of the exercise, the tiny frictional resistance caused by the air is ignored.)
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
-
The earth is a regular oblate spheroid which has its centre of mass located at exactly the same point as its centre of gravity (or CoG). And if one connects the CoG of any body on or above the earth's surface with the CoG of the earth, that line (x-y) will be perpendicular to a tangent drawn at its intersection with the surface of the earth. It doesn't make any difference as to where the body is located on the earth—10ºS or 45ºN or at the equator—simple geometry proves this to be true.
The line x-y will also correspond exactly with the line of action of the force of gravity acting on the body on the earth's surface.
And the force of gravity is the only externally applied force acting upon the Foucault pendulum. There are zero horizontal forces acting upon it, and which explains why the plane of its swing arc never varies. (For the purposes of the exercise, the tiny frictional resistance caused by the air is ignored.)
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
That makes no sense, what is your point? Is it about the earth not being a completely perfect sphere?
-
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
Why should I draw anything to help you explain your nonsensical geometry Charles. Do the drawing yourself.
Or are you unable to? How embarrassing LOL.
-
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building .
I'm guessing this isn't the only time this has happened to you... ::)
After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud
Pro-tip: people tend not to like that.
-
I'm not sure about the "big one" you refer to, but I do know that the Government does release tiny robots (they are actually called nanobots or simply: nanomachines) into the air via chemtrails in the sky. They cause mind altering effects on the human brain. They also put Nanomachines into drinking water. If you stop drinking tap water and drink straight from a private stream or lake you will start to experience feelings and emotions that you never thought you had, it will also increase your IQ tenfold within weeks. Also, if you get air from oxygen machines (which you would need to steal from hospitals) and stop breathing city air you will experience the same thing.
I think you need to dial down your persona's "unhinged" setting somewhat. Or is it stuck on 11?
-
Tiny ones. Most of them are no more than 3cm tall. But there are so many that I still can't get past. Plus there's the big one to consider.
I'm not sure about the "big one" you refer to, but I do know that the Government does release tiny robots (they are actually called nanobots or simply: nanomachines) into the air via chemtrails in the sky. They cause mind altering effects on the human brain. They also put Nanomachines into drinking water. If you stop drinking tap water and drink straight from a private stream or lake you will start to experience feelings and emotions that you never thought you had, it will also increase your IQ tenfold within weeks. Also, if you get air from oxygen machines (which you would need to steal from hospitals) and stop breathing city air you will experience the same thing.
I'm space limited. You are the king of asking for evidence while never presenting any so you will just have to believe me.
I provide a lot of references and sources for everything that I claim. I'm always correct. Do you think I would just go on these boards and make things up? It's not my problem you choose to ignore the evidence I present.
Space limited is not a satisfying answer. All you need to do is plug your tower into the wall and hook a monitor to it. You can do this at any outlet in your home. Since it seems like you need some help, here are what outlets look like:
(http://i.imgur.com/e9cBTZ5.jpg)
Or you might have these
(http://i.imgur.com/9qBKFbD.jpg)
Let me know when you've got it hooked up, buddy.
You'd have to be pretty slow for your IQ to be able to increase tenfold.
-
The earth is a regular oblate spheroid which has its centre of mass located at exactly the same point as its centre of gravity (or CoG). And if one connects the CoG of any body on or above the earth's surface with the CoG of the earth, that line (x-y) will be perpendicular to a tangent drawn at its intersection with the surface of the earth. It doesn't make any difference as to where the body is located on the earth—10ºS or 45ºN or at the equator—simple geometry proves this to be true.
The line x-y will also correspond exactly with the line of action of the force of gravity acting on the body on the earth's surface.
And the force of gravity is the only externally applied force acting upon the Foucault pendulum. There are zero horizontal forces acting upon it, and which explains why the plane of its swing arc never varies. (For the purposes of the exercise, the tiny frictional resistance caused by the air is ignored.)
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
That makes no sense, what is your point? Is it about the earth not being a completely perfect sphere?
The point is one of pivot. A pivoting point. It means with out a perfect sphere centre of mass , your pendulum pivots as it swings.
-
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
Why should I draw anything to help you explain your nonsensical geometry Charles. Do the drawing yourself.
Or are you unable to? How embarrassing LOL.
I thought it would be easer for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
-
I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory? One that a first-grader could apparently produce?
I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch. You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory. Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.
-
Draw a perfect circle find the centre point. Then divide the circle in to 4 equal parts using lines that protect well past its circumference. then draw 4 triangles in lined up & corresponding to those projected lines. Now draw a obscure circle divide it. then draw 4 triangles in line & lined up correspondence to those projected lines. Have a good hard look at the two drawings. A simple drawing demonstrates the proclaimed reasoning is pure Piffle.
(http://i.imgur.com/zUA7OhO.jpg) (http://imgur.com/zUA7OhO)
I followed what I assumed were your instructions, if that's not what you were getting at, let me know. If this was what you were envisioning, can you clear up where this eviscerates all of human knowledge?
-
Well not exactly but it will suffice. Sketch 2 Please demonstrate how you can get your pendulum to hang vertical in line picking up 360 & 180 degrease & picking up your centre of mass with the same line. You cant, you can only with a perfect spherical.There for your pendulum has a pivot point. which gives it an undue force. which means a pendulum only swings back & forth holding its line of swing hypothetically, not back & forth holding its line of swing in reality.
-
Well not exactly but it will suffice. Sketch 2 Please demonstrate how you can get your pendulum to hang vertical in line picking up 360 & 180 degrease & picking up your centre of mass with the same line. You cant, you can only with a perfect spherical.There for your pendulum has a pivot point. which gives it an undue force. which means a pendulum only swings back & forth holding its line of swing hypothetically, not back & forth holding its line of swing in reality.
Can you please translate your post from your native language of Retarded to English.
-
These are pendulums? I thought they were spherical and not-quite-spherical earths.
So, you're asserting that anything not rotationally symmetric (or radially symmetric in all directions?) about the axis you're suspending it from will do what? Swing irregularly? Rotate?
What is your native language? I don't speak anything but English well enough to discuss this but between them, my friends can probably help out in a few.
-
Likewise... I can't understand Charles' last comments either. As I asked you before Charles, can you please provide us with a sketch of your own? It'd simplify things a lot.
-
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building . After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud & others viewing it became interested to hear what I had to say on the topic. Was it life threatening no, But their behaviour was very hostile & intimidating to insure I left the building & never returned.
After viewing the pendulum, how did you determine it was a fraud? What did you say to the curator exactly?
-
Well not exactly but it will suffice. Sketch 2 Please demonstrate how you can get your pendulum to hang vertical in line picking up 360 & 180 degrease & picking up your centre of mass with the same line. You cant, you can only with a perfect spherical.There for your pendulum has a pivot point. which gives it an undue force. which means a pendulum only swings back & forth holding its line of swing hypothetically, not back & forth holding its line of swing in reality.
Can you please translate your post from your native language of Retarded to English.
Is that some sort of pathetic attempt to up set me ? A Lion never worries about what the sheep think. ;)
-
In defence of vauxhull. Once I was asked to leave a building & had the police called & was unceremoniously escorted from the building . After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being a fraud & others viewing it became interested to hear what I had to say on the topic. Was it life threatening no, But their behaviour was very hostile & intimidating to insure I left the building & never returned.
After viewing the pendulum, how did you determine it was a fraud? What did you say to the curator exactly?
I pointed out the FACT the hanging attachment point on every pendulum on earth has a pivot & it was a lie & a nonsense to pretend it didn't.
-
I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory? One that a first-grader could apparently produce?
I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch. You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory. Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.
Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand, that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.
-
I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory? One that a first-grader could apparently produce?
I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch. You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory. Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.
Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand, that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.
You upload to sharing sites, what's the problem?
-
It's unclear to me what exactly it is you're trying to argue. It sounds like you are saying that the Foucault pendulum does what it does because the Earth is not perfectly spherical. That the earth is only approximately spherical is an uncontroversial fact.
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
-
It's unclear to me what exactly it is you're trying to argue. It sounds like you are saying that the Foucault pendulum does what it does because the Earth is not perfectly spherical. That the earth is only approximately spherical is an uncontroversial fact.
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
Not on its own it doesn't. Just anther lie told to you. Its regulated
-
It's unclear to me what exactly it is you're trying to argue. It sounds like you are saying that the Foucault pendulum does what it does because the Earth is not perfectly spherical. That the earth is only approximately spherical is an uncontroversial fact.
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
Not on its own it doesn't. Just anther lie told to you. Its regulated
How?
-
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
I have never been able to see one, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're real for the sake of argument. They could easily be powered by an electric motor, and you'd be none the wiser.
-
Assess what you have to work with. You have a centre of mass not centre. Guaranteed rotation, it also affords you an adjustable cam angle for your pivot to increase or retard speed of rotation. You also have travel of pendulum which can be increased or retarded via a combination of distance of pendulum travel, weight & momentum. To keep the pendulum continual swinging to the consistent timing arrangement you have set. magnets are used. theses magnets can also be placed to aid in fine tuning the swing & rotation. .
-
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
I have never been able to see one, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're real for the sake of argument. They could easily be powered by an electric motor, and you'd be none the wiser.
There's one in just about every science museum, but why not build your own - many years ago we had one in my school suspended from the (high) roof; all it was made from was some fishing wire and a hook weight. Doing it over staircases is quite affective too. In order to see the effect with a shorter pendulum like this, one easy technique is swing it quite hard and place some objects standing up around the low point of the pendulum.
-
Charles, can you explain though how it is that the Foucault pendulum rotates exactly once per day?
I have never been able to see one, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're real for the sake of argument. They could easily be powered by an electric motor, and you'd be none the wiser.
There's one in just about every science museum, but why not build your own - many years ago we had one in my school suspended from the (high) roof; all it was made from was some fishing wire and a hook weight. Doing it over staircases is quite affective too. In order to see the effect with a shorter pendulum like this, one easy technique is swing it quite hard and place some objects standing up around the low point of the pendulum.
Are you going to type something worth reading or just keep telling me to build my own? For your information, I have built my own and it only worked with an electric motor. I also built one that worked (according to your idea of "worked") with magnets. Without something guiding the pendulum, it doesn't work. Why don't you build your own?
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
You're misunderstanding me. I have not been able to see one in one of these facilities you've mentioned. Like I said before, when trying to observe one in a facility I was forcefully removed from the premises. That doesn't mean I haven't built my own, which I have.
If you're calling me a liar, then I could just as easily call you one. You claim you've built one as well:
we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either
Please post pictures of this pendulum you've built, please.
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
-
here's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time;
I think you may have come to the wrong forum.
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
-
Our pendulum was of course used during a lesson - not exactly the time where people naturally pull out cameras; I was however a bit of an unusual student because I made a video about the history of the school itself. From this I do have an unusually large amount of photos and videos of the outside of the buildings, so I can at least give a rough idea of how high/wide the room was. The labs are your classical 1960's gable quadrangle (no false ceilings - the lab goes right up to the apex of the roof).
This one here gives a good idea of how tall the building is:
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/sch/physics-sc1.jpg)
This shows the quadrangle from above, marking the camera direction of the above photo and the swing direction of the pendulum:
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/sch/sc1-cam-direction.jpg)
The pendulum itself swings along the lab, just about wall to wall, and is anchored to the apex of the roof.
Another view along the front:
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/sch/physics-block.jpg)
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
here's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time;
I think you may have come to the wrong forum.
Lol very true - I'm not sure why I'm even bothering but hey it's a nice bit of evening entertainment reading some of the stuff that goes on here :P
-
Nice pictures of a school and an overhead rip from Google Earth...
What does this prove, exactly? ::)
-
Nice pictures of a school and an overhead rip from Google Earth...
What does this prove, exactly? ::)
"..so I can at least give a rough idea of how high/wide the room was"
One of the obvious limitations of a Foucault pendulum is it requires height and space; Here I'm simply trying to show you that the lab had sufficient space to do it inside. I'm also actively looking for further pictures - these are just what I've been pulling up as I go. Do you have at least any pictures of the location or setup of your pendulum as Clown asked? :)
-
Nice pictures of a school and an overhead rip from Google Earth...
What does this prove, exactly? ::)
"..so I can at least give a rough idea of how high/wide the room was"
One of the obvious limitations of a Foucault pendulum is it requires height and space; Here I'm simply trying to show you that the lab had sufficient space to do it inside. I'm also actively looking for further pictures - these are just what I've been pulling up as I go. Do you have at least any pictures of the location or setup of your pendulum as Clown asked? :)
Please post a picture of your pendulum.
I already posted a picture of mine. It's a few posts back. Pay attention.
-
Nice pictures of a school and an overhead rip from Google Earth...
What does this prove, exactly? ::)
"..so I can at least give a rough idea of how high/wide the room was"
One of the obvious limitations of a Foucault pendulum is it requires height and space; Here I'm simply trying to show you that the lab had sufficient space to do it inside. I'm also actively looking for further pictures - these are just what I've been pulling up as I go. Do you have at least any pictures of the location or setup of your pendulum as Clown asked? :)
Please post a picture of your pendulum.
I already posted a picture of mine. It's a few posts back. Pay attention.
There is an empty post a few posts back so I'm not sure if that was some kind of joke, or you made a typo. Apart from that though no you didn't - there are no other pendulum photos or links in this whole thread other than one posted by V. I've just double checked. That was a straight pointless lie so I'm not sure what you're even trying to achieve? :P
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Here's the post. I see the picture just fine.
Maybe your ISP is blocking the picture?
-
The image link is broken:
http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Imgur works fine, your link is literally to an imgur fail page, not to a real gallery page where my ISP is just showing me a missing picture.
Why don't you try linking to an actual picture?
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Here's the post. I see the picture just fine.
Maybe your ISP is blocking the picture?
It's pretty clear that you didn't post a real image Vauxhall, so what's the point?
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Here's the post. I see the picture just fine.
Maybe your ISP is blocking the picture?
Nope, imgur itself reports the image as either missing or not there at your link: http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg) - ISP blocks are at the DNS level (i.e. imgur wouldn't load at all).
(http://kulora.com/earth-uploads/imgur-missing.jpg)
I have 2 ISPs though so for the sake of clarity I'll try the other one. Edit: nope, nothing.
-
The image link is broken:
http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Imgur works fine, your link is literally to an imgur fail page, not to a real gallery page where my ISP is just showing me a missing picture.
Why don't you try linking to an actual picture?
It shows up for me. Maybe you're doing something wrong.
So you all are masters at hotlinks and imgur url code? Give me a break. ::)
-
Clearly the punchline to Vauxhall's little joke is that imgur is part of the conspiracy.
-
It's pretty clear that you didn't post a real image Vauxhall, so what's the point?
It's called trolling. But don't tell Vauxhall, he gets upset.
Vaux, if you knew how the internet worked you'd be better at this. Google has never cached that URL, so my guess is that you just made it up. Anyone got any other guesses?
-
Clearly the punchline to Vauxhall's little joke is that imgur is part of the conspiracy.
Certainly seems like it's heading that way doesn't it lol :P
The image link is broken:
http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
Imgur works fine, your link is literally to an imgur fail page, not to a real gallery page where my ISP is just showing me a missing picture.
Why don't you try linking to an actual picture?
It shows up for me. Maybe you're doing something wrong.
So you all are masters at hotlinks and imgur url code? Give me a break. ::)
Actually yes, I'm a sofware developer - I've made that quite clear in many of my posts. If I couldn't load URLs I think I would have bigger things to worry about than what shape the Earth is :)
-
http://jonathan.lansey.net/pastimes/pendulum2/index.html (http://jonathan.lansey.net/pastimes/pendulum2/index.html)
Like I said, if you knew how the internet worked, you would be better at this.
(http://jonathan.lansey.net/pastimes/pendulum2/bowling.jpg)
-
I cropped myself out of the photo because I didn't want to reveal my face. I request you take that down, please. I will report you.
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
-
Interesting, so your name is Ikemefuna Agbanusi and you built a working pendulum which confirmed the earth's rotation?
/edit: you're my favourite :P
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
I didn't type up the findings, someone else did. I am the man in the picture, though. Also, this picture was taken a long time ago... I didn't subscribe to any theories.
Now that everyone knows my name (appropriate partys involved have been reported)... Its time to post your pendulums.
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
I didn't type up the findings, someone else did. I am the man in the picture, though. Also, this picture was taken a long time ago... I didn't subscribe to any theories.
It's ok Vauxhall, we know you believe it's round really :) Especially as the blog is about them doing it for/ with a group of people - more specifically a math club. You, (Ike), also look pretty chuffed - you must've been overwhelmed with the evidence of rotation; good for you!
-
You're the Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi (http://math.illinois.edu/~agbanusi/)? Better and better, so with your doctorate in maths and your particular interest in stochastic reaction diffusion equations, you are probably our member most qualified in maths.
Would you mind explaining this proof which you derived here (http://math.illinois.edu/~agbanusi/maximum_principle.pdf) in layman's terms? Pure maths was never my strong point.
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
I didn't type up the findings, someone else did. I am the man in the picture, though. Also, this picture was taken a long time ago... I didn't subscribe to any theories.
Now that everyone knows my name (appropriate partys involved have been reported)... Its time to post your pendulums.
Since we already know what you look like, then you shouldn't mind posting a verification pic?
-
You're the Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi (http://math.illinois.edu/~agbanusi/)? Better and better, so with your doctorate in maths and your particular interest in stochastic reaction diffusion equations, you are probably our member most qualified in maths.
Would you mind explaining this proof which you derived here (http://math.illinois.edu/~agbanusi/maximum_principle.pdf) in layman's terms? Pure maths was never my strong point.
Hehe, good luck with that one :P
-
Irrelevant.
Is it safe to assume each one of you lied when you said you had built a pendulum and were going to post a picture of it?
I believe they call this "pot calling kettle black"... ::)
-
Better than that, I said I would build one if you posted pics of yours that you didn't just get from google.
Guess we can forget that part, but I might build one anyway, though I'm not sure I have access to anywhere tall enough. Would be a cool thing to do though. If I ever get round to it, you can be sure I'll post a video.
-
Better than that, I said I would build one if you posted pics of yours that you didn't just get from google.
Guess we can forget that part, but I might build one anyway, though I'm not sure I have access to anywhere tall enough. Would be a cool thing to do though. If I ever get round to it, you can be sure I'll post a video.
You can't prove the picture is "from Google". Believe it or not, lots of pictures end up on the internet. Do you know how the internet works? Do you even know how Google works? Lol.
-
Better than that, I said I would build one if you posted pics of yours that you didn't just get from google.
Guess we can forget that part, but I might build one anyway, though I'm not sure I have access to anywhere tall enough. Would be a cool thing to do though. If I ever get round to it, you can be sure I'll post a video.
You can't prove the picture is "from Google". Believe it or not, lots of pictures end up on the internet. Do you know how the internet works? Do you even know how Google works? Lol.
Anybody can do a search and pick out an image - it's not hard. And yes, I at least do know how both work :)
-
So you don't know how Google works. Got it.
-
Why don't you post some pictures of yours, Vauxhall?
If you post something that isn't straight from google this time, I'll make my own and post pics of that too. We can be Foucault buddies.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lh83o84dfK.jpg)
I remember my first time trying to post a picture.
-
LukeB, like I said earlier. I cropped the original picture.
-
Irrelevant.
Is it safe to assume each one of you lied when you said you had built a pendulum and were going to post a picture of it?
I believe they call this "pot calling kettle black"... ::)
So, because you're lying, and you've been caught, we should assume everyone else is also lying?
Not very sound logic, "Dr Abganusi". ;D
-
After some analysis, the true original photograph was 2592 x 1944 pixels in size. This is larger than any available on the internet, so presuming you have the original file, you can upload this to prove that you categorically did not pull it from Google.
-
Irrelevant.
Is it safe to assume each one of you lied when you said you had built a pendulum and were going to post a picture of it?
I believe they call this "pot calling kettle black"... ::)
So, because you're lying, and you've been caught, we should assume everyone else is also lying?
Not very sound logic, "Dr Abganusi". ;D
What is it with REers putting words in my mouth? ::)
At least two of you claimed that you have photos of a working foucault pendulum. Not one of you have posted these "pictures". Until then, you're lying.
I'm the only one being honest here. You all are just pissed that I actually went through with posting the picture (which you assumed didn't exist) and now you're trying to nit pick every detail. You're missing the big picture, not to mention you're completely off-topic which goes against the rules of our forum.
After some analysis, the true original photograph was 2592 x 1944 pixels in size. This is larger than any available on the internet, so presuming you have the original file, you can upload this to prove that you categorically did not pull it from Google.
Post a picture of your pendulum and I'll comply with this. Otherwise, I see no reason to. I don't need to prove my identity to anyone... that was what I was trying to avoid in the first place.
Please try to stay on topic.
-
I also made a Foucault Pendulum and it worked fine. Furthermore I partied with the Foucault Pendulum guards at the Pantheon is Paris.
-
Irrelevant.
Is it safe to assume each one of you lied when you said you had built a pendulum and were going to post a picture of it?
I believe they call this "pot calling kettle black"... ::)
So, because you're lying, and you've been caught, we should assume everyone else is also lying?
Not very sound logic, "Dr Abganusi". ;D
What is it with REers putting words in my mouth? ::)
At least two of you claimed that you have photos of a working foucault pendulum. Not one of you have posted these "pictures". Until then, you're lying.
I'm the only one being honest here. You all are just pissed that I actually went through with posting the picture (which you assumed didn't exist) and now you're trying to nit pick every detail. You're missing the big picture, not to mention you're completely off-topic which goes against the rules of our forum.
After some analysis, the true original photograph was 2592 x 1944 pixels in size. This is larger than any available on the internet, so presuming you have the original file, you can upload this to prove that you categorically did not pull it from Google.
Post a picture of your pendulum and I'll comply with this. Otherwise, I see no reason to. I don't need to prove my identity to anyone... that was what I was trying to avoid in the first place.
Please try to stay on topic.
We are on topic; we're currently talking about the photo of your pendulum, "Dr Abganusi" ;). It's obviously pulled from Google so you've clearly underestimated the capabilities of the internet as a lie detector - it's very good at it ;)
-
We are on topic; we're currently talking about the photo of your pendulum, "Dr Abganusi" ;). It's obviously pulled from Google so you've clearly underestimated the capabilities of the internet as a lie detector - it's very good at it ;)
So are you going to post your picture?
-
We are on topic; we're currently talking about the photo of your pendulum, "Dr Abganusi" ;). It's obviously pulled from Google so you've clearly underestimated the capabilities of the internet as a lie detector - it's very good at it ;)
So are you going to post your picture?
I've posted more photos than you have and mine are at least actually real :) I'm not going to keep searching for more photos for someone who continually lies, Dr Abganusi :P
-
Here is mine,(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg/320px-Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg)
-
I've posted more photos than you have and mine are at least actually real :) I'm not going to keep searching for more photos for someone who continually lies, Dr Abganusi :P
Feel free to think I'm lying, it makes no difference to me. I've reported you every time you've used that name. I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly disappeared from the forum within the next couple of days. Mods have already contacted me via PM to get this issue resolved. Was it worth it to prove a point?
Please prove that you've seen a working foucault pendulum. Is that possible for you or are you just trolling at this point?
-
This thread is fucking hilarious.
Dr Abganusi has confirmed his status as my favourite flat earther.
-
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Let me get this straight, you have pictures of the pendulum but you're not going to post them? I guess I'm the only one here with enough balls to back up my claims.
I guess it's kind of hard to back up claims that were lies all along, huh? ::)
-
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Let me get this straight, you have pictures of the pendulum but you're not going to post them? I guess I'm the only one here with enough balls to back up my claims.
I guess it's kind of hard to back up claims that were lies all along, huh? ::)
I clearly just posted mine.
-
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Let me get this straight, you have pictures of the pendulum but you're not going to post them? I guess I'm the only one here with enough balls to back up my claims.
I guess it's kind of hard to back up claims that were lies all along, huh? ::)
I clearly just posted mine.
If that is your foucault pendulum... can I borrow some money from you?
-
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Let me get this straight, you have pictures of the pendulum but you're not going to post them? I guess I'm the only one here with enough balls to back up my claims.
You academics have more time on your hands for this sort of thing.
-
If that is your foucault pendulum... can I borrow some money from you?
There's good money in pendulums. My grandpappy made a fortune smuggling pendulums during WWII. Blew it all on slow women and loose horses. A tragic tale really.
-
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Let me get this straight, you have pictures of the pendulum but you're not going to post them? I guess I'm the only one here with enough balls to back up my claims.
I guess it's kind of hard to back up claims that were lies all along, huh? ::)
I clearly just posted mine.
If that is your foucault pendulum... can I borrow some money from you?
Sceptic is the local millionaire, ask him.
If that is your foucault pendulum... can I borrow some money from you?
There's good money in pendulums. My grandpappy made a fortune smuggling pendulums during WWII. Blew it all on slow women and loose horses. A tragic tale really.
I don't think your grandfather was a bright man.
-
Sceptic is the local millionaire, ask him.
I'm asking you. You obviously have some money if you own the foucault pendulum at the Panthéon in Paris... ::)
-
Sceptic is the local millionaire, ask him.
I'm asking you. You obviously have some money if you own the foucault pendulum at the Panthéon in Paris... ::)
It's my picture, I resized it.
-
Sceptic is the local millionaire, ask him.
I'm asking you. You obviously have some money if you own the foucault pendulum at the Panthéon in Paris... ::)
It's my picture, I resized it.
Don't get so defensive. I wasn't accusing you of anything. Guilty conscience?
-
I'm actively in communication with Dr Agbanusi - the real one; it seems we may have a case of identity theft here. Vauxhall, you are now risking a police investigation into your actions as there may have been other instances of this occurring. This is very serious - if I were you, I'd start telling the truth immediately before you make this worse.
-
I'm actively in communication with Dr Agbanusi - the real one; it seems we may have a case of identity theft here. Vauxhall, you are now risking a police investigation into your actions as there may have been other instances of this occurring. If I were you, I'd start telling the truth immediately before you make this worse.
You're bluffing, but fine. If you want to know the truth then it's not me in the picture. But the picture looks very similar to one that I made in the early 2000s. Now where is your pendulum?
-
I'm actively in communication with Dr Agbanusi - the real one; it seems we may have a case of identity theft here. Vauxhall, you are now risking a police investigation into your actions as there may have been other instances of this occurring. If I were you, I'd start telling the truth immediately before you make this worse.
You're bluffing, but fine. If you want to know the truth then it's not me in the picture. But the picture looks very similar to one that I made in the early 2000s. Now where is your pendulum?
My pendulum was at a school; I remember mentioning that it was during a lesson so I do not have photos of the pendulum itself but it's probably still there somewhere though. I have also seen others though such as the one at Griffith Observatory.
No actually I'm genuinely not. Obviously, people are incredibly concerned when there's other people using their identity, something which you have clearly just done on the internet. I'll be continually elevating it as long as you keep on being someone you are not.
-
No actually I'm genuinely not. Obviously, people are incredibly concerned when there's other people using their identity, something which you have clearly just done on the internet. I'll be continually elevating it as long as you keep on being someone you are not.
I'm sure, LukeB.
Considering you're the one who pointed out what his name actually was, and my original crop was intended so as not to reveal anyone's identity. I only claimed that I was him when you backed me into a corner, even then I didn't even mention his name. If you want to play dirty, I can play that game too. But I suggest taking any legal matter into PMs or at least email me about it, because you really don't have much of a case here. You can keep fooling yourself though, if you'd like. ::)
As for the point at hand, you've plainly stated that you have photos of the pendulum. What's so hard about posting them?
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
-
No actually I'm genuinely not. Obviously, people are incredibly concerned when there's other people using their identity, something which you have clearly just done on the internet. I'll be continually elevating it as long as you keep on being someone you are not.
I'm sure, LukeB.
Considering you're the one who pointed out what his name actually was, and my original crop was intended so as not to reveal anyone's identity. I only claimed that I was him when you backed me into a corner, even then I didn't even mention his name. If you want to play dirty, I can play that game too. But I suggest taking any legal matter into PMs or at least email me about it, because you really don't have much of a case here. You can keep fooling yourself though, if you'd like. ::)
As for the point at hand, you've plainly stated that you have photos of the pendulum. What's so hard about posting them?
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Vauxhall, coincidentally not even from Illinois (we have far more of a case than you probably think), you have clearly claimed to be someone you are not. It wasn't me who pointed out who the real person was - you actually gave us all we needed to find out. We didn't back you into a corner either; you put yourself in one by posting something that wasn't true at all, then fabricated it and even stole an identity to make your false story appear true. This is what criminals do; I was never expecting to come across that on this forum.
"I only claimed that I was him" by this you're presumably admitting it, but I think it's too late; I can try and defuse the situation but I obviously can't control the actions of people now involved.
Also, as you appear to be completely oblivious to how serious this is, a "lab" is not the same thing as a "pendulum".
-
I'm still waiting on those pictures.
....they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
You claimed here that you have pictures of the pendulum and that it's "not moving". Post these pictures.
-
I'm still waiting on those pictures.
....they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
You claimed here that you have pictures of the pendulum and that it's "not moving". Post these pictures.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or are just dumb. He clearly said he didn't want to post them because you would say that the pendulum isn't moving.
-
Our pendulum was of course used during a lesson - not exactly the time where people naturally pull out cameras; I was however a bit of an unusual student because I made a video about the history of the school itself. From this I do have an unusually large amount of photos and videos of the outside of the buildings, so I can at least give a rough idea of how high/wide the room was.
During a lesson. I do not have photos or videos of the pendulum moving. I made a video of the history of the school and ended up recording in most of the rooms, outside lesson time, so I felt like just maybe I had caught the pendulum at the side of one of those pictures/ videos (as it has basically lived at the side of the room on top of a bookcase since it was made).
I pretty certainly have photos of the labs inside too, but I have a strong feeling they'll just be passed off as "the pendulum isn't moving so therefore it's fake" or whatever :P
Again, here I was referring to the fact that any picture found would literally have been a weight sitting on top of a shelf, as again, it was out of lesson time, with a wire going off up to the roof. "You saying this doesn't show anything useful" is probably a better way of describing what I meant here.
-
Here is mine,(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg/320px-Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg)
You obviously got that from the internet. Or, are you now claiming to be Dr. Tom Engels? Perhaps I should contact Dr. Engels to verify that you are him and if not, suggest legal actions? Or, wait, that would be childish, don't you think?
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
It's all over Google. It's also posted HERE (http://bit.ly/SyAa6Y).
What's the problem exactly?
-
Here is mine,(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg/320px-Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg)
You obviously got that from the internet. Or, are you now claiming to be Dr. Tom Engels? Perhaps I should contact Dr. Engels to verify that you are him and if not, suggest legal actions? Or, wait, that would be childish, don't you think?
Not as childish as explicitly claiming the work as his own, and then when challenged claiming to be the person in the photo.
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
It's all over Google. It's also posted HERE (http://bit.ly/SyAa6Y).
What's the problem exactly?
ausGeoff, what is that link? The network security here at my work won't let me go there and I get a warning that says it is pornagraphy and my phone tells me that I have to install software in order to view the page.
-
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
It's all over Google. It's also posted HERE (http://bit.ly/SyAa6Y).
What's the problem exactly?
ausGeoff, what is that link? The network security here at my work won't let me go there and I get a warning that says it is pornagraphy and my phone tells me that I have to install software in order to view the page.
Hehe being a page about fractals I guess you could call it porno for mathematicians :P
-
Here is mine,(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg/320px-Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg)
You obviously got that from the internet. Or, are you now claiming to be Dr. Tom Engels? Perhaps I should contact Dr. Engels to verify that you are him and if not, suggest legal actions? Or, wait, that would be childish, don't you think?
Not as childish as explicitly claiming the work as his own, and then when challenged claiming to be the person in the photo.
Mine claim was obviously a lie. Vauxhall's claims are just as obvious lies as mine.
-
ausGeoff, what is that link? The network security here at my work won't let me go there and I get a warning that says it is pornagraphy and my phone tells me that I have to install software in order to view the page.
No porno and no addons necessary jroa. This is its URL:
http[colon]//funny-pictures[dot]picphotos[dot]net/fun-with-fractals-some-art-generated-by-my-matlab-to-draw-fractals/1/
The image in question is on page 4.
-
So, Vauxhall is a proven liar.
Sort of knew that already. ::)
-
What gets me is how he'll really go to bat in defense of his invented positions. That's the part I don't understand. Trolling is as old as the tubes, but he almost seems to believe his own nonsense and get offended when we don't.
-
ausGeoff, what is that link? The network security here at my work won't let me go there and I get a warning that says it is pornagraphy and my phone tells me that I have to install software in order to view the page.
No porno and no addons necessary jroa. This is its URL:
http[colon]//funny-pictures[dot]picphotos[dot]net/fun-with-fractals-some-art-generated-by-my-matlab-to-draw-fractals/1/
The image in question is on page 4.
Well, now that I am home and am using a secure operating system, I can view the page. I now see that the triggers were probably bondage and Pink Power Ranger. I am not clicking on any links on that dirty page, and I suggest the same to everyone else.
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
15 minutes is not 24 hours. So how do you get it to swing for 24 hour with out intervention ?
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
15 minutes is not 24 hours. So how do you get it to swing for 24 hour with out intervention ?
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect - in that case a few dominoes were placed around the low point and it took roughly that long for them to all be knocked over suggesting there was at least a "sideways" component; it did take a couple tries to get the swing down the middle of the dominoes though :P Public viewable pendulums often do the same thing too.
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
15 minutes is not 24 hours. So how do you get it to swing for 24 hour with out intervention ?
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect - in that case a few dominoes were placed around the low point and it took roughly that long for them to all be knocked over suggesting there was at least a "sideways" component; it did take a couple tries to get the swing down the middle of the dominoes though :P Public viewable pendulums often do the same thing too.
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect What effect is that exactly ? The earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass, Which causes your pendulum to has a pivoting point or the hot air piffle blown up naive peoples clackers that the earth is rotating.
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
15 minutes is not 24 hours. So how do you get it to swing for 24 hour with out intervention ?
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect - in that case a few dominoes were placed around the low point and it took roughly that long for them to all be knocked over suggesting there was at least a "sideways" component; it did take a couple tries to get the swing down the middle of the dominoes though :P Public viewable pendulums often do the same thing too.
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect What effect is that exactly ? The earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass, Which causes your pendulum to has a pivoting point or the hot air piffle blown up naive peoples clackers that the earth is rotating.
The effect is well documented. How imperfect is the spherical earth and is it significant?
-
I have never been able to see one
For your information, I have built my own
Massive contradiction - are you going to post something true? There's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time; we did build our own, and it worked just fine with no magnets and no motor either - just a good push and a high ceiling.
How long did it swing for ?
We were doing other experiments whilst it was "doing its thing"; it wasn't timed or anything but at a rough guess it must have been a good 15 minutes. I've got photos of those physics labs hiding somewhere so I'll try and dig them out :)
15 minutes is not 24 hours. So how do you get it to swing for 24 hour with out intervention ?
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect - in that case a few dominoes were placed around the low point and it took roughly that long for them to all be knocked over suggesting there was at least a "sideways" component; it did take a couple tries to get the swing down the middle of the dominoes though :P Public viewable pendulums often do the same thing too.
The pendulum does not need to do a full "revolution" to observe the effect What effect is that exactly ? The earth is not a perfect spherical centre of mass, Which causes your pendulum to has a pivoting point or the hot air piffle blown up naive peoples clackers that the earth is rotating.
If that was the case, the pendulum would align itself with the center or gravity and then stop it's rotation. This is never observed.
-
Again, the pendulum is going to move towards the centre of mass, wherever that is. The earth being a sphere or not doesn't change that.
And as for the pivot point you keep going on about, of course a pendulum has a pivot point. How else could it swing?
-
Again, the pendulum is going to move towards the centre of mass, wherever that is. The earth being a sphere or not doesn't change that.
And as for the pivot point you keep going on about, of course a pendulum has a pivot point. How else could it swing?
Well we seem to be getting there very slowly. Now lets not swing your pendulum & call it a plum bob. Now explain to me how your managing to achieve your perpendicular in relationship to your hanging apparatus,the hanging piont ,your circumference & your centre of mass.
-
(http://)
-
t = 2pi sqt (l/g)
-
Again, the pendulum is going to move towards the centre of mass, wherever that is. The earth being a sphere or not doesn't change that.
And as for the pivot point you keep going on about, of course a pendulum has a pivot point. How else could it swing?
Well we seem to be getting there very slowly. Now lets not swing your pendulum & call it a plum bob. Now explain to me how your managing to achieve your perpendicular in relationship to your hanging apparatus,the hanging piont ,your circumference & your centre of mass.
Hang the plum bob from the ceiling. Use a big square to get the floor of the apparatus perpendicular to the string. That's about it really. It's irrelevant whether the plumb bob or pendulum is perpendicular to the ceiling, or the ground, or whatever. The anchor point just needs to be stationary with respect to the floor. The nature of the plumb bob is that it points directly to the centre of mass, so that's taken care of. Now what?
-
(http://)
OK...
The period of a pendulum is determined by its length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?
-
(http://)
OK...
The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?
How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors from your equations.
-
The factors aren't being ignored! The 1000mph rotation you're so bothered by is what causes the swing of the pendulum to rotate :D
It couldn't be further from being ignored, it's what is being measured!
-
(http://)
OK...
The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?
How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors from your equations.
The Earth has a center of mass, whether it's shaped like a sphere, egg, football, pumpkin, or whatever. Your plumb bob points toward that center of mass. The pendulum swings along a plane passing through that center of mass. Perhaps you can explain how shape changes that?
For info on calculating a center of mass, try this http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf (http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf)
-
(http://)
OK...
The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?
How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors from your equations.
The Earth has a center of mass, whether it's shaped like a sphere, egg, football, pumpkin, or whatever. Your plumb bob points toward that center of mass. The pendulum swings along a plane passing through that center of mass. Perhaps you can explain how shape changes that?
For info on calculating a center of mass, try this http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf (http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf)
What about the mine shaft experiments that prove that either the center of mass is not inside the Earth, or that plumb bobs do not point to the center of mass? I posted these experiments a week or two ago and can post them again if you need me to.
-
Why don't you tell me what about them?
-
Why don't you tell me what about them?
Over the course of several experiments designed to prove that plumb bobs point to the center of Earth's center of mass, massive weights were hung in very deep mine shafts. The hypothesis was that the wires that the weights were suspended from would be a little closer together at the bottom compared to the top. However, in virtually every case, the opposite was true. The weights did not come closer together at the bottom of the mines. The wires were accurately measured to be farther apart at the bottom.
-
Yay, more experiments from the early early 1900s being used at FE hypothesis evidence. Of course, ignoring all modern science in the process.
I also find it laughable that you are using an experiment that hypothesizes that the earth is HOLLOW and not flat to make your point.
ARe you a hollow earth believer or flat earth believe? If flat, stick to flat earth "evidence" for sake of continuity and for the sake of your reputation.
-
I am a Truth Earther. What exactly is your problem with these experiments?
-
Why don't you tell me what about them?
Over the course of several experiments designed to prove that plumb bobs point to the center of Earth's center of mass, massive weights were hung in very deep mine shafts. The hypothesis was that the wires that the weights were suspended from would be a little closer together at the bottom compared to the top. However, in virtually every case, the opposite was true. The weights did not come closer together at the bottom of the mines. The wires were accurately measured to be farther apart at the bottom.
Sure they did. ;)
-
Are you calling me a liar?
-
Are you calling me a liar?
Funny that you immediately assume that. I wonder why?
Of course there are several other possibilities. You could be absolutely right, but it's difficult to tell without knowing any details about the experiment.
Could be there were errors in the experiment. Has it been duplicated?
Could be you are honestly mistaken about the results.
But you jump straight to indignation. Huh.
-
Well, you can read about it for yourself. If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm)
-
Well, you can read about it for yourself. If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm)
Oh, so you are convinced now that the Earth is round, but hollow?
Are you also a scientific satirist jroa? Do you get a kick out of taking the piss and pulling everyone's leg?
From the article you posted:
[1] Editor's note: The last half of this article convinces me that Ray Palmer was a master of parody and scientific satire. He cleverly plays on common misunderstandings of gravity and cosmology to suggest absurd conclusions. And he does it in such a deviously clever way that to the typical non-scientist it all sounds quite plausible.
In the same issue of this issue of Flying Saucers (a magazine edited and published by Palmer) are other articles debunking the idea of the hollow earth, with concocted names of authors, all written by Palmer himself.
Several people who knew Palmer have told me that in their opinion Palmer was having fun "pulling everyone's leg". —Donald Simanek.
-
Well, you can read about it for yourself. If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm)
Oh, so you are convinced now that the Earth is round, but hollow?
Are you also a scientific satirist jroa? Do you get a kick out of taking the piss and pulling everyone's leg?
From the article you posted:
[1] Editor's note: The last half of this article convinces me that Ray Palmer was a master of parody and scientific satire. He cleverly plays on common misunderstandings of gravity and cosmology to suggest absurd conclusions. And he does it in such a deviously clever way that to the typical non-scientist it all sounds quite plausible.
In the same issue of this issue of Flying Saucers (a magazine edited and published by Palmer) are other articles debunking the idea of the hollow earth, with concocted names of authors, all written by Palmer himself.
Several people who knew Palmer have told me that in their opinion Palmer was having fun "pulling everyone's leg". —Donald Simanek.
Maybe you missed the part where he said "last half". In other words, from the point where the author says he will begin to give his own commentary.
-
Also https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)
When was it last repeated to prove it?
-
What about the mine shaft experiments that prove that either the center of mass is not inside the Earth, or that plumb bobs do not point to the center of mass? I posted these experiments a week or two ago and can post them again if you need me to.
Take us through the data.
-
We all expect jroa to repeat the experiment.
-
Take us through the data.
It is all right there in the article for you to read.
We all expect jroa to repeat the experiment.
OK. I will start digging immediately. ::)
-
Also https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)
When was it last repeated to prove it?
Interesting. This is why it's so important to fact check. So it would appear jroa made the same mistake others have, in using a misleading article about an experiment that may not really have taken place, by an author known for embellishment and sensationalism.
As I said, even if it were all true, which is highly doubtful, and Palmer's conclusions are correct, which is even more doubtful, the implication is that the Earth is a hollow ball, not a flat disc. Is this what you believe now jroa?
Finally, all this is really a distraction from the OP, since it doesn't explain in any way the observed motions of the Foucault pendulum. Whether there is a convergence or divergence of multiple plumb lines, especially when the effect is so small, really makes no difference.
-
Take us through the data.
It is all right there in the article for you to read.
Cool
This incident still appears today in secondary accounts with such incomplete documentation that one is tempted to consider it an urban legend.
and then
So it seems there's no mystery in this whole affair, and no real challenge to conventional geodesy and gravity theory. The Koreshans were citing misleading newspaper accounts and selecting data to suit their philosophical agenda, without understanding the methodology of the experiments or recognizing the centripetal effect due to earth's rotation (which they didn't accept anyway).
The bolded part sounds familiar for some reason....
-
There are so many problems with taking the Tamarack mine experiment as anything out of the ordinary. Of course, we went through them last time it came up, but to summarise, the experimenter at the time said that the lines were expected to be nearly parallel, and in most cases they were measured as converging slightly from parallel. In only one case were they measured to diverge. This was thought at the time to be due to air currents and a further experiment corroborated that. The newspapers and some others at the time misinterpreted (or simply lied about) the results and McNair, the experimenter went to some lengths to counteract those reports.
Apparently, he wasn't entirely successful. As, here we are a hundred years later talking about one anomalous result in one experiment conducted one time by a man who
was satisfied that the cause was upward and downward air currents in the vertical mine shaft, determined by his careful experiments in which the currents were blocked (as much as possible), and the plumb lines relocated relative to the air flow.
Interestingly, (and on topic!) the behaviour of a Foucault pendulum would still be observed on a hollow earth if it were rotating. The pendulum would just precess the opposite direction in each hemisphere (assuming the same rotation of the earth).
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
-
Because you only mention the same handful of century old unrepeated experiments, and you wilfully misinterpret the results even of those?
Just a guess.
Did you read my post before yours? There are good reasons that nobody is taking this interpretation of that experiment seriously.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
What claims without data? Measured distances, pictures, angles of satellite dishes, people in an industry, documentation, experience.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
-
The factors aren't being ignored! The 1000mph rotation you're so bothered by is what causes the swing of the pendulum to rotate :D
It couldn't be further from being ignored, it's what is being measured!
Is that the same rotation they slow by half & have the moon travelling in the opposite direction to what direction its viewed travelling . So they can say their conjured up figures work out.
-
He's talking about the 1 rotation per day of the Earth, which works out to about 1000mph at the equator.
What rotation are you talking about that's slowed by half? Nobody controls the Earth's rotation, so you must be talking about something else.
The only relevant rotation to the Foucault pendulum is the Earth's rotation, so please try to keep up.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
-
A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
Plum bobs will align with more mass. Doesn't have to be the center of mass of the entire object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment)
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society. Where all the evidence we hash out that they CAN'T explain is automatically null.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?
-
A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY
Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?
-
A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY
Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?
No need to be a grammar nazi. I believe he meant to split that sentence to further reinforce the tone of what he's trying to say. It's all about context, not letters, man.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?
Well why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning the impossibility with the claim made, that Foucault pendulum proves the earth is rotating. You need a Spherical centre of mass. nothing less will do. Got it !!!
-
A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY
Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?
No need to be a grammar nazi. I believe he meant to split that sentence to further reinforce the tone of what he's trying to say. It's all about context, not letters, man.
I admit, this was low hanging fruit and I went for it. But it's not like I picked on the one little mistake out of many sensible posts with decent grammar. No, his typically horrible grammar and spelling is nothing compared to how incoherent, ignorant and plain insulting his posts are. He's been going on for page after page trying to make some kind of argument that I don't think anyone has a clear idea of. So this isn't an attempt to bully poor CB, it's just that I've pretty much given up on him ever making any sense or coming up with anything remotely intelligent to say and now I'm just having a dig at him. I wouldn't do it if he showed the least bit of humility or willingness to understand anything anyone has said to him. On the contrary, he's been unabashedly arrogant and belligerent towards anyone who's asked him a moderately difficult question or disagreed with him in any way.
So let's give him the benefit of the doubt here. Fixing up his post a bit, we get this:
A plumb bob proves the Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY
OK, so it's another baseless assertion backed up by absolutely nothing, capped off by a stubborn, arrogant unwillingness to even discuss the matter further. Hats off to you CB, you total fucking genius. You've solved the case. Bravo.
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.
On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.
That's why they are right, and you are wrong.
I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling 1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.
There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?
Well why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning the impossibility with the claim made, that Foucault pendulum proves the earth is rotating. You need a Spherical centre of mass. nothing less will do. Got it !!!
There's nothing for me to "get". You've explained nothing. All you've done is repeat the same nonsense phrase "spherical centre of mass" after I explained why it made no sense the first 20 times you said it.
Once again, I have no problem with the Earth not being a perfect sphere. I thought you were trying to say it's flat, but you've given no explanation as to how the Foucault pendulum is supposed to work on a flat, non-rotating Earth. All you've done is repeatedly deny that it can work on a slightly non-spherical Earth without giving any good reasons why.
-
Your own premise proves its wrong, so why are you getting angry with me? when it was you who swallowed their bullshit. Hell they probable gave you a nice printed degree for that gullibility !!!.
The measure of some ones intelligence, has never been spelling & grammar. I've meet some very stupid persons in my time that had majored in English. Gabh mo leisgeul! a bheil Gàidhlig agat/agaibh? ::)
-
Charles obviously has very little understanding of what the term "centre of gravity" (CoG)means. He seems to think (erroneously) that an oblate spheroid—such as the earth—doesn't have a mathematically-defined centre of gravity that never moves from its location. And that it hasn't moved for 4.54 billion years. He also can't comprehend that a banana or a pear or a grapefruit each have a fixed CoG. In fact the grapefruit's CoG is located exactly where the earth's CoG is located with regard to their masses and geometry.
And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG. Which is why our theoretical plumb bobs in a deep mine shaft will actually converge, and not diverge. It also explains why the parallel planes of each opposing wall on a skyscraper will not pass through the earth's CoG. Although some flat earthers have suggested that a skyscraper "tapers" from top to bottom LOL.
The other point (that's already been raised) is that flat earthers inevitably rely on relatively primitive experiments carried out under dubious control conditions—and often by academically unqualified people—well over a century ago. They stubbornly refuse to accept that science has moved forwards at an ever-increasing rate since the 19th century.
Why is it for example that they're unable to give us any scientific data supporting their flat earth theory that's been published from 2000 to 2014. Surely their must be some new developments, or more sophisticated experiments, or further astronomical observations made that reinforce their theory? There have been numerous enhancements made to "round earth" science during the past 14 years.
So... why haven't similar enhancements been made to the flat earth theories?
-
Your own premise proves its wrong, so why are you getting angry with me? when it was you who swallowed their bullshit. Hell they probable gave you a nice printed degree for that gullibility !!!.
The measure of some ones intelligence, has never been spelling & grammar. I've meet some very stupid persons in my time that had majored in English. Gabh mo leisgeul! a bheil Gàidhlig agat/agaibh? ::)
I thought I made it clear that I could really care less about how badly you spell and write, it's your total ignorance combined with arrogance that's annoying.
-
I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.
It just doesn't work that way Charles. You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.
Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.
On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.
-
Charles obviously has very little understanding of what the term "centre of gravity" (CoG)means. He seems to think (erroneously) that an oblate spheroid—such as the earth—doesn't have a mathematically-defined centre of gravity that never moves from its location. And that it hasn't moved for 4.54 billion years. He also can't comprehend that a banana or a pear or a grapefruit each have a fixed CoG. In fact the grapefruit's CoG is located exactly where the earth's CoG is located with regard to their masses and geometry.
And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG. Which is why our theoretical plumb bobs in a deep mine shaft will actually converge, and not diverge. It also explains why the parallel planes of each opposing wall on a skyscraper will not pass through the earth's CoG. Although some flat earthers have suggested that a skyscraper "tapers" from top to bottom LOL.
The other point (that's already been raised) is that flat earthers inevitably rely on relatively primitive experiments carried out under dubious control conditions—and often by academically unqualified people—well over a century ago. They stubbornly refuse to accept that science has moved forwards at an ever-increasing rate since the 19th century.
Why is it for example that they're unable to give us any scientific data supporting their flat earth theory that's been published from 2000 to 2014. Surely their must be some new developments, or more sophisticated experiments, or further astronomical observations made that reinforce their theory? There have been numerous enhancements made to "round earth" science during the past 14 years.
So... why haven't similar enhancements been made to the flat earth theories?
rely on relatively primitive experiments.lol Its better then relying on your hypothesised verbal excrement.
I have put forward why its a fraud. So rather then insulting me by claiming I haven't a clue what I'm talking about. kindly provide a diagram demonstrating you claims.
-
I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.
It just doesn't work that way Charles. You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.
Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.
On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.
Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool ::)
-
I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.
You mean like how you jump on other people for what you're complaining about?
Get real.
-
I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.
It just doesn't work that way Charles. You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.
Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.
On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.
Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool ::)
How the expansion of railway lines is dealt with is well known, what's your issue? Nothing to do with the topic, you could be banned.
-
I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.
It just doesn't work that way Charles. You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.
Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.
On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.
Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool ::)
How the expansion of railway lines is dealt with is well known, what's your issue? Nothing to do with the topic, you could be banned.
Banned for what asking could he provide the metal composition he didn't on anther thread. well I hope I'm not Banned before Geoff posts his diagram. Other wise there wont be anyone on this forum to kick your trolling ass.
-
You haven't kicked anyone's ass. You are actually making yourself look worse with your huge bolded words, foot stomping, cussing and yelling.
Take a xanax and breathe, kiddo.
-
As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
(http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/images/season12/gravity/tree_and_apple.gif)
As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet. If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.
EDIT: This forum doesn't like nested coding grrr...
-
As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
(http://[url=http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/images/season12/gravity/tree_and_apple.gif]http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/images/season12/gravity/tree_and_apple.gif[/url])
As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet. If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.
http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm (http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm)
The apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet
Geoff wrote in an earlier post And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG
Draw a diagram proving your point.
-
As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
(http://[url=http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/images/season12/gravity/tree_and_apple.gif]http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/images/season12/gravity/tree_and_apple.gif[/url])
As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet. If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.
http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm (http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm)
The apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet
Geoff wrote in an earlier post And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG
Draw a diagram proving your point.
Why should he draw anything? When you were asked to do the exact same thing you predictably dodged.
Keep trolling though. ::)
-
I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory? One that a first-grader could apparently produce?
I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch. You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory. Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.
Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand, that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.
What a convenient way of absolving yourself of providing any sort of explanation for the drivel you spew. How so typically convenient.
-
I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing & post something a grade 1 primary school kid could get their head around & save you the embarrassment.
So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory? One that a first-grader could apparently produce?
I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch. You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory. Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.
Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand, that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.
What a convenient way of absolving yourself of providing any sort of explanation for the drivel you spew. How so typically convenient.
Would you like a tissue for your teary. What do they say?Oh thats right slowly slowly you catch the monkeys.
Geoff wrote And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.
So if we draw a line through to the COG & continued the trajectory through to the other side of the earth. will it be a two half even symmetrical out come for the shape of earths mass. NO !!! So where does that leave your pendulum? Up shyt creek with out a paddle along with your claimed earth curvature.
-
You haven't kicked anyone's ass. You are actually making yourself look worse with your huge bolded words, foot stomping, cussing and yelling.
Take a xanax and breathe, kiddo.
Well I'm Kicking it now.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
It's the use by various posters of the word 'your' that suggests they are the same person.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
I can assure you I'm not sceptimatic & I'm more then happy to reply to the mod of this forum via my email mail address.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area. Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth. I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information. I hope this helps settle this matter.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
It's the use by various posters of the word 'your' that suggests they are the same person.
It is a running joke, too. For many years, people post things like, "Your a retart" or "Your a moran". Please don't get your panties in a wad over it.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area. Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth. I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information. I hope this helps settle this matter.
Just to help the Mod out I'm a Glaswegian who live in country Victoria Australia.
-
This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.
They both behave like petulant children.
PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.
I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts. Could you please confirm or deny this jroa? Thanks.
I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area. Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth. I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information. I hope this helps settle this matter.
Just to help the Mod out I'm a Glaswegian who live in country Victoria Australia.
I can confirm that charles' IP addresses all come from Australia, while sceptimatic's do not.
-
They must be long lost brothers, because they both act exactly the same way.
-
Would you like a tissue for your teary. What do they say?Oh thats right slowly slowly you catch the monkeys.
Geoff wrote And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.
So if we draw a line through to the COG & continued the trajectory through to the other side of the earth. will it be a two half even symmetrical out come for the shape of earths mass. NO !!! So where does that leave your pendulum? Up shyt creek with out a paddle along with your claimed earth curvature.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.
The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D
-
Would you like a tissue for your teary. What do they say?Oh thats right slowly slowly you catch the monkeys.
Geoff wrote And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.
So if we draw a line through to the COG & continued the trajectory through to the other side of the earth. will it be a two half even symmetrical out come for the shape of earths mass. NO !!! So where does that leave your pendulum? Up shyt creek with out a paddle along with your claimed earth curvature.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.
The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D
I also don't understand why, according to him, mass has a shape?
-
Would you like a tissue for your teary. What do they say?Oh thats right slowly slowly you catch the monkeys.
Geoff wrote And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.
So if we draw a line through to the COG & continued the trajectory through to the other side of the earth. will it be a two half even symmetrical out come for the shape of earths mass. NO !!! So where does that leave your pendulum? Up shyt creek with out a paddle along with your claimed earth curvature.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.
The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D
You forgot the axis. So dont get to existed rubbing your genie bottle just yet. ::)
-
The axis also passes through the center of gravity, what is your point?
-
The earth's axis of rotation has to pass through its centre of mass. There's nowhere else that it could pass through.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZzPjPKb.jpg) (http://imgur.com/ZzPjPKb)
No matter where I attach the thread, exactly half the mug will be on one side and half on the other. The centre of gravity is directly below the string in each case. If I could be bothered to set up a more orthographic view and take a load more photos from a fixed position, it would become pretty clear where exactly the centre of mass is. But that isn't especially interesting.
The fact that my mug isn't a perfect sphere doesn't stop it having a centre of mass, nor does it stop it rotating quite happily about any axis which passes through that centre of mass. Now, if you tried to rotate it about an axis which didn't pass through the centre, you'd get a wobble. Like a misaligned wheel. But the earth isn't skewered on a cosmic axle, it's freely rotating in space. So it can only rotate about its centre of mass.
-
The earth's axis of rotation has to pass through its centre of mass. There's nowhere else that it could pass through.
No matter where I attach the thread, exactly half the mug will be on one side and half on the other. The centre of gravity is directly below the string in each case. If I could be bothered to set up a more orthographic view and take a load more photos from a fixed position, it would become pretty clear where exactly the centre of mass is. But that isn't especially interesting.
The fact that my mug isn't a perfect sphere doesn't stop it having a centre of mass, nor does it stop it rotating quite happily about any axis which passes through that centre of mass. Now, if you tried to rotate it about an axis which didn't pass through the centre, you'd get a wobble. Like a misaligned wheel. But the earth isn't skewered on a cosmic axle, it's freely rotating in space. So it can only rotate about its centre of mass.
Your explanation is almost correct in every sense, but there are a few details that have to be discussed now, before an FE'er with no understanding of Physics starts to make a fuss.
First, your plomb does not exactly point to the center of gravity of Earth. The difference is minuscule, but measurable with the best equipment available. For example, if you measure the angle between the line of the plumb and a true vertical (using stars as your point of reference) while you are on the side of a heavy, rocky mountain, you will find an angle different from zero. Your plumb will show the approximate location of the CoG but not the exact place. In fact, for some time we had more than one estimate of the height of Mount Everest because the triangulation from different places gave different results.
Also, when you spin a non-homogeneous object from its center of gravity there may be a wobble. Take, for example, a car wheel with a dented rim. You measure the center of gravity and it is pretty much in the center of the rim. But you spin the wheel at some 100 km/h and the whole car shakes. By putting weights on the rim the dynamic balance is restored even though the static balance is slightly affected.
All of the above has affected Earth's spinning and makes it a very complex movement if we look at tens of thousands of years at a time. But because most of our planet is liquid magma, these effects are small. On the other hand, the slight imbalance of the Moon, and its lack of liquid magma, have contributed to its synchronization with Earth, making one side of the Moon face Earth all the time.
Now, back to the thread, nothing of the above affects the simple, straightforward experiment of the Foucault's Pendulum. The effect of these minuscule differences is orders of magnitude less than the typical one degree or so that Foucault's Pendulum moves.
-
You're a braver man than I <hat-tip> We were still struggling to agree that "things which aren't spheres" have centres of mass at all.
I think.
It's hard to tell. But the last thing I wanted to do was run before we could walk. Or, I guess, crawl before we could lie down unsupervised without suffocating ourselves.
-
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
-
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
Has anyone put up a video of their own non-assisted pendulum as of yet?
Make one, demonstrate it simply, and I will be more willing to answer any questions you may have about it.
-
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
They are all hoaxes is the standard line. They haven't really got anywhere else to go with it.
Apart from Charles' mad as a brain damaged squirrel incoherence, I suppose.
-
They aren't entirely trivial things to construct. I'd like to try making one but I can't think of a suitable place I've got access to. However, if every single one that already exists and every single account of how those behave isn't enough, what good will adding one more to the pile do?
On reflection - Dr Vauxhall linked to a 2005 blog where he created a working one in a stairwell. Will that do?
-
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
Has anyone put up a video of their own non-assisted pendulum as of yet?
Make one, demonstrate it simply, and I will be more willing to answer any questions you may have about it.
There are plenty of examples you can find on the web of homemade Foucault pendulums I'm sure. Why would you trust anyone on this site any more than you'd trust the ones you can find online? So either look at those examples and explain them, or make your own if you're not satisfied with someone else's setup.
I'll start you off: (http://)
-
Take it from me. Foucault Pendulums are hard to make. They require a lot of space, time, and equipment to be done correctly. That's why REers asking us to "make our own" are just being unrealistic and obviously don't understand the huge time investment (and monetary investment) that goes into making one of these fraud devices.
Oh, did I mention the motor to get these things working like they should according to RE'ers costs up to $100 dollars? ::)
-
Take it from me. Foucault Pendulums are hard to make. They require a lot of space, time, and equipment to be done correctly. That's why REers asking us to "make our own" are just being unrealistic and obviously don't understand the huge time investment (and monetary investment) that goes into making one of these fraud devices.
No one is asking you to make a fraudulent device, what are you thinking? ??? Of course, making a legitimate one that gives clear results is no small task either.
So, since they are so difficult and time consuming to make, then you can't reasonably expect REers to make one either I suppose?
Therefore all you can really do is argue from your own personal experience that you were thrown out of a facility that had one, before you could view it, so that you don't actually have any first hand experience of a Foucault pendulum, and thus you can't really say for sure that they are actually fraudulent devices in the first place.
On the other hand, several people here say they have witnessed one personally without any obstruction, so they do have first hand experience that you lack. My advice would be to NOT get thrown out of a facility before you are able to determine the fraud, so that you have some actual observations to argue from. :D
-
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
-
Shmeggley, I don't even know where to being with you most of the time. It seems like you misunderstand on purpose.
Are you now claiming that people can see through walls?
Just because some people have observed foucault pendulums "working properly" doesn't prove anything. Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
No, I am not sticking to that. You need to learn how to recognize satire. I have made my own foucault pendulum, but the one I posted was not mine. It was a similar one in design, but (once again) it was not mine. I posted it in response to unreasonable requests by several RE'ers to simply "make my own", even though you know how damn difficult it is to make one.
-
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?
-
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?
Despite whether or not you want to believe me, that pendulum was controlled by a motor (which was not pictured). So there's really not much to discuss, unless you get your kicks from discussing made-up science?
-
Shmeggley, I don't even know where to being with you most of the time. It seems like you misunderstand on purpose.
Are you now claiming that people can see through walls?
Just because some people have observed foucault pendulums "working properly" doesn't prove anything. Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
No, I am not sticking to that. You need to learn how to recognize satire. I have made my own foucault pendulum, but the one I posted was not mine. It was a similar one in design, but (once again) it was not mine. I posted it in response to unreasonable requests by several RE'ers to simply "make my own", even though you know how damn difficult it is to make one.
So you did actually build one, OK, but you didn't make a visual record of it. Disappointing, but I guess it happens. I mean, it's not like a regular person just has access to a camera at any time or anything. But I digress.
So what were the results exactly? Did you write anything down we could talk about? How would you explain the differences in your results from (the real) Dr. Abganusi?
-
Without the motor the pendulum displayed a slight wobble from the aetheric whirlpool effect, but it was negligible. There's not much to discuss when the original experiment (the pendulum itself) barely moves without a motor.
It's all an elaborate fraud done with motors. Is there something else you wanted to discuss?
-
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?
In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?
Despite whether or not you want to believe me, that pendulum was controlled by a motor (which was not pictured). So there's really not much to discuss, unless you get your kicks from discussing made-up science?
There are pictures from the top to the bottom. I don't see any motor either. Where would the motor have to be in the setup to give the results he got?
-
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
-
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
OK, but in this setup, the ball doesn't actually swing directly from the anchor point. They used a webbing to create a pivot point lower down to reduce friction, so how is a motor at the anchor point supposed to cause the precession observed?
If you could actually explain in detail how the fake Foucault pendulum works, that would be helpful. If you can't, you may as well just keep hand waving and say it's done with smoke and mirrors, or magnets, or a hidden hamster wheel in the ball or something. Unless you can give an account of how you get the results obtained through trickery, you are basically just standing on the sidelines yelling "FAKE!!!11".
-
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
OK, but in this setup, the ball doesn't actually swing directly from the anchor point. They used a webbing to create a pivot point lower down to reduce friction, so how is a motor at the anchor point supposed to cause the precession observed?
If you could actually explain in detail how the fake Foucault pendulum works, that would be helpful. If you can't, you may as well just keep hand waving and say it's done with smoke and mirrors, or magnets, or a hidden hamster wheel in the ball or something. Unless you can give an account of how you get the results obtained through trickery, you are basically just standing on the sidelines yelling "FAKE!!!11".
I've explained this to you a few times, Shmeggley. Just because there appears to be a "webbing" or some other explanation, that doesn't mean it is a functional part of the experiment. It was probably added to divert suspicions.
I made this diagram to help you understand:
(http://i.imgur.com/qWB6BKe.png)
-
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
OK, but in this setup, the ball doesn't actually swing directly from the anchor point. They used a webbing to create a pivot point lower down to reduce friction, so how is a motor at the anchor point supposed to cause the precession observed?
If you could actually explain in detail how the fake Foucault pendulum works, that would be helpful. If you can't, you may as well just keep hand waving and say it's done with smoke and mirrors, or magnets, or a hidden hamster wheel in the ball or something. Unless you can give an account of how you get the results obtained through trickery, you are basically just standing on the sidelines yelling "FAKE!!!11".
I've explained this to you a few times, Shmeggley. Just because there appears to be a "webbing" or some other explanation, that doesn't mean it is a functional part of the experiment. It was probably added to divert suspicions.
I made this diagram to help you understand:
(http://i.imgur.com/qWB6BKe.png)
Awww, that's adorable! :-*
But your "motor" doesn't seem to be attached to anything! It just seems to be sitting there next to the... is that blob at the top the knot holding the rope up at the top? What is the motor's relation to the rope? Is it just vibrating it, or winding it, spinning it or what? Can you clarify what you mean please?
-
I made this diagram to help you understand:
(http://i.imgur.com/qWB6BKe.png)
Wait... this looks kinda familiar, where have I seen something like this... Oh yeah!
(http://www.hluniverse.com/portal/images/6/62/Barnacle.jpg)
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
You're not an engineer, but you do understand string theory, yet you can't explain how a motor moves a pendulum's arc in a circle... huh. Disappointing.
So you don't really know how it works, yet you're sure that it does work and is responsible for the results. Sounds about par for the course for an FE'er
-
Watch, and allow your minds to be blown with REAL science.
I especially encourage FE hypothesizers to watch.
(http://)
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
You're not an engineer, but you do understand string theory, yet you can't explain how a motor moves a pendulum's arc in a circle... huh. Disappointing.
So you don't really know how it works, yet you're sure that it does work and is responsible for the results. Sounds about par for the course for an FE'er
I know it works that way because I've observed it in action.
-
Watch, and allow your minds to be blown with REAL science.
I especially encourage FE hypothesizers to watch.
(http://)
I have to admit, the combination of the "overly dramatic music" and real science getting done was thrilling.
-
Watch, and allow your minds to be blown with REAL science.
I especially encourage FE hypothesizers to watch.
(http://)
I have to admit, the combination of the "overly dramatic music" and real science getting done was thrilling.
Same
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
You're not an engineer, but you do understand string theory, yet you can't explain how a motor moves a pendulum's arc in a circle... huh. Disappointing.
So you don't really know how it works, yet you're sure that it does work and is responsible for the results. Sounds about par for the course for an FE'er
I know it works that way because I've observed it in action.
You've observed it, you've actually set it up with motors yourself, yet you can't explain it? You do recall posting this I hope:
Are you going to type something worth reading or just keep telling me to build my own? For your information, I have built my own and it only worked with an electric motor. I also built one that worked (according to your idea of "worked") with magnets. Without something guiding the pendulum, it doesn't work. Why don't you build your own?
Something about your story doesn't make sense. Can we cut to the chase and you just admit to whatever it is you're lying about this time?
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
You're not an engineer, but you do understand string theory, yet you can't explain how a motor moves a pendulum's arc in a circle... huh. Disappointing.
So you don't really know how it works, yet you're sure that it does work and is responsible for the results. Sounds about par for the course for an FE'er
I know it works that way because I've observed it in action.
You've observed it, you've actually set it up with motors yourself, yet you can't explain it? Something about your story doesn't make sense. Can we cut to the chase and you just admit to whatever it is you're lying about this time?
He also claims to have video of Boyle's flask demonstrating perpetual energy, he even said he would post it. Yet here I wait, no video to be seen.
-
The motors are usually rudimentary wind up machines. A human or a trained ape needs to be continuously winding it up for the pendulum to move. I'm not an engineer, so I can't explain the specifics.
Half-Life 2 is a great game. But let's try to stay on topic here, Shmeggles.
You're not an engineer, but you do understand string theory, yet you can't explain how a motor moves a pendulum's arc in a circle... huh. Disappointing.
So you don't really know how it works, yet you're sure that it does work and is responsible for the results. Sounds about par for the course for an FE'er
I know it works that way because I've observed it in action.
You've observed it, you've actually set it up with motors yourself, yet you can't explain it? Something about your story doesn't make sense. Can we cut to the chase and you just admit to whatever it is you're lying about this time?
He also claims to have video of Boyle's flask demonstrating perpetual energy, he even said he would post it. Yet here I wait, no video to be seen.
I suppose if Vauxhall weren't such a terrible yet persistent liar, he'd be far less entertaining.
-
Many of my files have been lost in a house fire a few weeks ago. I've explained this before. Try to have a bit more tact, because it was a seriously tragic incident. I currently live in my car and steal internet from Starbucks with my netbook.
I wasn't the only one who set up the pendulum, some other users from this forum helped me. My good friend ZeteticZeus69 actually created the motor, while I got the materials for the project. It was a group effort, so I can't explain every facet of the experiment to you.
-
Many of my files have been lost in a house fire a few weeks ago. I've explained this before. Try to have a bit more tact, because it was a seriously tragic incident. I currently live in my car and steal internet from Starbucks with my netbook.
I wasn't the only one who set up the pendulum, some other users from this forum helped me. My good friend ZeteticZeus69 actually created the motor, while I got the materials for the project. It was a group effort, so I can't explain every facet of the experiment to you.
You told me 2 days ago you would post a video......
I'm sorry about your house.
-
Thank you, Shmeggley. For reminding me of my magnet pendulum, which displayed the same movement that a "working foucault pendulum" would under your hypothesis.
The idea behind this was to put extremely powerful magnets all around the base of the pendulum. These magnets would then pull the pendulum to them, but since there are several magnets surrounding the pendulum you get a circle motion effect because of all the forces acting on the pendulum.
Here is a diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/jTObZJX.png)
-
Many of my files have been lost in a house fire a few weeks ago. I've explained this before. Try to have a bit more tact, because it was a seriously tragic incident. I currently live in my car and steal internet from Starbucks with my netbook.
I wasn't the only one who set up the pendulum, some other users from this forum helped me. My good friend ZeteticZeus69 actually created the motor, while I got the materials for the project. It was a group effort, so I can't explain every facet of the experiment to you.
So your friend set it up, you just observed. The same friend who mysteriously disappeared one day. Since you don't know what he did exactly, how do you know he wasn't lying to you?
-
Many of my files have been lost in a house fire a few weeks ago. I've explained this before. Try to have a bit more tact, because it was a seriously tragic incident. I currently live in my car and steal internet from Starbucks with my netbook.
I wasn't the only one who set up the pendulum, some other users from this forum helped me. My good friend ZeteticZeus69 actually created the motor, while I got the materials for the project. It was a group effort, so I can't explain every facet of the experiment to you.
So your friend set it up, you just observed. The same friend who mysteriously disappeared one day. Since you don't know what he did exactly, how do you know he wasn't lying to you?
He could have been lying, but I saw the motor myself and I saw its effect on the rope the pendulum was attached to. Also, please see my magnet diagram because that works exactly how it should according to your science... the only difference is that the shape of the Earth has nothing to do with it. You can make one of these yourself at home on a smaller scale and it will give you the same results.
-
Many of my files have been lost in a house fire a few weeks ago. I've explained this before. Try to have a bit more tact, because it was a seriously tragic incident. I currently live in my car and steal internet from Starbucks with my netbook.
I wasn't the only one who set up the pendulum, some other users from this forum helped me. My good friend ZeteticZeus69 actually created the motor, while I got the materials for the project. It was a group effort, so I can't explain every facet of the experiment to you.
So your friend set it up, you just observed. The same friend who mysteriously disappeared one day. Since you don't know what he did exactly, how do you know he wasn't lying to you?
He could have been lying, but I saw the motor myself and I saw its effect on the rope the pendulum was attached to. Also, please see my magnet diagram because that works exactly how it should according to your science... the only difference is that the shape of the Earth has nothing to do with it. You can make one of these yourself at home on a smaller scale and it will give you the same results.
Great, can you post the details here so someone can try to replicate the results?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jTObZJX.png)
The details are pretty obvious here. Can you not see the diagram?
1) Get a pendulum
2) hang it
3) get 5 or so magnets
4) arrange them around the pendulum about 10 feet apart from each other on all sides
5) let go of the pendulum
6) watch the pendulum circle about due to magnetism.
-
You're right, it's suddenly very clear exactly what is going on here. ;)
-
You ask for an explanation. I give you one. You ridicule me. What's up with that?
-
You ask for an explanation. I give you one. You ridicule me. What's up with that?
You're right, I suppose I should thank you for making your trolling so blatantly obvious that I don't even need to spend any time on debunking it.
-
Your friend used to post on these forums? Tell me again why an admin deleted his account and all his posts.
A bunch of magnets might well cause a pendulum to "circle about" but do they cause it to swing in a straight arc that precesses exactly once every day or so (depending on latitude)? I don't see how, unless you had a much more specific setup than the one you describe. Have the magnets somehow constrain the pendulum's arc then motorise them to precess exactly once per 24/sin(latitude) hours.
-
Accounts get deleted all the time to save server space. I am not saying this is what happened. Just saying that it happens.
-
Your friend used to post on these forums? Tell me again why an admin deleted his account and all his posts.
A bunch of magnets might well cause a pendulum to "circle about" but do they cause it to swing in a straight arc that precesses exactly once every day or so (depending on latitude)? I don't see how, unless you had a much more specific setup than the one you describe. Have the magnets somehow constrain the pendulum's arc then motorise them to precess exactly once per 24/sin(latitude) hours.
Yep. This is easily one of the best explanations for creating a specific pattern for the pendulum's movements. I think you explained it best.
You guys are still arguing that foucault pendulum's movements cannot be replicated without the Earth's rotation, right?
-
Your friend used to post on these forums? Tell me again why an admin deleted his account and all his posts.
A bunch of magnets might well cause a pendulum to "circle about" but do they cause it to swing in a straight arc that precesses exactly once every day or so (depending on latitude)? I don't see how, unless you had a much more specific setup than the one you describe. Have the magnets somehow constrain the pendulum's arc then motorise them to precess exactly once per 24/sin(latitude) hours.
Yep. This is easily one of the best explanations for creating a specific pattern for the pendulum's movements. I think you explained it best.
You guys are still arguing that foucault pendulum's movements cannot be replicated without the Earth's rotation, right?
Actually, I'm still maintaining that an unaltered pendulum precesses in response to the Earth's rotation. You're still failing to show convincingly that it can be faked with magnets and/or motors.
-
Who ever claimed that you couldn't slowly rotate a pendulum without rotating the whole earth? Of course you can, pendulums are weak and we are stong! The claim is that people aren't doing that. Our friend Dr Agnabusi, for example had no visible motor nor motive to go through all that work for fun, then lie about it to strangers.
Oh, and while google has results for other members, it has no results at all for zeteticzeus69. It crawled profiles and posts from members who signed up in 2005, posted 11 times then left, but has nothing cached for your friend :)
-
That's because I believe his account was deleted and wiped from the internet by agents of the conspiracy. They aren't going to leave a record of it.
At least you all are now accepting that a pendulum's motion can easily be manipulated by outside forces to create the illusion that the Earth is roatitng. That's all I wanted to hear.
-
Who ever claimed that you couldn't slowly rotate a pendulum without rotating the whole earth? Of course you can, pendulums are weak and we are stong! The claim is that people aren't doing that. Our friend Dr Agnabusi, for example had no visible motor nor motive to go through all that work for fun, then lie about it to strangers.
Oh, and while google has results for other members, it has no results at all for zeteticzeus69. It crawled profiles and posts from members who signed up in 2005, posted 11 times then left, but has nothing cached for your friend :)
My word, the conspiracy must be more powerful and subtle than we ever imagined! Think of what it would take to selectively delete any trace of a single user from the Google search engine servers!
-
That's all you wanted to hear? That some things can be faked? :D Nobody's been saying otherwise for 14 long pages.
-
Vauxhall, I sincerely hope you are not trying to say that all Foucault's pendulums are conspiring against you.
-
Vauxhall, I sincerely hope you are not trying to say that all Foucault's pendulums are conspiring against you.
Against me? No.
Against you? Yes.
-
Vauxhall, I sincerely hope you are not trying to say that all Foucault's pendulums are conspiring against you.
Against me? No.
Against you? Yes.
Fascinating. NASA's doing or wut? And how did Foucault pull off the trick?
-
Did anyone besides Shmeggley even watch the video I posted?
Vauxhall? Was it faked?
-
Sure, I enjoyed it, but it turns out that there is literally no evidence Vauxhall will accept. Any pendulum could have hidden magnets or wires or a tiny propeller on the far side or whatever, so I doubt your video will be received any differently.
-
I will accept your theories once you prove that Foucault Pendulums are not controlled by magnets, wires, motors, or propellers. Until then, absolutely not. You guys have yet to provide any evidence of a real working Foucault Pendulum. All of the examples given in this thread are second-hand stories and wikipedia articles... I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. You all are a damn scourge on the scientific community as a whole.
"It works" is what everything you say amounts to. Sure it works, but why? How? Proof, please. We have given you ample evidence that pendulums could work several other ways, you haven't been able to refute any of them... You have actually said that "it's possible" that they are controlled by magnets, motors, etc. So if it's possible, why isn't that the case?
-
I will accept your theories once you prove that Foucault Pendulums are not controlled by magnets, wires, motors, or propellers. Until then, absolutely not. You guys have yet to provide any evidence of a real working Foucault Pendulum. All of the examples given in this thread are second-hand stories and wikipedia articles... I'm sorry, but that doesn't cut it. You all are a damn scourge on scientific community as a whole.
Turns out the scientific community accepts Foucault's pendulum, so I am not sure that your hyperbole is on point.
-
Ah. The foundation of all conspiracy theories and religions:
I might be right, so until you prove otherwise, I definitely am ::)
The balance of evidence is that innumerable people around the world independently create Foucault pendulums with little motive to fake their results or publish them on the internet. Youtube alone is full of examples of individuals, students and other unaffiliated folks making their own and freely sharing their results.
You can choose to say that every single one of them independently set up a far more complicated magnet-based fraud-machine, but not even you are suggesting there's any evidence of any magnets, you just want their results to be invalid, so you're choosing whatever might make them that way and saying that it must be the case.
Or, short version from the other direction: Can you think of a Foucault pendulum experiment that would satisfy you?
-
Sure, I enjoyed it, but it turns out that there is literally no evidence Vauxhall will accept. Any pendulum could have hidden magnets or wires or a tiny propeller on the far side or whatever, so I doubt your video will be received any differently.
I was waiting to see how long it takes for a group of non-engineers to figure out the downfall of Vauxhall's claim. The magnets that Vauxhall believes the base has hidden are electromagnets the same size of those in an MRI machine. Guests would have to be searched with metal detectors and even the shoes with metal nails or metallic ornaments would have to be removed.
And not only that: a hugely powerful computer would be needed to calculate the strength of every magnet every second, the switching devices would make noise, the sensors needed to feed the location of the pendulum back to the computed would be in plain sight.
And just in case you have money for all of this, a small error would make the magnets rip the pendulum from the ceiling. Even a small error would be quite noticeable because every time the pendulum gets too close to a magnet it will jump. And the magnets would also create rotating torques in the pendulum.
In conclusion, nothing works in Vauxhall's supposed trick pendulum.
-
All of these ideas as to how to fake it and whatever, but how was it faked in 1851? No electronics, no fancy tricks, just a pendulum swinging on a pivot that everyone could come and watch as it precessed at a rate of 11° per hour.
Oh, and then there's this:
Sure, I enjoyed it, but it turns out that there is literally no evidence Vauxhall will accept. Any pendulum could have hidden magnets or wires or a tiny propeller on the far side or whatever, so I doubt your video will be received any differently.
I was waiting to see how long it takes for a group of non-engineers to figure out the downfall of Vauxhall's claim. The magnets that Vauxhall believes the base has hidden are electromagnets the same size of those in an MRI machine. Guests would have to be searched with metal detectors and even the shoes with metal nails or metallic ornaments would have to be removed.
And not only that: a hugely powerful computer would be needed to calculate the strength of every magnet every second, the switching devices would make noise, the sensors needed to feed the location of the pendulum back to the computed would be in plain sight.
And just in case you have money for all of this, a small error would make the magnets rip the pendulum from the ceiling. Even a small error would be quite noticeable because every time the pendulum gets too close to a magnet it will jump. And the magnets would also create rotating torques in the pendulum.
In conclusion, nothing works in Vauxhall's supposed trick pendulum.
-
That's because I believe his account was deleted and wiped from the internet by agents of the conspiracy. They aren't going to leave a record of it.
At least you all are now accepting that a pendulum's motion can easily be manipulated by outside forces to create the illusion that the Earth is roatitng. That's all I wanted to hear.
Easily? Not that I can tell. With a pendulum like in your example, I can't find any way to swing its plane of motion by manipulating the string. I set up a little system, just a hex nut hanging from a thread. Twisting the string does nothing, it just makes the nut spin, but it still swings straight. Winding up the string makes it swing faster, letting it out it swings slower. Jiggling it sideways makes it swing in a narrow ellipse instead of straight back and forth. What else is there? I can't see how to do it.
I don't have strong magnets to try, but it seems to me that if they affect the pendulum at all, it's just going to pull the path into that ellipse shape. That's why those details you posted aren't so helpful.
-
So Vauxhall seems to believe that Léon Foucault used a hiddden electric motor to defraud scientists the world over with the motor—distorting the path of a pendulum? This was in 1851.
But... Nikola Tesla invented and patented the first practical AC motor in 1887. And... Frank Julian Sprague invented the first practical DC motor In 1886.
I'd be interested to see how Vauxhall accounts for this 35-year time discrepancy.
I'd also be interested in Vauxhall'd detailed explanation of exactly how an electric motor is utilised to maintain the consistent plane of the pendulum's arc of movement. Thus far all he's shown us is a primary school kid's sketch showing a (hidden) motor above the ceiling from which the pendulum is attached. Obviously we need a far more detailed "explanation" of the mechanics of this purported scientific fraud.
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
Please list the researchers.
-
There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
I'm guessing that you may have not noticed and understood why I bolded the word practical in both my examples of the introduction of electric motors. It's critical to this discussion. There's a vast difference between theorising about electric motors and their potential application in the real world, and actually constructing a motor that works efficiently in the real world.
At any rate Faraday didn't "invent" any practical electric motor in 1821. This is an image of one of his "motors" from the 1830s:
(http://www.sparkmuseum.com/images/19th-century/92.jpg)
And this is an example of one of the first practical applications of an electric motor from 1898:
(http://www.sparkmuseum.com/images/Misc/Atwater-Kent-Electric-Motor.jpg)
I also can't think of any logical reason why Foucault would've even considered for a moment defrauding the wider public with a display of his pendulum. 150 years ago there were no government grants to researchers, and there's obviously no way that the Foucault pendulum could be put to any practical use in order to make Foucault a rich man.
In the 15th century, through to the 20th century, science and scientists themselves were driven by a "need to know", rather than any interests in making scientists potentially wealthy. And this need to know is the very thing that's enabling us to have this discussion from opposite sides of the world.
-
Been a couple of years since I have posted. I just began lurking about again. In deference to Vaux
http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php (http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php) A quick history of electric motors. As Geoff pointed out he is discussing practical ones. In either case you need to have the motor turn the pendulum's direction at less than one rev per day. I will concede the point that for the original case it certainly could have been a guy up there in the rafters. However as also been duly noted by Geoff what you get if you attempt it is a rotating bob, not a change in the plane of motion of the pendulum.
It is entirely possible that your friend Vaux placed some magnets around his pendulum and then you saw the motion we normally see with a FP. Did you attempt it also without the magnets? I am guessing not, so you did not realize they had no effect.
In addition to the FPs in science centers all over the world High school kids and college kids rig up FPs all over the world each year. Your conspiracy requires all of them to be in on it. Or at least the teachers to somehow hoodwink all the kids. So all those teachers at least need to be in on it. Do you really believe this is the case?
[I can get onto the site to post only from work for some reason. At home I cannot so I am not avoiding the conversation if I do not respond quickly. I hope to have this resolved soon.]
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.
You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.
There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.
You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.
There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.
http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
-
Its pretty obvious the shyt talkers that make their living out theses bogus theories. Protect there own interests.
-
http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php (http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.
You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.
There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.
Yes we wouldn't want to display electromagnetic pendulum, invented in 1832. The public might put two & two together, Foucault pendulum is a elaborate fraud.
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
Please name one credible source. If you can't, I suggest you stop making outlandish claims such as this.
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect. ::)
Typical FE argument style is to focus on insignificant details that really have no bearing on the final result, just to try and reduce credibility. Rather than address the major point that is being discussed, you cower in the shadows.
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect. ::)
Typical FE argument style is to focus on insignificant details that really have no bearing on the final result, just to try and reduce credibility. Rather than address the major point that is being discussed, you cower in the shadows.
Those shadows I'm cowering in. Would that be a 24 hour day or a 34.7 hour day.The pendulum stands just over 70 feet high, has a bob weighing 260 pounds, and takes 34.7 hours to complete its rotation around the compass on the floor. http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect
No apparently not 34.7 .Earth must of been having an off day spinning. Maybe it got bogged down in the crap.
-
http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
This doesn't explain how the Foucault Pendulum is faked, it just explains how magnets are used to keep it swinging.
-
http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
This doesn't explain how the Foucault Pendulum is faked, it just explains how magnets are used to keep it swinging.
34.7 hours. what day of the weeks that ?
-
Saturthurs. Obviously they are using metric time.
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect. ::)
Typical FE argument style is to focus on insignificant details that really have no bearing on the final result, just to try and reduce credibility. Rather than address the major point that is being discussed, you cower in the shadows.
Those shadows I'm cowering in. Would that be a 24 hour day or a 34.7 hour day.The pendulum stands just over 70 feet high, has a bob weighing 260 pounds, and takes 34.7 hours to complete its rotation around the compass on the floor. http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect
No apparently not 34.7 .Earth must of been having an off day spinning. Maybe it got bogged down in the crap.
Sigh...the time for the pendulum to make one rotation is dependent on the location on earth. At the north pole it would be 24 hours.
P=1 day/sine (latitude)
Back to the shadows, child.
-
Geoff, I'm sorry but you're incorrect.
Here's a little lesson on electromagnetism: the unity of electric and magnetic phenomena is due to Hans Christian Ørsted and André-Marie Ampère in 1819; Michael Faraday invented the electric motor in 1821, and Georg Ohm mathematically analysed the electrical circuit in 1827.
This means that Léon Foucault, who "invented" the Foucault Pendulum in 1851, could have easily used an electric motor to power his fraudulent pendulum machine. It is honestly nothing but round Earth progopanda, that's what it amounts to. There are dozens of independent researchers who back my claim.
While the first steps towards the invention of the electric motors we now have were given in the 1820's, it is totally ridiculous to say we had the kind of motors required in this thread anytime before the 1950's, and that is being very generous.
You cannot imagine the frustration that comes with robotics due to the lack of really good, controllable motors. Either the motors are too big, or too heavy, or not powerful enough to do what you want to do. Until recently we had to use hydraulic actuators instead of electric motors for many so called "robots" because of the power to weight ratio of electric motors, and that meant that by your neat little robotic arm you would have a fridge-sized, ugly, noisy, stinking hydraulic liquid compressor.
There is a reason why Vauxhall's diagram has a motor that is totally disconnected from the pendulum it is supposed to manipulate. Vauxhall would not know where to start designing it. I have experience in Robotics and I would not know where to start.
http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
There you can see that the pendulum moves for hours after the power goes out, and nobody is worried about it. The pendulum works whether with or without the added impulse, and the mechanism to give some impulse is there, in plain view. If you want you can see and hear how the impulse is restored.
You can make your own pendulum, and make it work without any mechanisms.
-
It won't spin on its own for 24 hours...
Uh... we all understand that Charles. The pendulum only swings for around two hours regardless of its length, or whether or not it has a motor attached. But in that two hours, the earth's rotation is clearly indicated by the fact that the plane of the pendulum's swing arc will have rotated (or appeared to) by 360º/12 and which is clearly visible. The only reason that museums use a motor to give it a "nudge" every couple of hours is so that some bloke doesn't have to stand by to do it with some complicated apparatus in order to keep the tourists happy. And most importantly, this motor is designed so as to not apply any rotational torque to the pendulum's suspension point.
You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap...
So insulting someone who's attempting to illustrate a simple scientific principal using only a relatively primitive apparatus is a "wanker" according to you? Ad hominem attacks appear to be one of your favoured tools of debate Charles. Which is what some people do when they're backed into a corner. It's a feeble argument.
He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin.
I have to agree with you, and it surprised and disappointed me too. Even grade school kids know this simple fact. The problem for him is that it opens the floodgates for people to claim that he really doesn't know what he's talking about, and even worse, that the rest of his claims could also be riddled with a similar lack of scientific knowledge.
Still, his explanation of the Foucault pendulum is correct, despite his apparent lapse of knowledge of basic geophysics.
-
It also seems that the main point is being ignored. Even if a motor were up there rotating the wire all it could possibly add is a rotational element to the system. The bob will be rotating about its axis while still swinging in the same plane. The rotation of the wire could only add a rotational moment to the system, the bob spins while swinging in the original plane. The spin of the wire can do nothing else. It cannot add any type of lateral motion.
If you would like the more mathy explanation here it is
No motor
Sum of forces is just the weight of the bob and the tension in the wire. The vector sum changes dependent upon the position of the bob in its arc. For example at the lowest point the tension is straight up and equal in magnitude to the weight which is straight down. The forces add vectorally to zero.
Sum of the torques is zero there are none.
With motor
Sum of forces is just the weight of the bob and the tension in the wire. The vector sum changes dependent upon the position of the bob in its arc. For example at the lowest point the tension is straight up and equal in magnitude to the weight which is straight down. The forces add vectorally to zero. No forces are added by the motor.
Torque, now nonzero and it spins.
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect. ::)
Typical FE argument style is to focus on insignificant details that really have no bearing on the final result, just to try and reduce credibility. Rather than address the major point that is being discussed, you cower in the shadows.
Those shadows I'm cowering in. Would that be a 24 hour day or a 34.7 hour day.The pendulum stands just over 70 feet high, has a bob weighing 260 pounds, and takes 34.7 hours to complete its rotation around the compass on the floor. http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect
No apparently not 34.7 .Earth must of been having an off day spinning. Maybe it got bogged down in the crap.
Sigh...the time for the pendulum to make one rotation is dependent on the location on earth. At the north pole it would be 24 hours.
P=1 day/sine (latitude)
Back to the shadows, child.
Which north pole are you referring to. The make believe one or magnetic north pole? & while we are on the subject of cooked up figures & bullshyt , did you know the Easter bunnies lay eggs when the hens are off the lay. ::)
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
-
Sigh...the time for the pendulum to make one rotation is dependent on the location on earth. At the north pole it would be 24 hours.
P=1 day/sine (latitude)
Back to the shadows, child.
Which north pole are you referring to.
The geographical one, at which all lines of longitude meet. Would have thought that was pretty obvious...
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
You mean the one where a free-floating compass will point straight up? Where magnetic field lines meet the earth's surface vertically? It was at 64.497°S 137.684°E as of 2007. Not sure where it is now, it tends to move a little bit. Maybe you could go find it for us? Shouldn't be too hard, just find the spot where the earth's magnetic field meets the surface exactly vertically.
-
Sigh...the time for the pendulum to make one rotation is dependent on the location on earth. At the north pole it would be 24 hours.
P=1 day/sine (latitude)
Back to the shadows, child.
Which north pole are you referring to.
The geographical one, at which all lines of longitude meet. Would have thought that was pretty obvious...
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
You mean the one where a free-floating compass will point straight up? Where magnetic field lines meet the earth's surface vertically? It was at 64.497°S 137.684°E as of 2007. Not sure where it is now, it tends to move a little bit. Maybe you could go find it for us? Shouldn't be too hard, just find the spot where the earth's magnetic field meets the surface exactly vertically.
Oh the make believe geographical north pole,like the make believe south pole. Well that all makes perfect sense after I toned down on the bullshit repellent. You peoples imagination is insanely hilarious.
-
No motors used LOL It won't spin on its own for 24 hour ,so its just a summation, because you have to start its swinging again in that 24 hour period ::). You can see why wankers like this guy swallow the crap, He cant remember which way the earth is suppose to spin. How would you be having him for your teacher. Not only is he teaching shyt ,he cant even remember his shyt LOL (http://)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect. ::)
Typical FE argument style is to focus on insignificant details that really have no bearing on the final result, just to try and reduce credibility. Rather than address the major point that is being discussed, you cower in the shadows.
Those shadows I'm cowering in. Would that be a 24 hour day or a 34.7 hour day.The pendulum stands just over 70 feet high, has a bob weighing 260 pounds, and takes 34.7 hours to complete its rotation around the compass on the floor. http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html (http://ask.dartmouth.edu/categories/misc/55.html)
You don't need it to be running for 24 hours to see the effect
No apparently not 34.7 .Earth must of been having an off day spinning. Maybe it got bogged down in the crap.
Sigh...the time for the pendulum to make one rotation is dependent on the location on earth. At the north pole it would be 24 hours.
P=1 day/sine (latitude)
Back to the shadows, child.
Which north pole are you referring to. The make believe one or magnetic north pole? & while we are on the subject of cooked up figures & bullshyt , did you know the Easter bunnies lay eggs when the hens are off the lay. ::)
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
My god man, you get an answer to one question and make up another reason to disagree with what's being postulated.
I think you don't really believe in FE hypothesis, you just like to argue for no reason other than to argue. That's hard to understand why you come back because you keep getting beat down time and time again.
-
It's truly pathetic (yet still hilarious) to watch charles in action here. He claims he knows "it" is all bullshit, when every post he makes just demonstrates his complete ignorance of how "it" works.
Charles, this thread concerns how the Foucault pendulum moves in relation to the rotation of the Earth. Which North Pole do you think is relevant to that discussion?
-
So now that it's been proven that Foucault's pendulum can be done with very powerful magnets... what's this thread still doing open? Seems like we've figured it out.
-
So now that it's been proven that Foucault's pendulum can be done with very powerful magnets... what's this thread still doing open? Seems like we've figured it out.
They also work without magnets.
That's why this thread is still open. I'm sure you'd love to see it closed since it lends doubt to your flat earth hypothesis, but there are people that actually understand real science that are still discussing issues.
Interesting how you're trying to censor and inhibit free thought.
-
I'm not trying to censor anyone; it's just that we have presented a plethora of evidence that shows that Foucault pendulums are controlled with magnets and motors. On the other hand: no evidence has been presented to show they work without the help of those attachments. "It works I've seen one lol" is not evidence, despite how much you will it to be so.
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now. ::)
-
Where was the evidence of magnets? I must have missed it.
-
Where was the evidence of magnets? I must have missed it.
(http://i.imgur.com/jTObZJX.png)
-
I'm not trying to censor anyone; it's just that we have presented a plethora of evidence that shows that Foucault pendulums are controlled with magnets and motors. On the other hand: no evidence has been presented to show they work without the help of those attachments. "It works I've seen one lol" is not evidence, despite how much you will it to be so.
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now. ::)
There are no words for this kind of logic.
Again, I'll repeat since you are having so much difficulty understanding perfectly understandable English, they work exactly the same WITHOUT magnets or motors as well only the duration of the total swing time is reduced. The end result is EXACTLY the same, proof of a rotating earth. ::)
-
Now we know he's a troll.
-
I'm not trying to censor anyone; it's just that we have presented a plethora of evidence that shows that Foucault pendulums are controlled with magnets and motors. On the other hand: no evidence has been presented to show they work without the help of those attachments. "It works I've seen one lol" is not evidence, despite how much you will it to be so.
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now. ::)
There are no words for this kind of logic.
Again, I'll repeat since you are having so much difficulty understanding perfectly understandable English, they work exactly the same WITHOUT magnets or motors as well only the duration of the total swing time is reduced. The end result is EXACTLY the same, proof of a rotating earth. ::)
No, there are no words for your logic.
"They work the same without magnets/motors" ::)
Just saying it does not make it so, dipshit.
-
I'm not trying to censor anyone; it's just that we have presented a plethora of evidence that shows that Foucault pendulums are controlled with magnets and motors. On the other hand: no evidence has been presented to show they work without the help of those attachments. "It works I've seen one lol" is not evidence, despite how much you will it to be so.
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now. ::)
There are no words for this kind of logic.
Again, I'll repeat since you are having so much difficulty understanding perfectly understandable English, they work exactly the same WITHOUT magnets or motors as well only the duration of the total swing time is reduced. The end result is EXACTLY the same, proof of a rotating earth. ::)
No, there are no words for your logic.
"They work the same without magnets/motors" ::)
Just saying it does not make it so, dipshit.
Please, go back to grade school with your insults and pathetic reading comprehension skills.
Why do all FE hypothesizers act like children when they are proven wrong? I mean are you 2 years old, are you pissed because you've crapped your diaper and aren't getting your way? Do you wanna take a nap now?
-
Aren't you being a bit hypcrotical right now?
-
Aren't you being a bit hypcrotical right now?
Nope, what I'm saying is true.
You're just name calling, LIKE a child would do when they have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.
I'm sorry you don't understand the English language, it's not my fault that when people talk to you or when you read words they don't make any sense to you. It's no reason to start calling names.
-
Is calling me a child not a form of name calling now? Maybe you don't understand what hypocritical means.
-
Is calling me a child not a form of name calling now? Maybe you don't understand what hypocritical means.
I understand perfectly well what hypocrite means.
I said you're ACTING LIKE A CHILD. Not quite the same as straight up calling someone a dipshit. If you can't understand the difference, then I feel sorry for you.
-
I'm sorry for calling you a dipshit. Is that what you wanted to hear? Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and haven't read the entire thread.
-
I'm sorry for calling you a dipshit. Is that what you wanted to hear? Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and haven't read the entire thread.
It's you who hasn't read. go back and read the post you quoted when you started with the name calling. Notice what I said about the operation of a pendulum without a magnet.
And no, I'm not wrong. Saying it doesn't make it so.
-
The reason you're wrong is because you're assuming the Earth is round and rotates.. ::)
It doesn't.
It's flat and moving up.
Since we know the Earth is flat there's no possible way that a Foucault pendulum would work due to "Earth's rotation". You're skipping steps, here.
-
Oh.
OOHH!
So in the FE world, drawing something in Paint is evidence?
(http://i.imgur.com/UCZVqyk.png?1) (http://imgur.com/UCZVqyk)
Learn something every day.
-
That's a very impressive depiction of a Foucault Pendulum, Clown.
However, you forgot to add the magnets.
-
The reason you're wrong is because you're assuming the Earth is round and rotates.. ::)
It doesn't.
It's flat and moving up.
Since we know the Earth is flat there's no possible way that a Foucault pendulum would work due to "Earth's rotation". You're skipping steps, here.
foucault pendulum says otherwise.
coriolis force says otherwise
ALL MODERN SCIENCE says otherwise.
-
I fixed it for you, Clown.
(http://i.imgur.com/v8pcpdB.png)
-
So, we have Paint scribblings with magnets and without. How do you guys ever reach a conclusion that you didn't already have at the start?
Oh.
Yeah, not to worry, I think I answered my own question.
-
There's no way scattering a few permanent magnets around is going to work. To keep the pendulum moving in a straight line, you're going to need to move the pendulum sideways by a very small, precise amount each swing, then immediately stop the sideways motion. Otherwise, you don't get a straight swing, it just starts to swing in a big long ellipse.
I don't see any way to do this without electromagnets, and a precise timing and switching mechanism.
And you'd still have to prove somehow that they were doing it. Anyone up for visiting a live Foucault pendulum display and bringing in an EMF meter?
-
The reason you're wrong is because you're assuming the Earth is round and rotates.. ::)
It doesn't.
It's flat and moving up.
Since we know the Earth is flat there's no possible way that a Foucault pendulum would work due to "Earth's rotation". You're skipping steps, here.
Another shining example of circular reasoning: "the earth is flat, therefore the earth is flat". Thankfully, scientists have taken a very different approach to seeking answers than this, otherwise we would still be stuck in the stone age...
-
Is it not possible that the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon may influence the very slight rotation of a pendulum?
-
Is it not possible that the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon may influence the very slight rotation of a pendulum?
Do you mean the 32 mile diameter, 3000 mile up FE Sun, or the real Sun?
In either case the force is going to be so miniscule it's insignificant. The resistance due to air friction would be several orders of magnitude larger.
-
Possibly, if you assume round Earth numbers for a gravitational force.
-
Possibly, if you assume round Earth numbers for a gravitational force.
Are you suggesting that the gravitational constant is many orders of magnitude larger than what's been measured so far? Or that the force of gravity equation is wrong? That seems highly unlikely.
Also, considering the path of the FE Sun and Moon, I don't see how that is going to make every Foucault pendulum rotate the way it does, at different rates depending on what latitude they are at.
-
Funny how you accuse us of brushing off all photographic evidence as fake, but then you turn around and do the exact same thing... ::)
-
Also, no it isn't possible. The pendulum precesses because the bob has no way to "acquire" the rotation of the earth.
On a stationary earth with the sun going round our pendulum, the centre of the arc would could be moved toward the sun a little but there's still no way for that force to rotate the direction the pendulum swings.
@Vaux
What photographic evidence are you talking about? There's none on the last few pages.
-
Are you suggesting that the gravitational constant is many orders of magnitude larger than what's been measured so far? Or that the force of gravity equation is wrong? That seems highly unlikely.
Also, considering the path of the FE Sun and Moon, I don't see how that is going to make every Foucault pendulum rotate the way it does, at different rates depending on what latitude they are at.
You can either start with an assumption and make the data fit the assumption, or you can start with an open mind and seek the truth.
-
Also, no it isn't possible. The pendulum precesses because the bob has no way to "acquire" the rotation of the earth.
On a stationary earth with the sun going round our pendulum, the centre of the arc would could be moved toward the sun a little but there's still no way for that force to rotate the direction the pendulum swings.
@Vaux
What photographic evidence are you talking about? There's none on the last few pages.
Sorry, accidentally post in the wrong thread.
-
Are you suggesting that the gravitational constant is many orders of magnitude larger than what's been measured so far? Or that the force of gravity equation is wrong? That seems highly unlikely.
Also, considering the path of the FE Sun and Moon, I don't see how that is going to make every Foucault pendulum rotate the way it does, at different rates depending on what latitude they are at.
You can either start with an assumption and make the data fit the assumption, or you can start with an open mind and seek the truth.
That's a platitude often used by creationists strangely enough. It's true enough, but doesn't address my argument at all. The motion of the Foucault pendulum is well documented. The RE explanation fits all the available data. There's still no feasible explanation from the FE side apart from a lot of vague hand waving.
The idea that the Earth is round and rotates isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion. But let's try it your way anyway. I'll assume the Earth is round and rotating. I have a mathematical model that fits the motion of the Foucault pendulum:
The angular speed, ω (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day), is proportional to the sine of the latitude, φ, given by the equation (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/6/1/b61b9c6cfd7b3c0b4aa3ea6be793194e.png). This model predicts precisely what will happen to the pendulum depending on what latitude it operates at.
Now you go. Let's allow the assumption of the flat, non-rotating Earth, and you provide a model that fits the data.
-
There are many reasons that a pendulum could make a circle if the Earth is indeed flat. I just listed one. Perhaps you missed it. I said that the effect could possibly be caused my gravitational attraction of celestial objects. There are other things that come to mind that could explain it as well. Such as the trade winds or the flat Earth rotating or the permeability of the Earth to the force of the Aetheral winds. I simply do not make assumptions based on the satanic NASA scientists. However, I would say that there is always the possibility that it is all just an elaborate hoax from people who aim to perpetuate the round Earth theory.
-
There are many reasons that a pendulum could make a circle if the Earth is indeed flat. I just listed one. Perhaps you missed it. I said that the effect could possibly be caused my gravitational attraction of celestial objects. There are other things that come to mind that could explain it as well. Such as the trade winds or the flat Earth rotating or the permeability of the Earth to the force of the Aetheral winds. I simply do not make assumptions based on the satanic NASA scientists. However, I would say that there is always the possibility that it is all just an elaborate hoax from people who aim to perpetuate the round Earth theory.
Just to address the possibilities you raised here:
gravitational attraction of celestial bodies - would not yield a consistent rate of precession. I'm not even sure you would get precession at all in the Southern hemisphere, and it certainly would not get more pronounced as you get further away from the equator.
trade winds - again, would not yield a consistent result, if any.
flat earth rotating - would yield a consistent rate of one rotation of the arc of swing per rotation of the earth no matter where you were, and always in the same direction.
permeability to the AW - again, no consistent result, if any, would be possible.
It really does require a little more than "hmm, that sounds good, I'll go with that".
-
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now.
Why is it that whenever people such as Vauxhall are backed into a corner, and can't respond with any viable evidence for their bizarre claims, they often suggest that the thread should be closed? What gives them the right of censorship, or to decide when threads/discussions should be terminated?
Why is Vauxhall so defensive? He's suggested terminating this thread twice now. What's he fearful of? Empirical evidence proving the theory behind the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum maybe.
-
There's really no point to keep this thread open since round earthers seem to be on a broken record loop now.
Why is it that whenever people such as Vauxhall are backed into a corner, and can't respond with any viable evidence for their bizarre claims, they often suggest that the thread should be closed? What gives them the right of censorship, or to decide when threads/discussions should be terminated?
Why is Vauxhall so defensive? He's suggested terminating this thread twice now. What's he fearful of? Empirical evidence proving the theory behind the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum maybe.
Backed in to a corner LOL your whole premise is based on the notation that a pendulum will swings back & forth keeping a true line with the earth rotating underneath it. This notion is bass on conjecture not fact. If one applies Molecular Structure atomic weights & their configuration of bond http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/structures/molecular.html. (http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/structures/molecular.html.) When a pendulum is on its down would swing momentum is travelling with the force of gravity. Once the pendulum has past the lowest point of downward swing. It then has to fight gravity from that lowest point. This is where it fails to keep line, momentum is now fighting gravity. rotation guaranteed due to the pendulum drifting of line on its upward travel. Molecular imbalance insures it to occur. The minutest drift will insure rotation. any thing less then 0.000000000......... You will get rotation occurring.
-
Bear in mind that all the FES is really looking for is:
"That could probably be caused by the sun going round."
or
"Probably magnets."
The aim isn't to create a working, predictive model of reality, but only to describe just enough wiggle room so that believers are no longer stuck with that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's a pattern common to any and all conspiracy theories. You already believe (and really want to continue believing) that something dramatic, yet easy to understand is happening (inside job, aliens, NWO), you're faced with something that shows it to be very unlikely so the next step isn't altering your beliefs (god forbid!) or even finding an equally good explanation for the new evidence - the next step is merely finding a rationalisation that sounds good enough that it allows you to put that evidence aside and avoid the discomfort.
/edit @charles:
What? You're saying that molecular bonding is causing this macroscopic precession to occur at exactly the same rate and in the same direction at each latitude?
Yeah, it isn't.
-
Bear in mind that all the FES is really looking for is:
"That could probably be caused by the sun going round."
or
"Probably magnets."
The aim isn't to create a working, predictive model of reality, but only to describe just enough wiggle room so that believers are no longer stuck with that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's a pattern common to any and all conspiracy theories. You already believe (and really want to continue believing) that something dramatic, yet easy to understand is happening (inside job, aliens, NWO), you're faced with something that shows it to be very unlikely so the next step isn't altering your beliefs (god forbid!) or even finding an equally good explanation for the new evidence - the next step is merely finding a rationalisation that sounds good enough that it allows you to put that evidence aside and avoid the discomfort.
/edit @charles:
What? You're saying that molecular bonding is causing this macroscopic precession to occur at exactly the same rate and in the same direction at each latitude?
Yeah, it isn't.
What I'm saying is a pendulum does not keep line of trajectory when its momentum is fighting the pull of gravity due to the pendulums imbalance at a molecule level. Its imbalance is not measurable effected on the downward swing. Because momentum is travelling with the gravitational pull. Latitude lol you mean insuring the bob will take the rotational direction of earth's centre of mass. Which is not a perfect spherical centre mass.
-
Bear in mind that all the FES is really looking for is:
"That could probably be caused by the sun going round."
or
"Probably magnets."
The aim isn't to create a working, predictive model of reality, but only to describe just enough wiggle room so that believers are no longer stuck with that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It's a pattern common to any and all conspiracy theories. You already believe (and really want to continue believing) that something dramatic, yet easy to understand is happening (inside job, aliens, NWO), you're faced with something that shows it to be very unlikely so the next step isn't altering your beliefs (god forbid!) or even finding an equally good explanation for the new evidence - the next step is merely finding a rationalisation that sounds good enough that it allows you to put that evidence aside and avoid the discomfort.
/edit @charles:
What? You're saying that molecular bonding is causing this macroscopic precession to occur at exactly the same rate and in the same direction at each latitude?
Yeah, it isn't.
What I'm saying is a pendulum does not keep line of trajectory when its momentum is fighting the pull of gravity due to the pendulums imbalance at a molecule level. Its imbalance is not measurable effected on the downward swing. Because momentum is travelling with the gravitational pull. Latitude lol you mean insuring the bob will take the rotational direction of earth's centre of mass. Which is not a perfect spherical centre mass.
Please remind us how imperfect it is.
-
Yeah, for once I think I did understand what you meant.
But you're still wrong. Which is slightly relieving, in a way. I was giving you (quite) the benefit of the doubt before, in case your arguments were actually quite incisive in your native tongue, but we just weren't understanding them. Luckily that seems not to be the case.
Latitude lol you mean insuring the bob will take the rotational direction of earth's centre of mass. Which is not a perfect spherical centre mass.
By latitude, I mean how far north or south you are. That's what latitude means. At 90° these "molecular imbalances" will always cause a precession of exactly one rotation per day in the same direction in any pendulum. At 0° they will cause no precession and at any point in between, the period of precession will be exactly the sine of your latitude times one rotation per day. ie. It's once per day at the poles, gradually slowing to nothing at the equator.
Those are some mighty consistent "molecular imbalances" you're suggesting.
-
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
You mean the one where a free-floating compass will point straight up? Where magnetic field lines meet the earth's surface vertically? It was at 64.497°S 137.684°E as of 2007. Not sure where it is now, it tends to move a little bit. Maybe you could go find it for us? Shouldn't be too hard, just find the spot where the earth's magnetic field meets the surface exactly vertically.
You are giving this genius way too much credit. Anywhere not too close to the the poles the typical compass needle points to the North pole with the red side, the South Pole with the other side. Want to find the South pole? Look at the white side of the needle and start walking.
It is just a word game. The compass needle is not aligning with a magnetic field, it is pointing North, as if it knew what a pole is.
-
Which north pole are you referring to. The make believe one or magnetic north pole? & while we are on the subject of cooked up figures & bullshyt , did you know the Easter bunnies lay eggs when the hens are off the lay. ::)
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
I'm a little late but I guess you didn't read where I pointed out to Jroa that compasses point to magnetic south. So you now need to learn this, compasses point to magnetic south, which is close to the north pole. Understand?
-
Which north pole are you referring to. The make believe one or magnetic north pole? & while we are on the subject of cooked up figures & bullshyt , did you know the Easter bunnies lay eggs when the hens are off the lay. ::)
What about the south magnetic pole?. Oh that's right you haven't found that pole yet using a compass. Because a compass only points North.
I'm a little late but I guess you didn't read where I pointed out to Jroa that compasses point to magnetic south. So you now need to learn this, compasses point to magnetic south, which is close to the north pole. Understand?
In case you have not noticed, compasses point in two different directions. I know you are trying to trip people up by pointing out that the north pointer on a compass points to the actual south magnetic pole, but you are really making your self look dumb by bringing this up every other post. The south pointer on a compass points to the actual north magnetic poll, so your statement is retarded.
-
Okay. A couple of irrefutable facts.
A brass bob cannot be affected by magnets. Most are made of brass. Ergo the flat earthers' claim of any/all sorts of magnets causing the pendulum's alleged circular path are null and void.
There is no measurable and/or effective gravitational influence on the bob from the moon or the sun or planet X. (It's been estimated that the moon's gravitational force on the human body would be equivalent to that of the body of a mosquito immediately adjacent to that human.)
Flat earthers must accept that the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum are exactly as described by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years. The only reason that flat earthers resist the principles of the pendulum is a simple one; were they to accept it as proof of the earth's periodic rotation, it'd disprove their flat earth hypothesis in one fell swoop.
-
Yeah, for once I think I did understand what you meant.
But you're still wrong. Which is slightly relieving, in a way. I was giving you (quite) the benefit of the doubt before, in case your arguments were actually quite incisive in your native tongue, but we just weren't understanding them. Luckily that seems not to be the case.
Latitude lol you mean insuring the bob will take the rotational direction of earth's centre of mass. Which is not a perfect spherical centre mass.
By latitude, I mean how far north or south you are. That's what latitude means. At 90° these "molecular imbalances" will always cause a precession of exactly one rotation per day in the same direction in any pendulum. At 0° they will cause no precession and at any point in between, the period of precession will be exactly the sine of your latitude times one rotation per day. ie. It's once per day at the poles, gradually slowing to nothing at the equator.
Those are some mighty consistent "molecular imbalances" you're suggesting.
I know what latitude is ::). Its imaginary just like your equator ,Just like your axis that continual & conveniently gets shifted to sure up the doggy maths.
Everything about this so call proving experiment being touted is tainted, right down to the lighting of the tread. If you knew anything about yarn /cotton or rope you would know how its spun (twisted) & the tension on it. For a sort stint my job was to maintain & repair the machinery involved & that also entailed learning how to spin threads, how to twist threads , how to repair breakage & how to prevent breakage of the thread with out stopping the machine & production & a good understanding of the tensions involved & the direction all threads are twisted. Its a science in it self. Claiming burning a thread has no interfering reaction is a lie in its self.
-
Okay. A couple of irrefutable facts.
A brass bob cannot be affected by magnets. Most are made of brass. Ergo the flat earthers' claim of any/all sorts of magnets causing the pendulum's alleged circular path are null and void.
There is no measurable and/or effective gravitational influence on the bob from the moon or the sun or planet X. (It's been estimated that the moon's gravitational force on the human body would be equivalent to that of the body of a mosquito immediately adjacent to that human.)
Flat earthers must accept that the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum are exactly as described by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years. The only reason that flat earthers resist the principles of the pendulum is a simple one; were they to accept it as proof of the earth's periodic rotation, it'd disprove their flat earth hypothesis in one fell swoop.
The magnet is to induce the pivoting point, to keep the pendulum swinging. Which is a fraud in its self. as it can alter momentum of swing.Hence timing of rotation. Try & obtain a grant to study other reasoning & conclusion, in regards to a Foucault pendulum & just see for your self the hostility you will receive as your shown the door.
-
Okay. A couple of irrefutable facts.
A brass bob cannot be affected by magnets. Most are made of brass. Ergo the flat earthers' claim of any/all sorts of magnets causing the pendulum's alleged circular path are null and void.
There is no measurable and/or effective gravitational influence on the bob from the moon or the sun or planet X. (It's been estimated that the moon's gravitational force on the human body would be equivalent to that of the body of a mosquito immediately adjacent to that human.)
Flat earthers must accept that the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum are exactly as described by thousands of scientists over the past 150 years. The only reason that flat earthers resist the principles of the pendulum is a simple one; were they to accept it as proof of the earth's periodic rotation, it'd disprove their flat earth hypothesis in one fell swoop.
The magnet is to induce the pivoting point, to keep the pendulum swinging. Which is a fraud in its self. as it can alter momentum of swing.Hence timing of rotation. Try & obtain a grant to study other reasoning & conclusion, in regards to a Foucault pendulum & just see for your self the hostility you will receive as your shown the door.
Explain what 'induce the pivoting point' means.
-
The magnet is to induce the pivoting point, to keep the pendulum swinging. Which is a fraud in its self. as it can alter momentum of swing. Hence timing of rotation. Try & obtain a grant to study other reasoning & conclusion, in regards to a Foucault pendulum & just see for your self the hostility you will receive as your shown the door.
Sorry Charles, but your meaningless claim about "inducing the pivot point" is at odds with your fellow flat earther Vauxhall, who posted this diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/v8pcpdB.png)
vauxhall's explanation relies on the magnets being located in the floor under the pendulum's path, which obviously doesn't have any effect on the suspension point of the pendulum. It also doesn't explain how non-ferrous bobs would be affected, as they're obviously non-magnetic. And as a side note, this example points up one of the major weaknesses with the flat earth hypothesis: None of the flat earthers can agree on any of their science. Unlike we round earthers who agree unanimously on round earth science, the flat earthers' claims often directly contradict each other.
Your other claim that "twisting" of the suspension cord has long been dismissed. Most high school science experiments use a heavy gauge mono-filament fishing line, which doesn't twist. Even if we use wire rope, any induced twist after manufacture will disappear once the wire reaches a state of equilibrium, and in any event such a "twisting" motion—if any—would only last for a matter of minutes. It'd certainly not be continuous. If it were, then we would've solved the perpetual motion question LOL.
And finally Charles, I have no need to apply for a "grant" to study the Foucault pendulum. Thousands of scientists have already provided reams of data illustrating how it works over the past 150 years. Can I suggest you employ a scientist to disprove the theory, and then get back to us with empirical evidence supporting your claims that it doesn't work precisely as theorised by round earthers.
-
The magnet is to induce the pivoting point, to keep the pendulum swinging. Which is a fraud in its self. as it can alter momentum of swing. Hence timing of rotation. Try & obtain a grant to study other reasoning & conclusion, in regards to a Foucault pendulum & just see for your self the hostility you will receive as your shown the door.
Sorry Charles, but your meaningless claim about "inducing the pivot point" is at odds with your fellow flat earther Vauxhall, who posted this diagram:
(http://i.imgur.com/v8pcpdB.png)
vauxhall's explanation relies on the magnets being located in the floor under the pendulum's path, which obviously doesn't have any effect on the suspension point of the pendulum. It also doesn't explain how non-ferrous bobs would be affected, as they're obviously non-magnetic. And as a side note, this example points up one of the major weaknesses with the flat earth hypothesis: None of the flat earthers can agree on any of their science. Unlike we round earthers who agree unanimously on round earth science, the flat earthers' claims often directly contradict each other.
Your other claim that "twisting" of the suspension cord has long been dismissed. Most high school science experiments use a heavy gauge mono-filament fishing line, which doesn't twist. Even if we use wire rope, any induced twist after manufacture will disappear once the wire reaches a state of equilibrium, and in any event such a "twisting" motion—if any—would only last for a matter of minutes. It'd certainly not be continuous. If it were, then we would've solved the perpetual motion question LOL.
And finally Charles, I have no need to apply for a "grant" to study the Foucault pendulum. Thousands of scientists have already provided reams of data illustrating how it works over the past 150 years. Can I suggest you employ a scientist to disprove the theory, and then get back to us with empirical evidence supporting your claims that it doesn't work precisely as theorised by round earthers.
His misunderstanding where the magnets are used. That being at the pivoting point & not where he envisioned they would be placed . Doesn't negate his claim or the fact magnets are used to keep the pendulum swinging.
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics.
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics.
What would the magnet attract and who or what would be doing the switching?
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics.
What would the magnet attract and who or what would be doing the switching?
The magnet could be affecting anything. Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism.
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics.
What would the magnet attract and who or what would be doing the switching?
The magnet could be affecting anything. Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism.
So, basically, who don't have a clue how your theory would work.
-
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch.
Please explain more, and how was the switch operated 100 years ago
The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics.
What would the magnet attract and who or what would be doing the switching?
The magnet could be affecting anything. Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism.
So, basically, who don't have a clue how your theory would work.
Only people who don't understand how an electromagnet works.
-
No magnet, electro or permanent, is going to attract a solid brass object. That doesn't mean there couldn't be a hidden magnet, or a peice of steel inside a brass bob.
While I don't think it could be easily faked, it's not impossible. Like good conspiracy theorists, the mere possibility is proof to the FE side. For the rest of us skeptics, more is needed. Like I suggested a few pages ago, I invite any doubters to visit a public Foucault pendulum and bring your EMF meter along. Shouldn't be hard to confirm a fake using magnets this way.
To the chicken hearts who fear the men in black throwing them out, I say video record the whole event.
Jroa, are you arguing that Foucault pendulums do work as advertised, only not due to Earth's rotation, or that they are all faked?
-
Geoff, my explanation regarding how Foucault Pendulums work should not be used to disprove other theories regardining how they work. Like I've said countless times, my work with Foucault Pendulums is just one example of how they could be done, and other explanations and methods obviously work just as well as the ones that Charles and jroa have brought up.
It just goes to show how many different ways Foucault could have defrauded the entire scientific community.
-
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
-
Have you not seen the diagrams? I don't want to have to post them again.
-
...
It just goes to show how many different ways Foucault could have defrauded the entire scientific community.
Now where is your evidence that they do?
-
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
^^^ This has given me an idea. If anyone on this forum can create a Foucault pendulum where the rotation of the plane of the pendulum's swing can be controlled by the user, then I'll give claims of fakery some credit. For example, if you live in the Northern hemisphere and you can make a pendulum rotate anti-clockwise at a controllable rate (say, once an hour), then I'll believe it can be faked. And there's no point claiming that it would be too expensive to do, if they could do it 150 years ago, then it should be easy as pie to do it now. Oh, and it doesn't need to be huge, a small model (1-2ft tall) would suffice.
-
Have you not seen the diagrams? I don't want to have to post them again.
Nor would I want you to post them again, it was insulting and embarrassing enough the first time. I highly doubt that permanent magnet setup could even work, and I seriously doubt you actually did it.
-
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
^^^ This has given me an idea. If anyone on this forum can create a Foucault pendulum where the rotation of the plane of the pendulum's swing can be controlled by the user, then I'll give claims of fakery some credit. For example, if you live in the Northern hemisphere and you can make a pendulum rotate anti-clockwise at a controllable rate (say, once an hour), then I'll believe it can be faked. And there's no point claiming that it would be too expensive to do, if they could do it 150 years ago, then it should be easy as pie to do it now. Oh, and it doesn't need to be huge, a small model (1-2ft tall) would suffice.
That's ridiculous. It would be extremely expensive to even start developing such a pendulum. Since you seem to think it would be no big deal, how about you donate money to one of us to start it? I'm too busy to do it now, so I'd recommend finding someone other than myself who is willing to exert the time and effort into making such a thing.
Or, hey I have an idea, why don't you do it yourself? I've seen it work in action, I don't need to prove it to myself.
-
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
^^^ This has given me an idea. If anyone on this forum can create a Foucault pendulum where the rotation of the plane of the pendulum's swing can be controlled by the user, then I'll give claims of fakery some credit. For example, if you live in the Northern hemisphere and you can make a pendulum rotate anti-clockwise at a controllable rate (say, once an hour), then I'll believe it can be faked. And there's no point claiming that it would be too expensive to do, if they could do it 150 years ago, then it should be easy as pie to do it now. Oh, and it doesn't need to be huge, a small model (1-2ft tall) would suffice.
That's ridiculous. It would be extremely expensive to even start developing such a pendulum. Since you seem to think it would be no big deal, how about you donate money to one of us to start it? I'm too busy to do it now, so I'd recommend finding someone other than myself who is willing to exert the time and effort into making such a thing.
Or, hey I have an idea, why don't you do it yourself? I've seen it work in action, I don't need to prove it to myself.
So you're saying that replicating something that was first put on public display 160 years ago would be prohibitively expensive to do now? How can that be? The required technology should be easily cobbled together for pennies in this day and age.
Unless, of course, there is no feasible way to fake it, and the pendulum rotates for the reason given: as a result of the rotation of the earth.
Besides, why should I put effort into supporting your claim? It's your claim, you back it up. Prove it would have been possible to fake the results 160 years ago, using technology available at the time.
-
Any FEer wants to see any of the public pendulums?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums)
You can go, see it with your own eyes and prove it is fake.
-
A couple of your comments that I'd like to address jroa:
"It is a very simple circuit to make it work with an electromagnet and a switch" is certainly true in 2014, but 150 years ago such relatively complicated electronic switching didn't exist.
"The electromagnet would turn on at a certain point, then turn off at a certain point. It is simple physics." See above.
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
-
No magnet, electro or permanent, is going to attract a solid brass object.
LOL Who said anything about attracting. Try repelling? I use to build static separators which use ceramic changed magnets.There use is to separate precious metals. Gold silver brass copper & a multitude of different alloys.
magnetic rectified modulation
-
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
Well how does it keep swinging if it can't swing on its own for 24 hours. ::)
-
LOL Who said anything about attracting. Try repelling?
A brass bob will not be repelled by a magnet either. Your story about e-waste is irrelevant as it employs a totally different technology.
-
Well how does it keep swinging if it can't swing on its own for 24 hours. ::)
It only swings for around two hours without a "nudge" (which has already been explained). However, even a couple of hours is all that's necessary to prove the Foucault theory.
In those two hours, the plane of swing rotates by 360º/12 = 30º relative to the floor, and which is easily visible.
-
LOL Who said anything about attracting. Try repelling?
A brass bob will not be repelled by a magnet either. Your story about e-waste is irrelevant as it employs a totally different technology.
Its irrelevant ? What you having people think brass cant be attracted or repelled by a magnet. Brass is a composition alloy. It consists of a mixture of ether copper & zinc or copper & tin
Tin being magnetic & zinc Diamagnetic.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/alloys/a/Brass-Alloys.htm (http://chemistry.about.com/od/alloys/a/Brass-Alloys.htm)
-
Well how does it keep swinging if it can't swing on its own for 24 hours. ::)
It only swings for around two hours without a "nudge" (which has already been explained). However, even a couple of hours is all that's necessary to prove the Foucault theory.
In those two hours, the plane of swing rotates by 360º/12 = 30º relative to the floor, and which is easily visible.
The nudge has already been explained ? I thought that was what was being debated. Please explain the methods used for theses nudges.
-
Well how does it keep swinging if it can't swing on its own for 24 hours. ::)
It only swings for around two hours without a "nudge" (which has already been explained). However, even a couple of hours is all that's necessary to prove the Foucault theory.
In those two hours, the plane of swing rotates by 360º/12 = 30º relative to the floor, and which is easily visible.
The nudge has already been explained ? I thought that was what was being debated. Please explain the methods used for theses nudges.
It's explained in a little detail here: http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm#magnetic (http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm#magnetic)
Note that in the original construction by Leon Foucault, no magnets are used.
-
Well how does it keep swinging if it can't swing on its own for 24 hours. ::)
It only swings for around two hours without a "nudge" (which has already been explained). However, even a couple of hours is all that's necessary to prove the Foucault theory.
In those two hours, the plane of swing rotates by 360º/12 = 30º relative to the floor, and which is easily visible.
The nudge has already been explained ? I thought that was what was being debated. Please explain the methods used for theses nudges.
It's explained in a little detail here: http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm#magnetic (http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm#magnetic)
Note that in the original construction by Leon Foucault, no magnets are used.
Well how long did the original construction by Leon Foucault swing for ?
-
I'm not sure. Clearly it was long enough to see the rotation happening.
-
The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.
So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
# (http://#)
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
No, he's suggesting that ausGeoff was mistaken.
-
The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.
So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?
Who said it swung for 32.7 consecutive hours? ???
I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. The point is, it doesn't need to. You just need to let it go for a known period of time and measure the angle, then do some basic math:
360°/11 °/hr = 32.7 hr.
Making sense now?
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
No, he's suggesting that ausGeoff was mistaken.
ausGeoff is right in every way relevant to the discussion. The argument was that you can't attract (or repel) brass with a magnet in the context of the Foucault pendulum experiment. This is just another derail attempt by jroa obviously. If he wants to argue that diamagnetism is used to alter the movement of the bob, that's fine by me. That's something we should be able to test for easily. As I've said multiple times now - EMF meters are commonly available. If those goofs on Ghost Hunters or whatever the hell that show is can get hold of one, I'm sure someone from the FES can get one and test this theory out.
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
No, I am suggesting that non-ferromagnetic substances can be affected by electromagnets.
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
No, I am suggesting that non-ferromagnetic substances can be affected by electromagnets.
The only relevance that could possible have is if someone is suggesting that the characteristic motion of Foucault pendulums with a non-ferrous bob is faked using a super high intensity magnetic field to take advantage of diamagnetism. Is that what you are suggesting, or what anyone else is suggesting?
-
No, I am suggesting that non-ferromagnetic substances can be affected by electromagnets.
If you watch Modern Marvels Magnets you can see them do that. It's the high content of water in the frog. The field strength is said to be 10 Tesla. Some research MRI Instruments can reach that. You won't see a person floating.
-
"Even non-ferromagnetic materials are affected by electromagnetism." Erroneous. Ferrous materials are the only objects that are physically attracted to magnetic fields. Aluminum, platinum, and copper are paramagnetic and are affected by strong "eddy currents". An eddy current is not a magnetic field.
Really?
Some spurious video jroa probably made in his kitchen (http://#)
Are you suggesting that this is how Foucault pendulums work?
No, I am suggesting that non-ferromagnetic substances can be affected by electromagnets.
The only relevance that could possible have is if someone is suggesting that the characteristic motion of Foucault pendulums with a non-ferrous bob is faked using a super high intensity magnetic field to take advantage of diamagnetism. Is that what you are suggesting, or what anyone else is suggesting?
What, exactly, about my statement is incorrect?
-
What, exactly, about your statement is relevant to the discussion about Foucault pendulums?
An answer to that question would be far more useful than another diversion into whether you are correct about diamagnetism being able to levitate frogs.
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Put some 10 Tesla electromagnets around the circumference of the pendulum apparatus. Then take a 27kg brass ball and hollow it out. Place a small frog inside and watch the magic happen!
-
What, exactly, about your statement is relevant to the discussion about Foucault pendulums?
An answer to that question would be far more useful than another diversion into whether you are correct about diamagnetism being able to levitate frogs.
I was responding to a false statement made by another forum member.
-
On this page you will find a couple of looped videos of what appears to be a polished wood pendulum at the University of New South Wales: http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html)
If you read the article, you will see that this pendulum has no mechanism to maintain it's swing, and is simply 'hand started' by anyone who wants to see it in action. It consistently rotates anti-clockwise at a rate of about 9°/hr, and appears to be quite capable of continuing to swing for a couple of hours at least.
No magnets, no motors, nothing to influence it other than the motion of the earth itself.
edit: Just thought I should include a quote from the page.
The Foucault Pendulum at the School of Physics of The University of New South Wales is a "hands-on" version. There is no electromagnetic drive but, because of its size once it is started it will swing for several hours. Visitors are invited to start it swinging in a plane that is accurately defined by a fixed vertical wire and a vertical line on the wall. The pendulum takes seven minutes to precess one degree, but even smaller angles than this can be seen by sighting along the reference plane.
-
What, exactly, about your statement is relevant to the discussion about Foucault pendulums?
An answer to that question would be far more useful than another diversion into whether you are correct about diamagnetism being able to levitate frogs.
I was responding to a false statement made by another forum member.
Tsk tsk, you'd think mods on this site would know better than to get sidetracked so easily. Aren't you supposed to be the one steering the debate back on track?
-
On this page you will find a couple of looped videos of what appears to be a polished wood pendulum at the University of New South Wales: http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html (http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au//jw/foucault_pendulum.html)
If you read the article, you will see that this pendulum has no mechanism to maintain it's swing, and is simply 'hand started' by anyone who wants to see it in action. It consistently rotates anti-clockwise at a rate of about 9°/hr, and appears to be quite capable of continuing to swing for a couple of hours at least.
No magnets, no motors, nothing to influence it other than the motion of the earth itself.
edit: Just thought I should include a quote from the page.
The Foucault Pendulum at the School of Physics of The University of New South Wales is a "hands-on" version. There is no electromagnetic drive but, because of its size once it is started it will swing for several hours. Visitors are invited to start it swinging in a plane that is accurately defined by a fixed vertical wire and a vertical line on the wall. The pendulum takes seven minutes to precess one degree, but even smaller angles than this can be seen by sighting along the reference plane.
Excellent info! I can't imagine how the FES has overlooked this, but clearly this is a boon to their ongoing research. Any FES member in NSW willing to make an excursion to the University for some hands on experimenting? Don't forget to bring the EMF meter!
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Like jroa has explained to you before, this can easily be achieved through a series of switches. Reed Switches, to be specific.
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Like jroa has explained to you before, this can easily be achieved through a series of switches. Reed Switches, to be specific.
Now, where is your evidence that they are controlled?
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Like jroa has explained to you before, this can easily be achieved through a series of switches. Reed Switches, to be specific.
Now, where is your evidence that they are controlled?
The collected works and diagrams of myself and others in this thread.
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Like jroa has explained to you before, this can easily be achieved through a series of switches. Reed Switches, to be specific.
Now, where is your evidence that they are controlled?
The collected works and diagrams of myself and others in this thread.
So a couple of drawings on paint is evidence now? Not to mention that there's no word on the strength of the magnets, how they are to be turned on and off, and so on. Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.
-
Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.
Just as your explanation of how a Foucault Pendulum works is simply a possibility? I see no difference.
-
Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.
Just as your explanation of how a Foucault Pendulum works is simply a possibility? I see no difference.
So in your mind, the possibility that they could be faked, raised by some vague references to magnets and reed switches, is equal to several video recordings demonstrating how they actually work as predicted by a formula that gives their rotation rate for any given latitude?
-
Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.
Just as your explanation of how a Foucault Pendulum works is simply a possibility? I see no difference.
So in your mind, the possibility that they could be faked, raised by some vague references to magnets and reed switches, is equal to several video recordings demonstrating how they actually work as predicted by a formula that gives their rotation rate for any given latitude?
Absolutely.
-
Only in FES could hackjob drawings done in MS Paint be considered "Works". ::)
Save the term for something significant like art, music, or literature, but please not shitty drawings.
-
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Like jroa has explained to you before, this can easily be achieved through a series of switches. Reed Switches, to be specific.
Now, where is your evidence that they are controlled?
The collected works and diagrams of myself and others in this thread.
MS paint pictures do not count as evidence that all Foucault Pendulums are controlled. Try again.
-
So all the people who've built one of the many, many public examples around the world have multiple, colossal, research/MRI level electromagnets hidden around them. Some teacher in a science department thinks having a little wooden one would be neat, what happens next? Do they submit a request for all this equipment to some shadowy organisation who come round and install it? I doubt the school is going to spring for it.
What happens to people like the young Mr Agnabusi? He made a working one with a piece of nylon cord and a bowling ball in a stairwell. He seems to have carried on with his life and not been silenced by sinister agents of The Conspiracy. Maybe he was in on it all along!
-
The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.
So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?
Who said it swung for 32.7 consecutive hours? ???
I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. The point is, it doesn't need to. You just need to let it go for a known period of time and measure the angle, then do some basic math:
360°/11 °/hr = 32.7 hr.
Making sense now?
That's not how its worded.Its worded to purposely mislead persons in to thinking it rotated all by its self for 32.7 hr. I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. You have conveniently left out Gravity. Just as most who promote Foucault pendulum do. So your now telling me a 24hr day is really a 32.7 hr day ?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude)
Since there are many different reference ellipsoids the latitude of a feature on the surface is not unique: this is stressed in the ISO standard which states that "without the full specification of the coordinate reference system, coordinates (that is latitude and longitude) are ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst". This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS,
-
The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.
So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?
Who said it swung for 32.7 consecutive hours? ???
I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. The point is, it doesn't need to. You just need to let it go for a known period of time and measure the angle, then do some basic math:
360°/11 °/hr = 32.7 hr.
Making sense now?
That's not how its worded.Its worded to purposely mislead persons in to thinking it rotated all by its self for 32.7 hr. I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. You have conveniently left out Gravity. Just as most who promote Foucault pendulum do. So your now telling me a 24hr day is really a 32.7 hr day ?
You basically just told everyone here that you don't have a clue how any pendulum works, Foucault or otherwise. Would you care to reread the thread, review your high school physics and try again?
-
Only in FES could hackjob drawings done in MS Paint be considered "Works". ::)
Save the term for something significant like art, music, or literature, but please not shitty drawings.
He may be referring to the real work that he stole and then falsely claimed as his own. Which actually turned out to be good evidence that unpowered and unmodified Foucault pendulums really do work as advertised.
So I suppose you can add claiming that the works he presented in this thread proved Foucault pendulums are faked to Vauxhall's ever growing list of lies, since the only actual work he cited showed just the opposite.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude)
Since there are many different reference ellipsoids the latitude of a feature on the surface is not unique: this is stressed in the ISO standard which states that "without the full specification of the coordinate reference system, coordinates (that is latitude and longitude) are ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst". This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS,
Quote Mining for Dummies tip #37: If you want to get caught quote mining immediately, end your quote with a fucking comma, so everybody with an IQ greater than that of a bowling shoe can see that you've obviously left out information. Information such as:
This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS, but in common usage, where high accuracy is not required, the reference ellipsoid is not usually stated.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude)
Since there are many different reference ellipsoids the latitude of a feature on the surface is not unique: this is stressed in the ISO standard which states that "without the full specification of the coordinate reference system, coordinates (that is latitude and longitude) are ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst". This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS,
Quote Mining for Dummies tip #37: If you want to get caught quote mining immediately, end your quote with a fucking comma, so everybody with an IQ greater than that of a bowling shoe can see that you've obviously left out information. Information such as:
This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS, but in common usage, where high accuracy is not required, the reference ellipsoid is not usually stated.
Nasty nasty.Did they put your rent up at the trailer park this week.lol,,,,,,,, I Wasn't mining anything. just leading the witness ;) High accuracy not required. Well id say if your claiming Foucault pendulum proves the earth to be rotating. You would want it to be highly accurate wouldn't you say ?
-
This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.
-
Even if you provide a full arrangement that would mimic the observed rotation of the pendulum, you still provided just a possibility, and not actual proof that's how they work.
Just as your explanation of how a Foucault Pendulum works is simply a possibility? I see no difference.
So in your mind, the possibility that they could be faked, raised by some vague references to magnets and reed switches, is equal to several video recordings demonstrating how they actually work as predicted by a formula that gives their rotation rate for any given latitude?
Absolutely.
So, when are you going to prove that it can be faked? Remember, you only have to be able to replicate 160 year old tech, so it should cost next to nothing. Oh, and it has to work on wood too.
-
So all the people who've built one of the many, many public examples around the world have multiple, colossal, research/MRI level electromagnets hidden around them. Some teacher in a science department thinks having a little wooden one would be neat, what happens next? Do they submit a request for all this equipment to some shadowy organisation who come round and install it?
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.
-
Its irrelevant? What you having people think brass cant be attracted or repelled by a magnet. Brass is a composition alloy. It consists of a mixture of ether copper & zinc or copper & tin...
Wrong again Charles. Brass is an alloy of 67% copper and 33% zinc. (Sometimes a bit of lead is added for malleability.) You're mistaking bronze—an alloy of 88% copper and 12% tin—with brass. Obviously your understanding of metallurgy (like everything else it seems) is somewhat lacking.
And neither copper or zinc are attracted to or repelled by a magnet.
Incidentally, you still haven't adequately explained how a system of hidden, switched electromagnets could've influenced the path of a ferrous pendulum—with the crude technology available 150 years ago. Even today, it would take a complicated, computer-aided set of electronically activated relays to achieve this. It's not just a matter of hiding four permanent magnets in the floor as one of your fellow flat earthers has suggested. Or is this simply another example of flat earthers having differing views of basic scientific concepts?
-
Well I best hand my metallurgy ticket in & tear up my degree in industrial chemistry.
Back when Foucault was playing with his exaggerated pendulum. Bronze was referred to as a brass. ::)
Diamagnetic materials: These materials have a weak, negative susceptibility to magnetic fields, thus slightly repelled by a magnetic field. Diamagnetic materials do not retain the magnetic properties in the absence of magnetic field. Such type of materials have all paired electrons, hence there is no permanent net magnetic moment per atom. Most common examples of diamagnetic material are copper, silver, and gold.
-
ausGeoff is right in every way relevant to the discussion. The argument was that you can't attract (or repel) brass with a magnet in the context of the Foucault pendulum experiment. This is just another derail attempt by jroa obviously. If he wants to argue that diamagnetism is used to alter the movement of the bob, that's fine by me.
Thank you. Despite yet another attempt by jroa to derail a perfectly logical thread by introducing something totally unrelated to the thrust of the thread, my claim still stands.
And if jroa seriously considers that the levitating frog has anything relevant to do with the Foucault pendulum, then he's misinterpreting (again) the basic science of how the pendulum actually works. Plus the fact that it has nothing to do with magnets.
Or frogs for that matter LOL.
-
This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.
I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll. I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.
They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science. They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.
And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least. Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.
They both rely solely on personal opinions. And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.
-
Well I best hand my metallurgy ticket in & tear up my degree in industrial chemistry.
Hehe. So now Charles claims to have a degree in industrial chemistry, and a "ticket" in metallurgy (whatever that means in the real world?). How convenient for this alleged qualification to suddenly appear in a thread such as this, discussing the properties of metals.
I'm guessing the only degree that poor old Charles ever got was out of a cereal box. ;D
Nobody with a legitimate university science degree would ever, ever accept the flat earth model even for a nanosecond.
-
Quote Mining for Dummies tip #37: If you want to get caught quote mining immediately, end your quote with a fucking comma, so everybody with an IQ greater than that of a bowling shoe can see that you've obviously left out information. Information such as:
This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS, but in common usage, where high accuracy is not required, the reference ellipsoid is not usually stated.
Nasty nasty.Did they put your rent up at the trailer park this week.lol,,,,,,,, I Wasn't mining anything. just leading the witness ;) High accuracy not required. Well id say if your claiming Foucault pendulum proves the earth to be rotating. You would want it to be highly accurate wouldn't you say ?
So, accuracy in measuring latitude has improved over the years. That's your bright red, enlarged-font smoking gun?
-
So, accuracy in measuring latitude has improved over the years. That's your bright red, enlarged-font smoking gun?
Poor old Charles apparently doesn't understand that one does not need the highest degree of accuracy to prove the principles indicated by the Foucault pendulum.
In fact a very broad interpretation of the apparent rotation of its swing plane is all that's needed to prove that the floor is rotating under it. We don't even need to describe this observed rotation in terms of time and/or degrees to formulate the theory, other than the rotation is observed to be regular rather than random.
-
The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.
So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?
Who said it swung for 32.7 consecutive hours? ???
I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. The point is, it doesn't need to. You just need to let it go for a known period of time and measure the angle, then do some basic math:
360°/11 °/hr = 32.7 hr.
Making sense now?
That's not how its worded.Its worded to purposely mislead persons in to thinking it rotated all by its self for 32.7 hr. I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. You have conveniently left out Gravity. Just as most who promote Foucault pendulum do. So your now telling me a 24hr day is really a 32.7 hr day ?
Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?
The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.
But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.
-
Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?
The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.
But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.
And yet again, Charles is confused (so what's new LOL). He seems to think that the Foucault pendulum takes exactly 24 hours to complete its "turn" at every location on the earth's surface, rather than just at the North pole or the South pole (where it's actually 23.93 hours). When a Foucault pendulum is suspended somewhere along the equator, the plane of its swing arc constantly co-rotates with the rotation of the earth.
He's not aware that the angular speed, (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day) is proportional to the sine of the latitude. Hence the period of rotation at Paris is around 32.7 hours, and not 24 hours. And at Sydney University, it's around 43 hours.
-
Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?
The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.
But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.
And yet again, Charles is confused (so what's new LOL). He seems to think that the Foucault pendulum takes exactly 24 hours to complete its "turn" at every location on the earth's surface, rather than just at the North pole or the South pole (where it's actually 23.93 hours). When a Foucault pendulum is suspended somewhere along the equator, the plane of its swing arc constantly co-rotates with the rotation of the earth.
He's not aware that the angular speed, (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day) is proportional to the sine of the latitude. Hence the period of rotation at Paris is around 32.7 hours, and not 24 hours. And at Sydney University, it's around 43 hours.
This has been explained to him in depth, with the exact equations necessary to show where 32.7 hours came from.
Of course, he ignores hard fact while screaming like chicken little about the new 33 hour day. ::)
-
Why would incredible accuracy be required? It precesses over 24 hours-ish at the north pole, longer as you go south, doesn't precess at the equator and then goes back up to about every 24 hours in the opposite direction at the south pole. We're not using it to sync GPS signals ;)
-
Why would incredible accuracy be required?
Charles has rather demanding standards regarding accuracy. Don't forget, he was able to determine whether or not the surface of water in a kitchen pan curved at a rate of 8" per mile. ::)
-
This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.
I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll. I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.
They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science. They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.
And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least. Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.
They both rely solely on personal opinions. And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.
I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields. Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application & I'm afraid allot of the theory just doesn't stack up. Yet they keep teaching the flawed theory . Why? corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated. That their life is one of trading as a corporate entity & subject to all kinds of contractual obligations. That puts them in a precarious position to except the lies of the market place, its obligations & burden.
Once you step back & view the big picture. You have an opportunity not to fall in to the laid trap of contract obligations & commerce manipulated out come.
-
To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.
-
This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.
I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll. I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.
They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science. They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.
And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least. Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.
They both rely solely on personal opinions. And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.
I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields. Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application & I'm afraid allot of the theory just doesn't stack up. Yet they keep teaching the flawed theory . Why? corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated. That their life is one of trading as a corporate entity & subject to all kinds of contractual obligations. That puts them in a precarious position to except the lies of the market place, its obligations & burden.
Once you step back & view the big picture. You have an opportunity not to fall in to the laid trap of contract obligations & commerce manipulated out come.
Yet the theory of the round earth does stack up without calling people stupid. Personal abuse shows no ability to discuss.
-
Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.
-
To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.
If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.
Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.
My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.
So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.
-
To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.
If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.
Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.
My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.
So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result :)
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result :)
Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result :)
Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?
t = 2 pi sqr (l/g). Weight does not affect period.
-
I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields.
One of your numerous qualifications is obviously not connected with the English language LOL.
Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application...
I'm guessing one of your characteristics is delusions of grandeur. People who repeatedly brag about their alleged academic credentials usually don't possess them—other than in their own minds.
Corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated.
Ahhh... the good-ol'-never-fails "conspiracy theory" rears its ugly head again. Well done Charles!
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Once again I have to note your use of crude insults in order to "reinforce" your claims about the pendulum. Well done; ad hominem attacks are invariably most helpful to someone's argument. Not.
It's more than obvious that, despite your claims to the contrary Charles, you have very little idea of the mechanics and/or geophysical theorems behind the action of the Foucault pendulum. The arc the pendulum describes is absolutely coplanar; no deviation from a single plane. This is because there are zero externally applied horizontal forces acting perpendicular to the plane of the bob's swing arc.
The only external forces acting on the bob are parallel to its swing arc. One is gravity (pulling down), and the other is the suspension string (pulling up). There are also two types of applied energy at work here; one is kinetic energy, and the other is potential energy. Whilst in motion, the bob possesses kinetic energy. When the bob reaches its point of maximum swing, and is stationary, it then possesses potential energy, which is then transformed—by gravity—into kinetic energy. In a vacuum, this conversion would be 100% effective, and the pendulum would—theoretically—swing for an infinite period. In the real world of course, the frictional forces of the air gradually depletes this energy, and the pendulum stops.
-
My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.
This is exactly my line of thinking. Numinous degrees? So you're a spiritual man? You've got degrees in religion?
He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.
-
He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.
Yep; Charles is one of my fellow countrymen. And surprisingly—although we all live hanging upside down—we've learned to speak normal English. Well, some of us have LOL.
-
He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.
Yep; Charles is one of my fellow countrymen. And surprisingly—although we all live hanging upside down—we've learned to speak normal English. Well, some of us have LOL.
I didn't intend to belittle Australians in general, or their use of the English language. I just didn't want to assume that one who lives in the region speaks perfect English, I didn't know if Aboriginal language was still a primary language for some.
-
Iirc, Charles is a native Glaswegian living in Australia. So any failure to learn English was probably Scotland's fault rather than Australia's.
-
To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.
If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.
Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.
My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.
So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Technically the trajectory of a pendulum is an ellipse. However a straight line is also a special case of an ellipse. In practise, Foucault pendulums would probably never swing perfectly true, but everything is done to minimize the sideways motion, so for all practical purposes, it moves in a straight line. Keep in mind, it's the major axis of the ellipse that precesses, so even if there is some sideways motion, it still works.
EDIT: I suppose if you want to get even more technical, the path is never straight even if you eliminate the sideways motion. Since the Earth does rotate by some small amount during every swing, the path will always be slightly curved. So charles is right in a way, but not for the reason he thinks.
-
Indeed, neat little animation of both those effects, from wiki, the blue ellipse showing the "pure" path of the bob (an ellipse) and the green line (the ground trace of the bob) showing the precession during the swing (exaggerated):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Foucault-rotz.gif/375px-Foucault-rotz.gif)
-
Indeed, neat little animation of both those effects, from wiki, the blue ellipse showing the "pure" path of the bob (an ellipse) and the green line (the ground trace of the bob) showing the precession during the swing (exaggerated):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Foucault-rotz.gif/375px-Foucault-rotz.gif)
Cool, an animated picture.. ::)
-
Yeah, it's weak tea compared to that huge working pendulum you set up, but it illustrates the two effects that were mentioned, nicely.
-
Indeed, neat little animation of both those effects, from wiki, the blue ellipse showing the "pure" path of the bob (an ellipse) and the green line (the ground trace of the bob) showing the precession during the swing (exaggerated):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Foucault-rotz.gif/375px-Foucault-rotz.gif)
Cool, an animated picture.. ::)
You claimed your ms paint picture was proof.
Trolling really has gone way down on this site.
-
Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes? We all make them. In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.
If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying. I know you understand what he is saying.
-
Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes? We all make them. In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.
If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying. I know you understand what he is saying.
When bragging about your accolades, be grammatically correct while doing it. If you want credibility, it starts with proper communication skills.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
Myself and my Engineer friends used to joke that Engineers are great at putting stuff together, as long as it is not a coherent sentence. Don't judge people on their grammar. Judge them on the content of what they are saying.
-
I think people make every effort to understand him, but it really isn't always clear what the content of what he's saying is.
As for your friends, there's an adage: A scientist must write. Your ideas and results are no use to the world if they're stuck in your head.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
Myself and my Engineer friends used to joke that Engineers are great at putting stuff together, as long as it is not a coherent sentence. Don't judge people on their grammar. Judge them on the content of what they are saying.
Engineers are known for bad grammar.
About 80% of my company holds a PhD, grammar is very important to them, as it should be to anyone making a point while maintaining credibility.
I'm sorry you don't feel this way, but that's how it is in the real world where people are on the cutting edge of technology and trying to get published and grants for research.
-
What jroa is trying to say is that this is not an essay or a college paper. This is a forum. 100% accuracy in syntax and grammar is not always nessecary to get the point across, you all know this. Stop playing dumb.
If you are expecting every post to be some sort of long beautifully written essay then you're going to be disappointed.
Many things contribute to mistakes in spelling and grammar. I have dyslexia myself, so I can relate. Regardless, it has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. Get off your high horse.
Most of your theories and arguments are ridiculous enough as it is that two or three words is enough to refute them anyways.
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result :)
Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?
t = 2 pi sqr (l/g). Weight does not affect period.
Quite right, my bad... :-[
-
Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes? We all make them. In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.
If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying. I know you understand what he is saying.
It gets frustrating trying to figure out what the hell he is saying only to discover it's yet another terrible argument. Or the same terrible argument. When he's unintentionally funny it's hard not to say something. I mean it's getting so I suspect his moron shtick is just an act. Notice how sceptimatic has been quiet lately whil charles is partying on, hmmm?
-
Judge them on the content of what they are saying.
We do that too.
-
If you are expecting every post to be some sort of long beautifully written essay then you're going to be disappointed.
I don't think coherence is too much to ask for.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
-
Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.
Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something! ;D
Try setting up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result :)
Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?
t = 2 pi sqr (l/g). Weight does not affect period.
Quite right, my bad... :-[
The swing period wouldn't be different, but the total swing time would be, and that's what is important here. A total swing time long enough to see a change in the rotation.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
-
I'll have to tell my friends that they're writing their papers wrong.
Of course, it does happen that credit gets shared unfairly, or that the better writer in the group (or the best writer that someone in the group knows!) gets landed with the bulk of the copy editing, if not all the writing itself. These people are just people.
But the fact remains, if you can't convey your ideas to someone else, they're pretty useless. Who hasn't worked with someone inarticulate? Where after a whole bunch of work's been done they say "No no no, that's not what I meant!" to an audience of stunned faces all silently saying "Well, it's exactly what we all heard you say >:("
-
I'll have to tell my friends that they're writing their papers wrong.
Of course, it does happen that credit gets shared unfairly, or that the better writer in the group (or the best writer that someone in the group knows!) gets landed with the bulk of the copy editing, if not all the writing itself. These people are just people.
But the fact remains, if you can't convey your ideas to someone else, they're pretty useless. Who hasn't worked with someone inarticulate? Where after a whole bunch of work's been done they say "No no no, that's not what I meant!" to an audience of stunned faces all silently saying "Well, it's exactly what we all heard you say >:("
Personally it can be written in double Dutch for all I care. If its comprehended . comprehension is of course the paramount purpose of communication. Now you all seemed to have comprehend a pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight trajectory on earth. Yes or No ?
-
Couldn't have asked for a better case in point :)
In what specific way is it not straight? Pendulums swing in an arc, is that what you mean?
-
Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.
-
Personally it can be written in double Dutch for all I care. If its comprehended . comprehension is of course the paramount purpose of communication. Now you all seemed to have comprehend a pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight trajectory on earth. Yes or No ?
I doubt anything ever moves perfectly straight, not sure what your point is.
As for the pendulum, as was stated before it moves in a slightly curved path due to the rotation of the Earth, for one thing. In practise it's not really possible to start with zero sideways motion either. Nevertheless, it can be done with enough precision to clearly show the effect of Earth's rotation.
-
Step two of our case study:
Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.
What?
I think you're saying that Foucault's pendulums just work whether the earth is rotating or not. But seriously, that's just from that last part. The first 2/3rds I'm mystified by. Is that what you're saying? Does anyone know?
-
I'm stumped. Maybe he's saying at the high point of each swing, the pendulum shifts somehow? Really it's incomprehensible. I fear charles just doesn't understand any of the terminology well enough to make it clear what he means.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.
My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.
-
Its simple to understand. You have a suspension pivot point vertical to the lowest point of gravity. you have an arc of swing. You develop a momentum once the pendulum commences swing. You have a change in accelerated velocity. each time the pendulum passes the lowest point of gravity. Due to gravitational fall over powering momentum on each swing of the pendulum. Theses continual changes in velocity & reversed direction in momentum, is what causes the pendulum to progress in a rotation.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.
My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.
Now you really have gone to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.
-
I'm sorry that you didn't get your name in Nature for being a lab technician or whatever, but it is the case that everyone involved in the actual research is (typically) credited. Even if someone gets more credit than they deserve or rides the coattails of someone more involved or whatever.
Our case study continues:
Due to gravitational fall over powering momentum on each swing of the pendulum. Theses continual changes in velocity & reversed direction in momentum, is what causes the pendulum to progress in a rotation.
Are you saying that all pendulums precess, no matter what?
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.
My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.
Now you really have gone to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.
Didn't you already claim to be a metallurgist?
Now you're writing papers on protein inhibitors?
Yes, I'm calling you a liar. ::)
-
Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.
Is it just me, or does none of this make any sense at all?
A "brief shift"? Of what? Caused by?
The "the trajectory momentum"? The trajectory is the path traced by a moving body. Momentum is its tendency to keep moving. What's the connection?
What is the "maintained fixed point's of vertical"? Is this even English? Is "point's" meant to be plural or possessive?
—It's become apparent that Charles has misled us or exaggerated his academic qualifications somewhat, as any thesis or dissertation written in this manner wouldn't even be considered by any university in the world.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.
My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.
Now you really have gone to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.
Didn't you already claim to be a metallurgist?
Now you're writing papers on protein inhibitors?
Yes, I'm calling you a liar. ::)
I hold all category welding certificates including metallurgy. I also have a Bsc Bvsc & I really dont care what a shyt head of the likes of you!!!, opinion is of me .
-
Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.
Is it just me, or does none of this make any sense at all?
A "brief shift"? Of what? Caused by?
The "the trajectory momentum"? The trajectory is the path traced by a moving body. Momentum is its tendency to keep moving. What's the connection?
What is the "maintained fixed point's of vertical"? Is this even English? Is "point's" meant to be plural or possessive?
—It's become apparent that Charles has misled us or exaggerated his academic qualifications somewhat, as any thesis or dissertation written in this manner wouldn't even be considered by any university in the world.
The two vertical points.Pivot point. lowest point of gravity. If the pendulum is hanging still, its a PLUM BOB & maintaining fixed points of vertical.
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
-
Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. You are simply looking for something to attack him with.
The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.
"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence. Sloppy English = sloppy facts.
For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do. For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar. The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.
Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't. Or can't?
The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really know :) In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.
This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.
My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.
Now you really have gone to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.
Didn't you already claim to be a metallurgist?
Now you're writing papers on protein inhibitors?
Yes, I'm calling you a liar. ::)
I hold all category welding certificates including metallurgy. I also have a Bsc Bvsc & I really dont care what a shyt head of the likes of you!!!, opinion is of me .
Forgive me if i don't believe you've ever authored a scientific paper, had it peer reviewed, published, or even know the fist thing about protein inhibitors.
Way to stay classy with the name calling though, it really drives the point home. ::)
-
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
-
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy. Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy. This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.
And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing. The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
-
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.
Now I work in biotechnology.
P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
-
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy. Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy. This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.
And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing. The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
-
I hold all category welding certificates including metallurgy. I also have a Bsc Bvsc & I really dont care what a shyt head of the likes of you!!!, opinion is of me .
So you're a welder, metallurgist and a veterinarian? ;D
You must be a busy guy, does this explain why you never learned to write? Or are you simply bluffing?
-
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy. Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy. This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.
And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing. The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Clearly, physics was not a big part of your substantial education.
-
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.
Now I work in biotechnology.
P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~
-
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy. Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy. This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.
And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing. The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Clearly, physics was not a big part of your substantial education.
You mean ,Clearly physics was not a big part of your substantial education, otherwise you would have a better understanding of kinetic energy & gravity.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm)
-
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
-
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.
Now I work in biotechnology.
P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~
Typical reaction of the ignorant, uneducated and stupid. Who are you to presume anything about evildylan's background because he has a higher education than you. It must be higher than yours, why else would you react like a big flopping raw nerve? And anyway, how would the way he came about his education have any bearing on the argument he's making? Nice attpt at derailing, you little weasel.
-
Everyone, I know that discussions can get a little heated, but let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Thanks.
-
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?
-
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?
Anybody have any idea what he's asking here?
-
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?
Anybody have any idea what he's asking here?
I happen to know an FBI codebreaker who might be able to help you.
-
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.
Now I work in biotechnology.
P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~
You know absolutely nothing of my parents wealth, I got into and through college with work harder than you've ever imagined. When my scholarships couldn't pay, I worked full time and went to school, when that wasn't enough I took student loans, to which I still owe.
Please tell me more about how self righteous I am you presumptuous little prick.
-
Alright, boys.
There's no need to get testy in a public forum. We can argue about what schools we went to and what degrees we have all day, but it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
-
Alright, boys.
There's no need to get testy in a public forum. We can argue about what schools we went to and what degrees we have all day, but it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
However you have no proof.
-
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.
-
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.
Have you ever seen The Wizard of Oz?
-
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.
Have you ever seen The Wizard of Oz?
Have you ever seen that movie where this guy shows you how to do an experiment yourself and then you realize that you're a free citizen and that you only live a few block away from Home Depot where you can buy the materials needed for the experiment and you perform the experiment yourself and then you do and then you realize you are wrong about everything?
You should see it.
-
Are you saying if you tied a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created?
Nope. If you think I did please let me know where, and I'll endeavour to clarify it.
How does the bob travel in the opposite direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Any/all centripetal force(s) are acting along the suspension string between the bob and its pivot point. The vectors of this centripetal force are acting horizontally and vertically relative to a tangent drawn at the earth's surface immediately below the pivot point.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm)
Interesting video. What the guy neglected to explain was that Slinkys, which are basically a spring, are designed with a (longitudinal) restoring force that equals the acceleration due to gravity, and which is why they sit fully compressed on the floor at rest. If you were to make Slinkys with a thicker gauge of wire for example, the experiment (stationary bottom end) wouldn't work.
This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum however.
-
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm)
Interesting video. What the guy neglected to explain was that Slinkys, which are basically a spring, are designed with a (longitudinal) restoring force that equals the acceleration due to gravity, and which is why they sit fully compressed on the floor at rest. If you were to make Slinkys with a thicker gauge of wire for example, the experiment (stationary bottom end) wouldn't work.
This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum however.
You mean make it ridged so it stores no kinetic energy. What would we call that slinky a house brick. ::)
-
Are you saying if you tied a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created?
Nope. If you think I did please let me know where, and I'll endeavour to clarify it.
How does the bob travel in the opposite direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Any/all centripetal force(s) are acting along the suspension string between the bob and its pivot point. The vectors of this centripetal force are acting horizontally and vertically relative to a tangent drawn at the earth's surface immediately below the pivot point.
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there. ;)
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
I know what all the words mean, but this doesn't make sense. It's kind of like listening to Deepak Chopra talkin about quantum mechanics and spirituality. In other words, bullshit.
I'm still willing to play though. Please, can you make a diagram showing all this?
I also recommend you try this with a real pendulum of some kind. I used a plumb bob on a string. No precession, no matter if I twist the string, move it up and down, side to side, etc.
-
We seem to have differing opinions on the FE side. If I understand correctly, Vauxhall says Foucault pendulums don't precess without some mechanical or magnetic trickery. He's given several opinions on how this might be done, but so far has not demonstrated that it can be done, nor has he demonstrated that it has in fact done in any case of a Foucault pendulum experiment.
Charles on the other hand, supported the fakery idea at first, also without providing any conclusive evidence, but then switched to the idea that the pendulum will actually precess as expected not due to Earth's rotation, but will in fact precess on a non-rotating Earth due to some combination of gravitational force, tension in the wire and instabilty of the point of suspension. After several attempts he has not made clear how this works.
On the RE side, the equation t=24hr/sin(L), where t is the period of precession, 24hr is the period of Earth's rotation, and L is the latitude where the pendulum is located, to predict how the pendulum will precess. Several examples of this actually working, including video demonstrations, experiment write ups, and publicly available Foucault pendulums have been given. Many of the examples were of apparently unmodified and unassisted pendulums. Where magnetically assisted pendulums were referenced, some detail of the magnetic sucker mechanism was given, including detail explaining how every effort is made not to alter the trajectory of the bob other than to accelerate it slightly in the direction it is already travelling to compensate for loss of momentum due to friction.
Now, after 26 pages of debate, I think it's clear that the FE side has given nothing substantial on the Foucault pendulum, citing only vague conspiracy theories, and confused sounding physical explanations that don't account for real world observations. Furthermore Vauxhall has been dishonest, by his own admission, regarding his alleged experiments. The RE side has clearly shown, by simple theoretical explanation and by reference to several verifiable experiments that Foucault pendulums do in fact precess due to rotation of the Earth.
Unless anyone has anything further to add, how do you all feel about putting this one to a vote and declaring a winner in this debate?
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
I know what all the words mean, but this doesn't make sense. It's kind of like listening to Deepak Chopra talkin about quantum mechanics and spirituality. In other words, bullshit.
I'm still willing to play though. Please, can you make a diagram showing all this?
I also recommend you try this with a real pendulum of some kind. I used a plumb bob on a string. No precession, no matter if I twist the string, move it up and down, side to side, etc.
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
I know what all the words mean, but this doesn't make sense. It's kind of like listening to Deepak Chopra talkin about quantum mechanics and spirituality. In other words, bullshit.
I'm still willing to play though. Please, can you make a diagram showing all this?
I also recommend you try this with a real pendulum of some kind. I used a plumb bob on a string. No precession, no matter if I twist the string, move it up and down, side to side, etc.
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
Veneration? Osculated?
-
He uses words that he thinks are big and scientific sounding to try and confuse people who aren't smart enough to see through his veil of verbal bullshit. Fortunately, most everyone involved here has enough wits to filter through the garbage to see the truth behind his completely nonsensical drivel.
None of it makes sense, none of it is scientifically accurate, he's making things up as he goes because he's backed himself into a corner to which there's no escape.
-
We seem to have differing opinions on the FE side. If I understand correctly, Vauxhall says Foucault pendulums don't precess without some mechanical or magnetic trickery. He's given several opinions on how this might be done, but so far has not demonstrated that it can be done, nor has he demonstrated that it has in fact done in any case of a Foucault pendulum experiment.
Charles on the other hand, supported the fakery idea at first, also without providing any conclusive evidence, but then switched to the idea that the pendulum will actually precess as expected not due to Earth's rotation, but will in fact precess on a non-rotating Earth due to some combination of gravitational force, tension in the wire and instabilty of the point of suspension. After several attempts he has not made clear how this works.
On the RE side, the equation t=24hr/sin(L), where t is the period of precession, 24hr is the period of Earth's rotation, and L is the latitude where the pendulum is located, to predict how the pendulum will precess. Several examples of this actually working, including video demonstrations, experiment write ups, and publicly available Foucault pendulums have been given. Many of the examples were of apparently unmodified and unassisted pendulums. Where magnetically assisted pendulums were referenced, some detail of the magnetic sucker mechanism was given, including detail explaining how every effort is made not to alter the trajectory of the bob other than to accelerate it slightly in the direction it is already travelling to compensate for loss of momentum due to friction.
Now, after 26 pages of debate, I think it's clear that the FE side has given nothing substantial on the Foucault pendulum, citing only vague conspiracy theories, and confused sounding physical explanations that don't account for real world observations. Furthermore Vauxhall has been dishonest, by his own admission, regarding his alleged experiments. The RE side has clearly shown, by simple theoretical explanation and by reference to several verifiable experiments that Foucault pendulums do in fact precess due to rotation of the Earth.
Unless anyone has anything further to add, how do you all feel about putting this one to a vote and declaring a winner in this debate?
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
WE KNOW they won't swing for 24 hours unassisted, they don't NEED to to demonstrate the earth's rotation. What about this is so difficult to understand? A few hours is all that is needed and a few hours can be accomplished unassisted. Why do you continue to ignore this very simple, very understandable fact?
Latitude and longitude don't need to be agreed upon, all they need is to provide a reference point for the calculation. same thing like standard and metric measurements 2.54 cm and 1 inch are the same, even if they are different units. Another very simple concept that you have shown the inability to grasp.
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
I know what all the words mean, but this doesn't make sense. It's kind of like listening to Deepak Chopra talkin about quantum mechanics and spirituality. In other words, bullshit.
I'm still willing to play though. Please, can you make a diagram showing all this?
I also recommend you try this with a real pendulum of some kind. I used a plumb bob on a string. No precession, no matter if I twist the string, move it up and down, side to side, etc.
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing variation in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an Oscillating wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
Veneration? Osculated?
Its Variation & Oscillation.
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing variation in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an Oscillating wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
Keep sabotaging my posts. I'm not going anywhere.
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
WE KNOW they won't swing for 24 hours unassisted, they don't NEED to to demonstrate the earth's rotation. What about this is so difficult to understand? A few hours is all that is needed and a few hours can be accomplished unassisted. Why do you continue to ignore this very simple, very understandable fact?
Latitude and longitude don't need to be agreed upon, all they need is to provide a reference point for the calculation. same thing like standard and metric measurements 2.54 cm and 1 inch are the same, even if they are different units. Another very simple concept that you have shown the inability to grasp.
I know 25.4 mm = 1inch. that's not what the treaty agreed upon. So stop play charades. You know dame well your your reference point is total bullshit. A made up farce of fudged figures. that demonstrate nothing but fraud.
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
WE KNOW they won't swing for 24 hours unassisted, they don't NEED to to demonstrate the earth's rotation. What about this is so difficult to understand? A few hours is all that is needed and a few hours can be accomplished unassisted. Why do you continue to ignore this very simple, very understandable fact?
Latitude and longitude don't need to be agreed upon, all they need is to provide a reference point for the calculation. same thing like standard and metric measurements 2.54 cm and 1 inch are the same, even if they are different units. Another very simple concept that you have shown the inability to grasp.
I know 25.4 mm = 1inch. that's not what the treaty agreed upon. So stop play charades. You know dame well your your reference point is total bullshit. A made up farce of fudged figures. that demonstrate nothing but fraud.
This is very easy to understand, the latitude and longitude reference to a point in space determined by numbers, those numbers can be determined using the amount of procession and back calculating using that angle to find out YOUR latitude. It doesn't matter who agrees on it, it's a point of reference and it can be found using a foucault pendulum.
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
If it does, then it should be easily demonstrable with math. Please provide us with your work.
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
I'm merely taking the liberty to recap the debate very briefly (for anyone how hasn't the time or energy to wade through 26 pages) and provide a closing statement, and respectfully ask whether the other participants would like to do so as well and bring this debate to a close. I don't know what's so offensive to you about that or why you think I'm making a straw man argument. Make your own statement and then let's put it to a vote already. In my opinion there's no point in continuing on since it doesn't appear that we're making any further progress.
As gor your comment on latitude, of course it's made up, like any other system of measurement. So what? The fact remains that people have chosen to use the convention of denoting North-South location by an angle from the Earth's axis of rotation. Despite your objection of the 1975 UN treaty, it's totally uncontroversial and we've been using it effectively for centuries. Deal with it. 8)
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
WE KNOW they won't swing for 24 hours unassisted, they don't NEED to to demonstrate the earth's rotation. What about this is so difficult to understand? A few hours is all that is needed and a few hours can be accomplished unassisted. Why do you continue to ignore this very simple, very understandable fact?
Latitude and longitude don't need to be agreed upon, all they need is to provide a reference point for the calculation. same thing like standard and metric measurements 2.54 cm and 1 inch are the same, even if they are different units. Another very simple concept that you have shown the inability to grasp.
I know 25.4 mm = 1inch. that's not what the treaty agreed upon. So stop play charades. You know dame well your your reference point is total bullshit. A made up farce of fudged figures. that demonstrate nothing but fraud.
This is very easy to understand, the latitude and longitude reference to a point in space determined by numbers, those numbers can be determined using the amount of procession and back calculating using that angle to find out YOUR latitude. It doesn't matter who agrees on it, it's a point of reference and it can be found using a Foucault pendulum.
You mean like that You tube clip posted on this thread .Where proclamation of it only being off by137 km on calculations, was touted as being a grand success. I'm just going to nip out the back to my hay stack & see if I can find a needle in it. If I'm lucky I might find two. ::)
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
Wow, what a compelling argument you make. ::)
Are you saying that the tension does stay the same? Haven't you ever been on a swing? Obviously the tension changes continuously throughout each swing. Still no idea why you think that's relevant.
-
What's this ? The I'm a phuck wit & your going to use a straw man argument to crawl back up your rock. Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude. Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
WE KNOW they won't swing for 24 hours unassisted, they don't NEED to to demonstrate the earth's rotation. What about this is so difficult to understand? A few hours is all that is needed and a few hours can be accomplished unassisted. Why do you continue to ignore this very simple, very understandable fact?
Latitude and longitude don't need to be agreed upon, all they need is to provide a reference point for the calculation. same thing like standard and metric measurements 2.54 cm and 1 inch are the same, even if they are different units. Another very simple concept that you have shown the inability to grasp.
I know 25.4 mm = 1inch. that's not what the treaty agreed upon. So stop play charades. You know dame well your your reference point is total bullshit. A made up farce of fudged figures. that demonstrate nothing but fraud.
This is very easy to understand, the latitude and longitude reference to a point in space determined by numbers, those numbers can be determined using the amount of procession and back calculating using that angle to find out YOUR latitude. It doesn't matter who agrees on it, it's a point of reference and it can be found using a Foucault pendulum.
You mean like that You tube clip posted on this thread .Where proclamation of it only being off by137 km on calculations, was touted as being a grand success. I'm just going to nip out the back to my hay stack & see if I can find a needle in it. If I'm lucky I might find two. ::)
That's what you get when you use makeshift measurement devices. It's still closer than anything FE hypothesis has been able to provide, EVER. The experiment would have gotten more accurate with more time, but I like how you conveniently ignore that.
Let me ask you something, if your magical oscillating pendulum force were even true, then why does the total swing time change with change in latitude? Does your magic oscillating pendulum string just conveniently change it's oscillation force with latitude as well?
-
You mean like that You tube clip posted on this thread .Where proclamation of it only being off by137 km on calculations, was touted as being a grand success. I'm just going to nip out the back to my hay stack & see if I can find a needle in it. If I'm lucky I might find two. ::)
That's about 1.4% off by my calculation. How much precision were you expecting from such a rough and ready experiment? I'd say that's pretty good for something probably put together in a single afternoon.
I'm interested to hear your explanation to evildan's question also.
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
If it does, then it should be easily demonstrable with math. Please provide us with your work.
Are you people kidding me that you cant figure out centripetal force will create tension to occur on the suspension cable & changes in velocity of momentum will cause changes in tension in the cable . Do I really have to provide maths for something a grade 4 primary student knows occurs. lol
-
Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
They don't need to. Depending on your latitude, deflection can be observed in significantly less than 1 hour.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude.
I did and I couldn't find anything relevant. Perhaps you could post a link.
Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
??? What the th*rk are you talking about? Measurements of latitude based on observations of Polaris and other heavenly bodies have been used used to navigate successfully for over two thousand years. Ever heard of celestial navigation?
-
Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
They don't need to. Depending on your latitude, deflection can be observed in significantly less than 1 hour.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude.
I did and I couldn't find anything relevant. Perhaps you could post a link.
Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
??? What the th*rk are you talking about? Measurements of latitude based on observations of Polaris and other heavenly bodies have been used used to navigate successfully for over two thousand years. Ever heard of celestial navigation?
Then why the necessity for a treaty in 1975 ? What they had nothing better to do LOL
Brain washed retards I can't be bothered with uses .
Wake up they are professional at lying ,they only tell you what they want you to believe.
http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html (http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html)
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
If it does, then it should be easily demonstrable with math. Please provide us with your work.
Are you people kidding me that you cant figure out centripetal force will create tension to occur on the suspension cable & changes in velocity of momentum will cause changes in tension in the cable . Do I really have to provide maths for something a grade 4 primary student knows occurs. lol
Holy shit charlie brown. You're asking others to wake up and smell the conspiracy? Why don't you pay attention and listen to what you've been told about twenty times now. Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Since you still don't seem to understand it, I'll use small simple words: unless that tension causes the wire to break, it's totally irrelevant to how a Foucault pendulum works.
-
Its been made very clear, that your Foucault pendulums wont swing for 24hrs with out assistance.
They don't need to. Depending on your latitude, deflection can be observed in significantly less than 1 hour.
I suggest you research the 1975 UN treaties for universal world time & latitude.
I did and I couldn't find anything relevant. Perhaps you could post a link.
Latitude & longitude are simply made up. An agreement adopted by countries that couldn't agree on latitude.
??? What the th*rk are you talking about? Measurements of latitude based on observations of Polaris and other heavenly bodies have been used used to navigate successfully for over two thousand years. Ever heard of celestial navigation?
Then why the necessity for a treaty in 1975 ? What they had nothing better to do LOL
Brain washed retards I can't be bothered with uses .
Wake up they are professional at lying ,they only tell you what they want you to believe.
http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html (http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html)
I'll ask again.
Let me ask you something, if your magical oscillating pendulum force were even true, then why does the total swing time change with change in latitude? Does your magic oscillating pendulum string just conveniently change it's oscillation force with latitude as well?
-
Then why the necessity for a treaty in 1975 ? What they had nothing better to do LOL
Perhaps if you could post a link to this treaty, then I could read it and possibly give you an answer. As it is, Google can't seem to find it for me (unless they're hiding it).
Brain washed retards I can't be bothered with uses .
Wake up they are professional at lying ,they only tell you what they want you to believe.
http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html (http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html)
What does a bank note printing company printing blank birth certificate forms have to do with latitude or Foucalult pendulums? ???
-
What I would like to know is: why are you all arguing with CB?
Even by the very low standards of this forum, it is unlikely to be fruitful in any way.
-
What I would like to know is: why are you all arguing with CB?
Even by the very low standards of this forum, it is unlikely to be fruitful in any way.
That's why I think we should put it to a vote and end this debate. RE clearly won this one. The world needs to know. :P
-
Are you say the tension on the suspending string or cable remains at the same tension, Whilst the pendulum is in motion. Are you saying that frequently changing tension causing veneration in stored & released kinetic energy wont produce an osculated wave.? I will make it easy for you YES OR NO.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters) and what the hell are you babbling about to the second.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters)
Well it does & it does!!!
If it does, then it should be easily demonstrable with math. Please provide us with your work.
Are you people kidding me that you cant figure out centripetal force will create tension to occur on the suspension cable & changes in velocity of momentum will cause changes in tension in the cable . Do I really have to provide maths for something a grade 4 primary student knows occurs. lol
Holy shit charlie brown. You're asking others to wake up and smell the conspiracy? Why don't you pay attention and listen to what you've been told about twenty times now. Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Since you still don't seem to understand it, I'll use small simple words: unless that tension causes the wire to break, it's totally irrelevant to how a Foucault pendulum works.
No to the first (though I must ask why you think that even matters). now your telling pork pies.
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
I can see why your so eager to end this thread.
-
Then why the necessity for a treaty in 1975 ? What they had nothing better to do LOL
Perhaps if you could post a link to this treaty, then I could read it and possibly give you an answer. As it is, Google can't seem to find it for me (unless they're hiding it).
Brain washed retards I can't be bothered with uses .
Wake up they are professional at lying ,they only tell you what they want you to believe.
http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html (http://www.viewzone.com/collateralx.html)
What does a bank note printing company printing blank birth certificate forms have to do with latitude or Foucalult pendulums? ???
Well if they can underhandedly & deceptively own your ass with out your consent , borrow capital using your property & any property your ever going to own. Garnish any income.lumbering you ,your children their children & so on................... with the debt of their dirty deeds . Then I'd have to say they cant be trusted to ever be truthful & it pays to get a second opinion on anything they say or promote.
-
What I would like to know is: why are you all arguing with CB?
Even by the very low standards of this forum, it is unlikely to be fruitful in any way.
That's why I think we should put it to a vote and end this debate. RE clearly won this one. The world needs to know. :P
Which world is that, the corporate corrupt one trading via hidden contractual enslavement ? Or the one where a individual is free to chose who he/she contracts with via transparent consent.
-
Well if they can underhandedly & deceptively own your ass with out your consent...
??? Whoa there!! Are you saying that a birth certificate is a document of ownership? If this wasn't way off topic, I'd tell you to get a second opinion on your meds.
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
-
Well if they can underhandedly & deceptively own your ass with out your consent...
??? Whoa there!! Are you saying that a birth certificate is a document of ownership? If this wasn't way off topic, I'd tell you to get a second opinion on your meds.
Are you saying that a birth certificate is a document of ownership?Sure is buddy. They own your incorporated ass & you hold a copy of that legal binding document. Every thing you do regarding commerce is attached to that document. Until the debt is paid back in full, by the corporation that held the rights to borrow on its stock.
Now can I have the answer please ,on where that kinetic energy generated in the suspension cable is being transferred to.
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to. Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
(http://)
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is
The only motion caused by tension in the wire is going to be along the length of the wire. It's not going to produce any lateral motion of the bob.
How many strikes are you going to get before you're finally called out?
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is
The only motion caused by tension in the wire is going to be along the length of the wire. It's not going to produce any lateral motion of the bob.
How many strikes are you going to get before you're finally called out?
Says Who ? You ?. Have you never "heard" a rope or cable creak under tension. If it emits a sound wave, then the kinetic energy is not being isolated with in the cable. its emitting a wave frequency.
to pretend its non existence or trivialise its existence is to distort the truth & LIE.
-
I have just spent a bit over two hours on 28 pages of this snot. Get a plastic bucket, some rope a tree and some water. Go play have a beer and a think. I might get into selling physics books to flat earthers, I can see the smoking ears already. You know how easy it is to sit on your balls if you got no duds on, is that maybe why Scotchmen get so fucking angry?.
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to. Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
(http://)
Oh, nice, a video on gyroscopic precession! Well, that's close enough to being on-topic I suppose...
Ok, some pendulum basics, since it seems the bleedingly obvious needs to be pointed out: at it's starting position, a pendulum has no kinetic energy, but a certain amount of potential energy (depending on how high it is above it's "rest" position, and how much it weighs). As it swings down to the lowest point of it's swing, all this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. As it is swinging up again to the other high point, the kinetic energy it had is converted back into potential energy, with a small amount having been lost along the way as heat and sound.
And a little more in-depth: the tension in the wire at the top of the swing is equal to the weight of the bob multiplied by the cosine of the angle the wire makes with the vertical (mg.cosθ). At the lowest point of the swing, the tension is equal to the weight of the bob, plus the mass of the bob multiplied by it's tangential velocity squared and divided by the length of the wire (mg+mv2/r).
The tension always acts along the wire, as does the centripetal force. There is no torque in the system.
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to. Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
(http://)
Oh, nice, a video on gyroscopic precession! Well, that's close enough to being on-topic I suppose...
Ok, some pendulum basics, since it seems the bleedingly obvious needs to be pointed out: at it's starting position, a pendulum has no kinetic energy, but a certain amount of potential energy (depending on how high it is above it's "rest" position, and how much it weighs). As it swings down to the lowest point of it's swing, all this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. As it is swinging up again to the other high point, the kinetic energy it had is converted back into potential energy, with a small amount having been lost along the way as heat and sound.
And a little more in-depth: the tension in the wire at the top of the swing is equal to the weight of the bob multiplied by the cosine of the angle the wire makes with the vertical (mg.cosθ). At the lowest point of the swing, the tension is equal to the weight of the bob, plus the mass of the bob multiplied by it's tangential velocity squared and divided by the length of the wire (mg+mv2/r).
The tension always acts along the wire, as does the centripetal force. There is no torque in the system.
Fantasy land.
What happen to the force of momentum. go on holidays did it ?
-
I have just spent a bit over two hours on 28 pages of this snot. Get a plastic bucket, some rope a tree and some water. Go play have a beer and a think. I might get into selling physics books to flat earthers, I can see the smoking ears already. You know how easy it is to sit on your balls if you got no duds on, is that maybe why Scotchmen get so fucking angry?.
Well at lest we have balls ya piss ant.
Lets take your bucket of water hang it from a branch that just manages to hold its weight. now swing it. What happens to the branch ? ya dick head.
-
Well if they can underhandedly & deceptively own your ass with out your consent...
??? Whoa there!! Are you saying that a birth certificate is a document of ownership? If this wasn't way off topic, I'd tell you to get a second opinion on your meds.
Are you saying that a birth certificate is a document of ownership?Sure is buddy. They own your incorporated ass & you hold a copy of that legal binding document. Every thing you do regarding commerce is attached to that document. Until the debt is paid back in full, by the corporation that held the rights to borrow on its stock.
Wow. Just... wow.
Now can I have the answer please ,on where that kinetic energy generated in the suspension cable is being transferred to.
The kinetic energy being transferred to potential energy on the up swing and the potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy on the down swing. Thanks to the wonderful principle of conservation of energy, the total energy in the system (give or take friction) stays constant.
-
I like how he conveniently ignores my question. He knows the answer will destroy his ridiculous argument.
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
There is NO torque "developed" due the angular momentum of any body. Tension in the suspension string is zero at the maximum point of the bob's swing—when its velocity is zero. The tension force in the string is at its maximum when the bob is exactly vertical. All applied forces on the bob are coplanar, and therefore are unable to produce ANY torque in the bob.
The force of gravity acting on the bob can be resolved into two components. One component is directed tangentially to the circular arc along which the bob moves. The other component is directed perpendicular to the circular arc—IE along the string. The perpendicular component of gravity is in the opposite direction of the tension force in the string. This tension force is always larger than or equal to the perpendicular component of gravity. The tangential component is known as the restoring force, and is obviously responsible for the bob's displacement.
-
Have a go at this and sit carefully.
http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/surf/pendulum/pendulum.htm)
In 1848 Leon Foucault was setting up a long, skinny metal rod in his lathe. He "twanged" it, and the end of the piece of metal proceeded to go up-and-down. If you treat the chuck of the lathe like a clock, the end vibrated from 12 o'clock down to 6 o'clock, and back to 12 o'clock, and so on. He slowly rotated the chuck by 90 degrees. But the end of the metal rod steadfastly vibrated back-and-forth between 12 and 6 o'clock!
This set Leon Foucault thinking. He set up a small pendulum in his drill press. He set the pendulum oscillating, and then started the drill press. Once again, the pendulum kept swinging in its original plane, and ignored the fact that its mounting point was rotating.
He then constructed a 2 metre-long pendulum with a 5 kilogram ball in his workshop in his cellar. Before the amplitude of the swing died away totally, he saw that the weight on the end of the pendulum appeared to rotate clockwise . Now that he was convinced of the principle, he built a second pendulum with an 11-metre wire in the Paris Observatory, and it too rotated clockwise.(5)
He was asked to construct something "big" for the 1850 Paris Exhibition, and he constructed a 67-metre tall Foucault Pendulum in the PanthŽon - a Parisian church also known as the church of Saint Genevive. He went to a great deal of trouble to make sure that the wire was perfectly symmetrical in its metallurgy. He used a 28 kilogram cannon ball. A stylus was placed under the ball, and sand was scattered under the potential path of the ball, so that the stylus would cut a trace in the sand.
The ball was pulled to one side, and held in place with a string. With much ceremony, the string was set alight, and the ball began to describe a beautiful, straight (non-elliptical) path in the sand. Within a few minutes, the pendulum had begun to swing a little clockwise - and the previous, narrow straight-line in the sand had widened to look like a twin-bladed propeller. The experiment was a success! The Earth rotated "under" his pendulum.
So it was possible, way back in 1850, to set up an experiment inside a room which had no view of the outside world, and prove that the Earth rotated! (6)
And you don't have to look out the window.
-
I'd like to see this pendulum be tested in an evacuated chamber.
-
I'd like to see this pendulum be tested in an evacuated chamber.
Get on it then!
-
Nobody is saying that there's no tension on the wire, nobody is saying the tension doesn't change. Care to tell us all where that kinetic energy generated is being transferred to.
If I thought for a second that you would be capable of following the explanation, I'd give it, but given your apparent inability to comprehend fairly simple physics, I'm not going to bother. Your best bet would probably be some remedial classes of some kind to at least get you up to a high-school level of understanding.
More insults :'( lol .I'm only asking you to show me where the kinetic energy generated is being transferred to. Here's an example so you can get your head around what a torque is & how it has a relationship with pivot point's
(http://)
Oh, nice, a video on gyroscopic precession! Well, that's close enough to being on-topic I suppose...
Ok, some pendulum basics, since it seems the bleedingly obvious needs to be pointed out: at it's starting position, a pendulum has no kinetic energy, but a certain amount of potential energy (depending on how high it is above it's "rest" position, and how much it weighs). As it swings down to the lowest point of it's swing, all this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. As it is swinging up again to the other high point, the kinetic energy it had is converted back into potential energy, with a small amount having been lost along the way as heat and sound.
And a little more in-depth: the tension in the wire at the top of the swing is equal to the weight of the bob multiplied by the cosine of the angle the wire makes with the vertical (mg.cosθ). At the lowest point of the swing, the tension is equal to the weight of the bob, plus the mass of the bob multiplied by it's tangential velocity squared and divided by the length of the wire (mg+mv2/r).
The tension always acts along the wire, as does the centripetal force. There is no torque in the system.
Fantasy land.
What happen to the force of momentum. go on holidays did it ?
Like I said, waste of time. Momentum is not a force.
-
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.
I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque". Could you please explain it? As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .
There is NO torque "developed" due the angular momentum of any body. Tension in the suspension string is zero at the maximum point of the bob's swing—when its velocity is zero. The tension force in the string is at its maximum when the bob is exactly vertical. All applied forces on the bob are coplanar, and therefore are unable to produce ANY torque in the bob.
The force of gravity acting on the bob can be resolved into two components. One component is directed tangentially to the circular arc along which the bob moves. The other component is directed perpendicular to the circular arc—IE along the string. The perpendicular component of gravity is in the opposite direction of the tension force in the string. This tension force is always larger than or equal to the perpendicular component of gravity. The tangential component is known as the restoring force, and is obviously responsible for the bob's displacement.
Total Garbage ,there's torque on the cable & pivot before the bob is even swung. For there not to be the suspending body holding the pivoting joint would have to be in direct line with the pivot joint its self. Unless your hanging it from an imagery stationary sky hook, then non existence of torque in the suspending cable is a nonsense. If we placed the cable in a stretching device & proceeded to stretch the cable it would stretch uniformed to its molecule structured chemical composition & formation of bonds. This known fact, then tells us that any energy change at one end will be transferred in accordance to the other end of the cable & then that will follow on as well to the structural support holding the pivot joint,thats including the support base of the structure support as well. Unless you can guarantee absolutely that no variation is taking place what so ever during swing of bob. Then the prospect of any pendulum in the real world, swinging back & forth maintaining trajectory is Nonsense. Its only a theoretical paper fantasy. Its not what happens in reality.
-
I'd like to see this pendulum be tested in an evacuated chamber.
The pendulum would act exactly as it does in the earth's atmosphere. Even a (theoretical) total vacuum wouldn't affect its mechanics—apart from the lack of air resistance increasing its amplitude and periodicity slightly.
-
Total Garbage, there's torque on the cable & pivot before the bob is even swung.
Nope. An unrestrained stationary body exhibits zero torque. Scientific fact.
For there not to be the suspending body holding the pivoting joint would have to be in direct line with the pivot joint its self. Unless your hanging it from an imagery stationary sky hook, then non existence of torque in the suspending cable is a nonsense. If we placed the cable in a stretching device & proceeded to stretch the cable it would stretch uniformed to its molecule structured chemical composition & formation of bonds. This known fact, then tells us that any energy change at one end will be transferred in accordance to the other end of the cable & then that will follow on as well to the structural support holding the pivot joint, that's including the support base of the structure support as well. Unless you can guarantee absolutely that no variation is taking place what so ever during swing of bob. Then the prospect of any pendulum in the real world, swinging back & forth maintaining trajectory is Nonsense. Its only a theoretical paper fantasy. Its not what happens in reality.
There's so much pseudo-scientific misinformation in this lot Charles I can't even begin to address it. Sorry.
-
He's also completely oblivious to the fact that you can apply a torque to the cable or the suspension point and this does not affect the swinging of the pendulum. I have tried this myself with a plumb bob on a string. The bob will happily spin while continuing to swing straight back and forth. Torque on the cable does not cause precession, charles. So even if your mystery torque caused by tension were real (which it isn't) it would not account for the action of the Foucault pendulum.
-
Looks like the bloke that sat on his balls and rectum has taken FE debating technique to the limit. Just deny anything that proves Fe is bull. Use big words that sound right, in some home brew fairy tale. Get a red herring going any chance. Bring no evidence to the table. Tell the same bullshit story until people think I heard that before so there must be some truth in it. And then forget that more than 3 people debating is a mass debate!!.
Foucault also invented the gyroscope it does not swing back and forth but follows the earths rotation so all this bullshit about torque and kinetic energy is just piss in the wind. A ring laser gyroscope cant be affected by either torque or kinetic energy.
MGH = 1/2 MV*2
-
Maybe he has me on ignore, can someone ask him why the total swing time of an unassisted pendulum changes with latitude?
If his torque theory had any truth to it, this wouldn't be the case. I mean unless there's magic involved, this pretty much renders his arguments completely meaningless.
-
Maybe he has me on ignore, can someone ask him why the total swing time of an unassisted pendulum changes with latitude?
If his torque theory had any truth to it, this wouldn't be the case. I mean unless there's magic involved, this pretty much renders his arguments completely meaningless.
Are you mentally challenged ? a 137km off in that you tube vid is a 137km off. which makes it way off accurate. Your pendulum is reliant on the structure holding the pivot perpendicular the whole time. The earth under it remaining perpendicular the whole time. The smallest of shift in centres during bob motion & you will get rotation occur. Its obvious you have never had to machine anything to extreme tolerances.
-
Total Garbage, there's torque on the cable & pivot before the bob is even swung.
Nope. An unrestrained stationary body exhibits zero torque. Scientific fact.
For there not to be the suspending body holding the pivoting joint would have to be in direct line with the pivot joint its self. Unless your hanging it from an imagery stationary sky hook, then non existence of torque in the suspending cable is a nonsense. If we placed the cable in a stretching device & proceeded to stretch the cable it would stretch uniformed to its molecule structured chemical composition & formation of bonds. This known fact, then tells us that any energy change at one end will be transferred in accordance to the other end of the cable & then that will follow on as well to the structural support holding the pivot joint, that's including the support base of the structure support as well. Unless you can guarantee absolutely that no variation is taking place what so ever during swing of bob. Then the prospect of any pendulum in the real world, swinging back & forth maintaining trajectory is Nonsense. Its only a theoretical paper fantasy. Its not what happens in reality.
There's so much pseudo-scientific misinformation in this lot Charles I can't even begin to address it. Sorry.
Its not unrestrained ya dumb ass its hanging. ::)
-
Maybe he has me on ignore, can someone ask him why the total swing time of an unassisted pendulum changes with latitude?
If his torque theory had any truth to it, this wouldn't be the case. I mean unless there's magic involved, this pretty much renders his arguments completely meaningless.
Are you mentally challenged ? a 137km off in that you tube vid is a 137km off. which makes it way off accurate. Your pendulum is reliant on the structure holding the pivot perpendicular the whole time. The earth under it remaining perpendicular the whole time. The smallest of shift in centres during bob motion & you will get rotation occur. Its obvious you have never had to machine anything to extreme tolerances.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
No wonder you keep dodging the question, you don't even understand your own ideas.
-
I've figured out what Charles is referring to with his assertion of "torque" being induced in the bob and its supporting string. He's claiming that the suspension point, which is (possibly) resistant to free axial motion, applies a negative torquing force to the string (and hence the bob).
I'd like to offer this easy solution to that alleged difficulty; the frictionless magnetic bearing...
(http://www.comsol.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/magnetic-bearings-axial-permanent-magnet-bearing.png)
This allows the suspension point of the string to rotate without any induced negative torque. (Note that this is a very simplified illustration.) The axial and radial direction are represented by z-axis and r-axis respectively. The magnetization direction of the magnets is shown as black arrows.
-
Maybe he has me on ignore, can someone ask him why the total swing time of an unassisted pendulum changes with latitude?
If his torque theory had any truth to it, this wouldn't be the case. I mean unless there's magic involved, this pretty much renders his arguments completely meaningless.
Are you mentally challenged ? a 137km off in that you tube vid is a 137km off. which makes it way off accurate. Your pendulum is reliant on the structure holding the pivot perpendicular the whole time. The earth under it remaining perpendicular the whole time. The smallest of shift in centres during bob motion & you will get rotation occur. Its obvious you have never had to machine anything to extreme tolerances.
Are you 14yr old with mental disabilities???
-
Maybe he has me on ignore, can someone ask him why the total swing time of an unassisted pendulum changes with latitude?
If his torque theory had any truth to it, this wouldn't be the case. I mean unless there's magic involved, this pretty much renders his arguments completely meaningless.
Are you mentally challenged ? a 137km off in that you tube vid is a 137km off. which makes it way off accurate. Your pendulum is reliant on the structure holding the pivot perpendicular the whole time. The earth under it remaining perpendicular the whole time. The smallest of shift in centres during bob motion & you will get rotation occur. Its obvious you have never had to machine anything to extreme tolerances.
Are you 14yr old with mental disabilities???
No just someone who lives in reality & not in fantasy land. You have two problems to over come before making wild assertions. One is torque. extremely difficult if at all to negate . The other is precise perpendicular the whole time the bob is in motion . Which is imposable to achieve in the real world. So suck it up you fraudsters.
-
Charles, do you understand that torque in a pendulum is only relevant when the rod is a rigid body? A Foucault pendulum uses wire or string as a rod, therefore torque is not really relevant.
-
Charles, do you understand that torque in a pendulum is only relevant when the rod is a rigid body? A Foucault pendulum uses wire or string as a rod, therefore torque is not really relevant.
Torque doesn't even matter if it is rigid. Focault first got the idea when he noticed that the oscillation of a metal rod in a lathe didn't change direction even when the lathe was turning. Charles would know this if he read the link I posted about 3 pages ago.
-
You have two problems to over come before making wild assertions. One is torque. extremely difficult if at all to negate. The other is precise perpendicular the whole time the bob is in motion. Which is imposable to achieve in the real world. So suck it up you fraudsters.
I've blown your "torque" theory out of the water Charles—see my simple diagram (above) illustrating the 100% frictionless bearing.
I have no idea—nor I think do you—as to what you mean by "precise perpendicular the whole time". Of course the bob isn't perpendicular to the tangent at the earth's surface. Its angle—obviously—varies constantly except when it's at rest. Also, there are no externally applied forces acting on the bob perpendicular to the arc of its swing.
—And can you please refrain from using repeated crude insults. Consider this a warning.
-
LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics. The swinging bob develops momentum ,which intern produces torque at the pivot point. That's not theory that's a fact.
What the RE brains trust cant seem to grasp ether . Is their very own bullshit of the world rotating makes it even more ludicrous.That the starting point of the pivots perpendicular, to the ground is being exactingly maintained the whole time ,the pendulum is swinging.
Like all great magic tricks, you have to convince the audience to believe something to be true when it isn't.
The key to the Foucault pendulum trick. Is to have the audience believe a pendulum will swings back & forth & not rotate, if it were not for the earth rotating. a pendulum will rotate regardless. It has to do with torque developed & How far off the pivot point,starting point shifts off perpendicular,when the bob is in motion.
-
LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics. The swinging bob develops momentum ,which intern produces torque at the pivot point. That's not theory that's a fact.
What the RE brains trust cant seem to grasp ether . Is their very own bullshit of the world rotating makes it even more ludicrous.That the starting point of the pivots perpendicular, to the ground is being exactingly maintained the whole time ,the pendulum is swinging.
Like all great magic tricks, you have to convince the audience to believe something to be true when it isn't.
The key to the Foucault pendulum trick. Is to have the audience believe a pendulum will swings back & forth & not rotate, if it were not for the earth rotating. a pendulum will rotate regardless. It has to do with torque developed & How far off the pivot point,starting point shifts off perpendicular,when the bob is in motion.
In the ten days you spent away from this thread, could you not have maybe studied or learned even the basics about what you're talking about?
Or did you just forget in that time away that applying a torque does not affect the direction of the pendulum swing? Foucault tested this by setting up a small pendulum in a turning drill press. I tested this myself. You could easily check it yourself. Torque the pivot point however you want charles, you will not cause the pendulum to precess. I dare you to try this yourself and prove me wrong, you buffoon.
-
LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics.
From this comment Charles, it's more than obvious you don't understand why I posted the image of the frictionless magnetic bearing. The support string of the pendulum is fixed within the inner magnet along the "Z" axis.
(http://www.comsol.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/magnetic-bearings-axial-permanent-magnet-bearing.png)
It's to demonstrate to you that there is NO torque induced into the string supporting the bob. (I'll even hazard a guess that you have no idea how torque works; what produces it, or what its effects are.)
You claim that "momentum produces torque". Which is of course absurd. Momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object—which the bob possesses. Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis. The bob does NOT rotate about its axis.
I really can't believe that you have such a poor comprehension of even the basics of high-school physics.
-
LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics.
From this comment Charles, it's more than obvious you don't understand why I posted the image of the frictionless magnetic bearing. The support string of the pendulum is fixed within the inner magnet along the "Z" axis.
(http://www.comsol.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/magnetic-bearings-axial-permanent-magnet-bearing.png)
It's to demonstrate to you that there is NO torque induced into the string supporting the bob. (I'll even hazard a guess that you have no idea how torque works; what produces it, or what its effects are.)
You claim that "momentum produces torque". Which is of course absurd. Momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object—which the bob possesses. Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis. The bob does NOT rotate about its axis.
I really can't believe that you have such a poor comprehension of even the basics of high-school physics.
You create an axis the moment you fix your bob line to the pivot point. pivot point , gravity, stationary bob correspondence to ground. That's a nice picture Geoff, but can you tell me how your managing to keep it exact. when any frame & the footings its fix to can't maintain an exact state.
And now a word from our sponsors. Does your world seem to be in a spin, are you tide of always feeling like your stuck on a merry go round that's going no where . Well try Dr logics all new formula for improved IQ & stop the world of bullshit & spin in its tracts.
-
LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics. The swinging bob develops momentum ,which intern produces torque at the pivot point. That's not theory that's a fact.
What the RE brains trust cant seem to grasp ether . Is their very own bullshit of the world rotating makes it even more ludicrous.That the starting point of the pivots perpendicular, to the ground is being exactingly maintained the whole time ,the pendulum is swinging.
Like all great magic tricks, you have to convince the audience to believe something to be true when it isn't.
The key to the Foucault pendulum trick. Is to have the audience believe a pendulum will swings back & forth & not rotate, if it were not for the earth rotating. a pendulum will rotate regardless. It has to do with torque developed & How far off the pivot point,starting point shifts off perpendicular,when the bob is in motion.
In the ten days you spent away from this thread, could you not have maybe studied or learned even the basics about what you're talking about?
Or did you just forget in that time away that applying a torque does not affect the direction of the pendulum swing? Foucault tested this by setting up a small pendulum in a turning drill press. I tested this myself. You could easily check it yourself. Torque the pivot point however you want charles, you will not cause the pendulum to precess. I dare you to try this yourself and prove me wrong, you buffoon.
buffoon lol Well this buffoon would like you to suspend a plum bob. Note its location ,then move its suspension point by 1,000,000th of a thou., Will the plum bob location remain the same. of course it wont. What will occur to a swinging bob when its suspended pivot point shifts as little as 1,000,000th of a thou.? It will change line of trajectory of course. Some people in this world just dont have any inclination of reality. :-*
-
Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.
Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.
-
Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.
Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.
Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.
-
Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.
Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.
Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.
Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?
-
You create an axis the moment you fix your bob line to the pivot point.
Uh... nope. You don't "create" an axis LOL. It's simply there all the time. Duh.
Pivot point, gravity, stationary bob correspondence [sic] to ground.
What? Please write in technical terms that make some sense Charles.
That's a nice picture Geoff, but can you tell me how your [sic] managing to keep it exact.
I agree. It's just a shame it's wasted on you Charles. Please do some reading about frictionless magnetic bearings and induced torque—or the lack thereof.
And now a word from our sponsors. Does your world seem to be in a spin, are you tide of always feeling like your stuck on a merry go round that's going no where. Well try Dr logics all new formula for improved IQ & stop the world of bullshit & spin in its tracts.
Maybe you should try Geoff's all-new, grade-school certified spell-checker. Get it free with every web browser!
-
Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.
Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.
Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.
Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?
does it ? or is it a matter of a manipulation of the set up of the pendulum. 173 km out on that you tube clip is what you would considered not being any where near accurate. I bet I could of done a much better job at manipulation the set up of that pendulum. ;) Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging , Of course you wouldn't. Oh & I'd be burn the string, All good magic needs a good audience distraction from what's really going on.
-
Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.
Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.
Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.
Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?
does it ? or is it a matter of a manipulation of the set up of the pendulum. 173 km out on that you tube clip is what you would considered being any where near accurate. I bet I could of done a much better job at manipulation the set up of that pendulum. ;) Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging , Of course you wouldn't. Oh & I'd be burn the string, All good magic needs a good audience distraction from what's really going on.
Nice assertion. Please provide evidence for this claim that all of the world's pendulum's are deviously manipulated.
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
-
Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...
Oh dear. Poor old Charles seems to think that scientists only use their eyesight to measure things LOL.
Not so dear chap. Scientists use stuff like lasers and the Doppler effect to measure the relative shift of bodies in space.
-
Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...
And yet you've implied in the past that a few square feet of water in a kitchen pan is enough to detect a rate of curvature on the surface of 8 inches per mile.
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
-
Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...
And yet you've implied in the past that a few square feet of water in a kitchen pan is enough to detect a rate of curvature on the surface of 8 inches per mile.
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.
You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.
You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.
What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table . if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.
You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.
What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table . if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.
So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.
You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.
What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table . if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.
So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?
I have seen plenty of them in operation. That's the point I see the flawed explanation of what is occurring continuously being propagated & all other possibilities of reasoning of what's occurring being shunned. That's not true educated science. That's force feed controlling out come & political dictating .
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.
Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.
You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.
What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table . if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.
So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?
I have seen plenty of them in operation. That's the point I see the flawed explanation of what is occurring continuously being propagated & all other possibilities of reasoning of what's occurring being shunned. That's not true educated science. That's force feed controlling out come & political dictating .
Unless of course they are not being manipulated, which won't be found out until you inspect, which you conveniently refuse to do.
-
If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by [adjusting] the pivot.
If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
...
Yes, the centre of the (now elliptical) path will be under the pivot's new position, obviously. But the bob will still be swinging the same direction...
you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by [adjusting] the pivot.
If you think you can, post a video. Nice straight arcs back and forth, but rotating so first the bob is swinging forward-back then you work you magic on the pivot and it's swinging left-right.
-
The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
Nobody's disagreeing with that assertion Charles. Of course if you displace the pendulum's pivot point you'll displace its swing arc. The point is that during the Foucault pendulum experiment, the pivot point is NOT moved in any way, shape or form.
You seem to be setting up a straw man here?
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
-
You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:
Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?
Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
-
You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:
Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?
Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?
For someone who claims to be a master of the English lingo & me just being a struggling present at it. someone to poke continual fun at. Read carefully what is written & not be mislead by assumption. Newtons first law .Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. A tendency to .Not a definite to.
Stationary? The earth is expanding & contrasting continually. Is the earth rotating ? It has been suggested it is theoretically. Proved beyond doubt No.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
-
You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:
Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?
Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?
For someone who claims to be a master of the English lingo & me just being a struggling present at it. someone to poke continual fun at. Read carefully what is written & not be mislead by assumption. Newtons first law .Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. A tendency to .Not a definite to.
Stationary? The earth is expanding & contrasting continually. Is the earth rotating ? It has been suggested it is theoretically. Proved beyond doubt No.
I'm seeing "I don't know" to the first question and "maybe" to the second. Is that right?
Also, Newton didn't mean that a body maybe sometimes goes in one direction unless acted on by a force.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy. There would never be a boring moment.
-
I think you mean definitely (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitely) rather than defiantly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiantly). You are also incorrect: water forms a concave meniscus.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know? Did you measure it?
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?
Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .
I'm still waiting to hear your method of measuring to determine how flat the water is.
Also, is a rectangular pot of water suitable for these measurements or not? Yes or no.
-
I think you mean definitely (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitely) rather than defiantly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiantly). You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.
-
I think you mean definitely (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitely) rather than defiantly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiantly). You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.
I meant concave and edited my post. You meant definitely, trust me.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know? Did you measure it?
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?
Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .
I'm still waiting to hear your method of measuring to determine how flat the water is.
Also, is a rectangular pot of water suitable for these measurements or not? Yes or no.
Well there are a few methods that tend to form my opinion on the subject. One is mix cement or plaster in water, place it in a levelled rectangular container & left to set. The other would be contemplating the location an air bubble presents in a spirit level at level. non are conclusive. but I find them more of a guide then the theoretical rantings of the hysterical spherical inquisition.
-
I think you mean definitely (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definitely) rather than defiantly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defiantly). You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.
I meant concave and edited my post. You meant definitely, trust me.
OK & I will take your advice on the definitely. ;)
-
Probably best, I'm not sure one can be female defiantly.
Just to be clear, are we measuring a 40,000km curve by eye with a spirit level and/or plaster in our kitchens? When we're finished with that we should get working on cold fusion by waving fridge magnets around a party balloon, and who knows what next!
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy. There would never be a boring moment.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
-
Well there are a few methods that tend to form my opinion on the subject. One is mix cement or plaster in water, place it in a levelled rectangular container & left to set.
And what should one use to detect any curvature or lack thereof?
The other would be contemplating the location an air bubble presents in a spirit level at level. non are conclusive.
The bubble is in the middle if it's level. Let us know if you figure out more after contemplating that.
but I find them more of a guide then the theoretical rantings of the hysterical spherical inquisition.
Speaking of theoretical, do you think the plaster or air bubble method is going to prove anything, or do you know they will?
-
Probably best, I'm not sure one can be female defiantly.
Just to be clear, are we measuring a 40,000km curve by eye with a spirit level and/or plaster in our kitchens? When we're finished with that we should get working on cold fusion by waving fridge magnets around a party balloon, and who knows what next!
I made a prototype repealing engine using ceramic magnets in the 1980's it worked outstandingly. The only problem with it .Corporations control the supply of energy & profit. It cost me my job It could of cost me a lot more. (http://)
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy. There would never be a boring moment.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?
-
I can see now that I've possibly wasted my time trying to explain to Charles that standing water doesn't always have a flat/or horizontal surface.
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container Charles; it can be circular, like my diagrams and photo, or it can be square, rectangular, triangular, or any other shape you fancy. The only other influence can be the density of the liquid within. It also doesn't matter whether or not the container is tilted.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0ba3Shhs1qfqcw0o1_500.jpg)
Water = concave meniscus. Mercury = convex meniscus
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy. There would never be a boring moment.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?
Welp charles just crossed the line from amusing buffoon to possibly sadistic creep in record time.
Anyway... before you even try to measure the flatness of your plaster/water, you should calculate how round the water should be. I'm guessing it's way too little curvature to measure.
-
I can see now that I've possibly wasted my time trying to explain to Charles that standing water doesn't always have a flat/or horizontal surface.
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container Charles; it can be circular, like my diagrams and photo, or it can be square, rectangular, triangular, or any other shape you fancy. The only other influence can be the density of the liquid within. It also doesn't matter whether or not the container is tilted.
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls0ba3Shhs1qfqcw0o1_500.jpg)
Water = concave meniscus. Mercury = convex meniscus
Did you fail chemistry ? Were talking about water. Not liquefied heavy metals & last time I viewed the ocean it wasn't mercury.
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container Well I'm glade you so sure of your self. Kindly provide the two corresponding curvatures in a rectangular container.
-
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.
Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.
In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.
(http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--RfNnJ8Uc--/17gg7o0kcjrvtjpg.jpg)
It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.
And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank. How can you explain that?
Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. ;D
No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth. ::)
The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container. ::)
Shape of the container is irrelevant.
This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy. There would never be a boring moment.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?
Welp charles just crossed the line from amusing buffoon to possibly sadistic creep in record time.
Anyway... before you even try to measure the flatness of your plaster/water, you should calculate how round the water should be. I'm guessing it's way too little curvature to measure.
Possibly sadistic creep. I sincerely apologise if I have offended you & have made you feel uncomfortable , It was not my intention. I was just trying to making light of the constant personal insults directed at me & was foolish enough to attempt friendship . Your right I really must be an amusing buffoon.
I make no apology for preferring the company of animals then the company of humans.
-
Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.
-
Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.
More like you need to stop sampling your own product.
-
Charles, can you provide a liquid that does not result in a meniscus effect around the edge of the container?
If so, can you determine the amount of curvature that would be present over a kitchenpan-sized segment of a 40,000km circumference?
If you answer yes to the first two, can you provide an accurate method of measuring this curvature that will determine if it's flat or not?
-
Possibly sadistic creep. I sincerely apologise if I have offended you & have made you feel uncomfortable , It was not my intention. I was just trying to making light of the constant personal insults directed at me & was foolish enough to attempt friendship . Your right I really must be an amusing buffoon.
I make no apology for preferring the company of animals then the company of humans.
Don't worry about it. I just wish I could figure out what the hell you are talking about most of the time. How are those calculations going?
-
Did you fail chemistry ? Were talking about water.
No Charles; sorry. Chemistry was one of my matriculation qualifications way back when. (Too far back LOL.)
Not liquefied heavy metals & last time I viewed the ocean it wasn't mercury.
Unfortunately Charles, it's obviously you who failed chemistry 101. Mercury is NOT a "liquified" metal. At standard conditions for temperature and pressure it's a liquid, just like the metals gallium, caesium, and rubidium.
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container. Well I'm glade you so sure of your self.
Kindly provide the two corresponding curvatures in a rectangular container.
Sorry Charles. I've already posted enough images to support my claims. I think it's only fair that you start posting a few of your own images in support of your claims. I've noted a distinct lack of any sorts of diagrams or photos to support any of your claims in this, and other forums.
I'm getting bored with flat earthers such as yourself who repeatedly ask round earthers for diagrams and photos, but never provide any of their own. So... can you please post a couple of images that illustrate your point about standing water being dead flat when contained within a tank? Either photos or diagrams will be fine. You've turned this "flat" water thing into such a major issue—apparently in an effort to prove that Rowbotham's experiment was valid—that it's about time you put your money (or your diagrams and photos) where your mouth is Charles.
-
Charles, can you provide a liquid that does not result in a meniscus effect around the edge of the container?
If so, can you determine the amount of curvature that would be present over a kitchenpan-sized segment of a 40,000km circumference?
If you answer yes to the first two, can you provide an accurate method of measuring this curvature that will determine if it's flat or not?
Your missing the point. flat is middle ground. How can you have a concave & a convex result . If a curvature is what is claimed to exist. Its not probable. Probable is middle ground. ( Flat )
-
Charles, two questions:
1. How large would your rectangular pan for measuring curvature be?
and, back on topic,
2. Have you ever succeeded in making a pendulum's plane of swing rotate in a direction and at a rate of your choosing without actually touching the bob?
-
Charles, two questions:
1. How large would your rectangular pan for measuring curvature be?
and, back on topic,
2. Have you ever succeeded in making a pendulum's plane of swing rotate in a direction and at a rate of your choosing without actually touching the bob?
Any size you like, I'm beyond caring any more & yes I have,its dependent on amount of toque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first point of swing . But use win, because I haven't the stamina left in me to battle on. I hoped when I joined this forum I'd make a friend or two along the way. wishful thinking is always guaranteed to fail. You can trust me on that one.
My advice Scintific Method , experiment for your self & draw your own conclusions from them.
Ahi nos vemos, Vaya con Dios
(http://)
-
...its dependent on amount of torque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first point of swing.
You just refuse to acknowledge simple physics don't you Charles? The dynamics of the Foucault pendulum has nothing to do with torque (which is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance vector and the force vector, and which tends to produce rotation). In the case of the swinging bob, there is NO lever arm, therefore no induced torque in the bob.
And there is NO "rotation" at the first point of swing. There is no externally applied perpendicular force to produce any horizontal vector.
I've never come across someone so willfully ignorant of simple mechanics as you Charles. You seem to seriously think you know it all, when in fact your grasp of even the most basic of the principles of mechanics is that of a grade-school kid.
I can only suggest that you read through THIS SITE (http://bit.ly/1sS0lAr) posted by the University of New South Wales. Hopefully it'll explain a lot of the stuff you seem hopelessly confused with—and which no number of explanatory responses from us is going to help you with.
-
...its dependent on amount of torque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first point of swing.
You just refuse to acknowledge simple physics don't you Charles? The dynamics of the Foucault pendulum has nothing to do with torque (which is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance vector and the force vector, and which tends to produce rotation). In the case of the swinging bob, there is NO lever arm, therefore no induced torque in the bob.
And there is NO "rotation" at the first point of swing. There is no externally applied perpendicular force to produce any horizontal vector.
I've never come across someone so willfully ignorant of simple mechanics as you Charles. You seem to seriously think you know it all, when in fact your grasp of even the most basic of the principles of mechanics is that of a grade-school kid.
I can only suggest that you read through THIS SITE (http://bit.ly/1sS0lAr) posted by the University of New South Wales. Hopefully it'll explain a lot of the stuff you seem hopelessly confused with—and which no number of explanatory responses from us is going to help you with.
For there not to be any developed torque.There would have to be no tension or change in tension occurring on the cable or string supporting the bob, during its motion of swing. The fact we know there is tension on the cable & that tension does change during the bobs motion of swing. Then a torque exists. You & your academic grant grabbers can pretend all uses like a torque doesn't exist, to suit your false position. But it does, It's not possible not to exist.
-
You & your academic grant grabbers can pretend all uses like a torque doesn't exist, to suit your false position. But it does, It's not possible not to exist.
I really think you may as well give up posting on these forums Charles. It's more than obvious you have not the faintest knowledge of mechanics or geophysics... or anything much at all it would seem from the sheer inanity of your comments.
I doubt that you even understand what "torque" is—although you repeatedly use it to justify your entire hare-brained ideas about the Foucault pendulum.
Poor old Michel must be rolling in his grave listening to you totally misrepresent his ground-breaking research.
-
Torque in the line will only rotate the bob, not rotate the arc it's swinging in.
I just tried it, if you get some string and a mug you can save yourself a lot of typing.
-
Torque in the line will only rotate the bob, not rotate the arc it's swinging in.
I just tried it, if you get some string and a mug you can save yourself a lot of typing.
It can't, it has no idea what a string and a mug is. So it will continue typing by pressing random keys hoping this will generate something meaningful.
-
Still waiting for charlie brown to produce his video where he causes a pendulum to precess by manipulating it. You know, since it's so easy and obvious how it works.
-
Torque in the line will only rotate the bob, not rotate the arc it's swinging in.
I just tried it, if you get some string and a mug you can save yourself a lot of typing.
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
-
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles. Well, sorry, but you're not.
Totally different set of mechanics involved. Major one? You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force. This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).
-
There is torque on whatever the bob is attached to. Torque is defined as Moment of Inertia multiplied by angular acceleration. The bob has Moment of Inertia of mass times length squared, and the acceleration is to be found. This gives mglsinx=-(ml^2)*(angular acceleration), which using the small angle approximation yields the result for time period being proportional to the square root of length
-
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles. Well, sorry, but you're not.
Totally different set of mechanics involved. Major one? You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force. This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.
-
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles. Well, sorry, but you're not.
Totally different set of mechanics involved. Major one? You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force. This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.
Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.
-
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles. Well, sorry, but you're not.
Totally different set of mechanics involved. Major one? You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force. This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.
Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.
If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant.Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual constant & that answer is NO it isn't .
-
Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.
It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles. Well, sorry, but you're not.
Totally different set of mechanics involved. Major one? You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force. This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.
Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.
If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant.Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual constant & that answer is NO it isn't .
Nothing you've said about pendulums, the Earth, torque, or much anything else has made any sense at all. Maybe if you can show what you are talking about in an experiment it will become clear.
-
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.
Nope. Totally erroneous.
The foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting.
And nope again LOL. The pivot point and its supporting structure are affixed rigidly to the surface of the earth. There is NO differential movement between them.
-
Then there's not much point in continuing discussions...
Totally agree Charles. Your near-total lack of any comprehension of the most basic of the principles of mechanics, geophysics and astrophysics means that the majority of us—including flat earthers—are wasting our time responding to you. It's very difficult repeatedly posting cohesive responses to illogical proposals—such as you consistently make on these forums.
Sometimes, I'm tempted to dismiss your comments as those of a troll, but I generally give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're sincere in your scientific beliefs—bizarre as they are.
-
What is a fixed constant?
-
What is a fixed constant?
That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments? LOL.
If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant. Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual constant & that answer is NO it isn't
The ONLY part I could figure out, and respond to, was the stuff I've bolded. ;D
-
What is a fixed constant?
That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments? LOL.
If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant. Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual constant & that answer is NO it isn't
The ONLY part I could figure out, and respond to, was the stuff I've bolded. ;D
Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it. Agenda Geoff
-
Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it. Agenda Geoff
I'm seriously thinking of downgrading my guess of Charles being a pimply-faced, 16-year-old high school student to a little 8-year-old grade school kid.
It's been some time since I've seen so many puerile insults directed at opponents in what's supposed to be a mature debate amongst educated adults. Although, I do understand that the ad hominem attack is the last resort of the person who's been repeatedly backed into a corner with their fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning abilities.
Our poor young Charles seems to truly believe that any localised expansion or contraction of the earth causes some magical change in the laws of Newtonian physics LOL. He also confuses linear expansion (EG rail tracks) with volume expansion (EG the earth) but this is often a trap for young players.
So Charles... can you please explain what you think the coefficient of thermal expansion of the earth mass is? And as you claim all sorts of academic qualifications, I expect a technically feasible answer using precise units; [10-6 m/(m K)]
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
-
Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it. Agenda Geoff
I'm seriously thinking of downgrading my guess of Charles being a pimply-faced, 16-year-old high school student to a little 8-year-old grade school kid.
It's been some time since I've seen so many puerile insults directed at opponents in what's supposed to be a mature debate amongst educated adults. Although, I do understand that the ad hominem attack is the last resort of the person who's been repeatedly backed into a corner with their fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning abilities.
Our poor young Charles seems to truly believe that any localised expansion or contraction of the earth causes some magical change in the laws of Newtonian physics LOL. He also confuses linear expansion (EG rail tracks) with volume expansion (EG the earth) but this is often a trap for young players.
So Charles... can you please explain what you think the coefficient of thermal expansion of the earth mass is? And as you claim all sorts of academic qualifications, I expect a technically feasible answer using precise units; [10-6 m/(m K)]
Well which part of the earth, what soil type & composition ,what moisture content. level of water table. what atmospheric temperature & humidity that particular time of the day or night. What was that stupid question you asked Geoff. I tend to have short term memory with dumb ass questions asked.
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.
Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.
Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE
All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.
-
a pivot point that stays at a continual constant.
Could you define "continual constant"? I assume it's some made-up variant of an inertial reference frame?
-
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
Oh dear... another totally incoherent comment from poor old Charles. I can't believe that somebody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of even the most basic principles of Newtonian physics.
Maybe Charles thinks that if he buries us under a tsunami of meaningless bullshit, he'll "win" the argument and we'll just go away.
No such luck Charles. Sorry.
-
Please, let's try to reduce the ad hominum attacks. Keep these debates civil. Thanks.
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.
Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE
All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.
Sounds like a bad batch of wine. Sour grapes :-*. fancy being done like a dinner by someone with poor English & grammar skills. Oh the indignity of it all (smile*)
-
A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.
If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.
you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.
Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE
All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.
Sounds like a bad batch of wine. Sour grapes :-*. fancy being done like a dinner by someone with poor English & grammar skills. Oh the indignity of it all (smile*)
Note how the pigeon debater struts across the board with confidence, as though claiming victory amidst the pieces he has soiled.
-
a pivot point that stays at a continual constant.
Could you define "continual constant"? I assume it's some made-up variant of an inertial reference frame?
entirely no movement what so ever. I will alphabet it so you get the grasp. pivot point & attainment of string (A) stationary Bob & location to floor (B) supporting structure holding up pivot (C) foundation supporting structure rests on (D)earth surface foundation rests on (E) If earth surface is never in a fit state, no movement what so ever. Which that state is imposable to achieve. Pivot point is subjected to the same, never in a fit position. (A) & (B) there for dont maintain their initial line while pendulum is swinging. & if you wish to argue there is no toque being developed in the string I suggest you mount a bearing horizontally,then attach the line to its outer diameter. Swing the pendulum & then watch the bearing rotate back & forth. ;)
-
Charles, are you saying that slight, random movements of the pendulum's anchor point and supporting structure are what cause the plane of the pendulum's swing to precess at a steady rate which varies depending on latitude?
-
Right, so to sum up: things wobble.
Did I "Get the grasp" ?
So. This random, noisy wobbling that we aren't accounting for - why does it always produce a nice smooth effect that only varies by our latitude on a sphere?
-
Charles obviously doesn't understand that whatever "movement" in the theoretically rigid mounting point of the pendulum's supporting string there could be—and which would be measured by a micron or two—there'd be absolutely no observable and/or measurable effect on the pendulum's arc of swing relative to the earth.
He seems to think that the pendulum's point of suspension is gyrating wildly all over the place relative to the earth—which of course it isn't. One of the major constraints of any Foucault pendulum experiment is that its point of suspension is fixed rigidly to the supporting structure, which in turn is affixed rigidly to the surface of the earth.
He's unaware that he's attempting to mount an argument that denies the veracity of an experiment that was first demonstrated more than 150 years ago, and has not once been shown to be flawed since that time.
I challenge Charles to cite one single accredited scientific paper that proposes that the Foucault pendulum mechanism is faulty in any way. I need the name of the researcher, the date of his/her experiment, and the name of the paper publishing his/her results.
Further, if Charles is unable to provide this simple piece of evidence supporting his own claims, then I can only suggest that he's woefully and/or willfully ignorant of the actual mechanism and means of action of the pendulum—in which case he should probably cease and desist from commenting further about it.
-
Right, so to sum up: things wobble.
Did I "Get the grasp" ?
So. This random, noisy wobbling that we aren't accounting for - why does it always produce a nice smooth effect that only varies by our latitude on a sphere?
Latitude is an agreed upon made up equator coordinate set at 0 degrees. What coordinates are you claiming here? Are you working to USGS or UTM ?.
-
You pick. At the same latitude, no matter the system used, the Foucault pendulum precesses at the same rate.
-
Charles obviously doesn't understand that whatever "movement" in the theoretically rigid mounting point of the pendulum's supporting string there could be—and which would be measured by a micron or two—there'd be absolutely no observable and/or measurable effect on the pendulum's arc of swing relative to the earth.
He seems to think that the pendulum's point of suspension is gyrating wildly all over the place relative to the earth—which of course it isn't. One of the major constraints of any Foucault pendulum experiment is that its point of suspension is fixed rigidly to the supporting structure, which in turn is affixed rigidly to the surface of the earth.
He's unaware that he's attempting to mount an argument that denies the veracity of an experiment that was first demonstrated more than 150 years ago, and has not once been shown to be flawed since that time.
I challenge Charles to cite one single accredited scientific paper that proposes that the Foucault pendulum mechanism is faulty in any way. I need the name of the researcher, the date of his/her experiment, and the name of the paper publishing his/her results.
Further, if Charles is unable to provide this simple piece of evidence supporting his own claims, then I can only suggest that he's woefully and/or willfully ignorant of the actual mechanism and means of action of the pendulum—in which case he should probably cease and desist from commenting further about it.
Spoken like a true elitist Agenda bit of dog shit. So I have to find anther elitist bit of dog shit with a favourable opinion ? Because my factual common bloke conclude results are not worthy & should be discarded.
he should probably cease and desist from commenting further about it. Why? because what I have stated of the earth continuously expanding & contracting is correct.
-
You pick. At the same latitude, no matter the system used, the Foucault pendulum precesses at the same rate.
Actually it doesn't. It requires assistance to maintain momentum. I call that tampering with the result. Secondly the result is measured in shifts in degrees applied to circumference . Not length of distance travelled on the circumference.
-
You can measure several hours of precession without anyone giving the bob a new push to keep it going and the results come out fine and of course it's degrees of rotation being measured, that's we'd expect to remain constant, the distance would only change because of the size of our pendulum.
But, let's try to keep this simple: can you say, plainly, why a pendulum I set swinging in the UK will always precess clockwise by about 12° each hour? And why one you set swinging in Australia will always precess anticlockwise by only 6 or 7° each hour?
-
You can measure several hours of precession without anyone giving the bob a new push to keep it going and the results come out fine and of course it's degrees of rotation being measured, that's we'd expect to remain constant, the distance would only change because of the size of our pendulum.
But, let's try to keep this simple: can you say, plainly, why a pendulum I set swinging in the UK will always precess clockwise by about 12° each hour? And why one you set swinging in Australia will always precess anticlockwise by only 6 or 7° each hour?
It can progress ether way, That is dependent on the parallel, the line & bob is to gravity & the perpendicular of the pivot the frame holding the pivot earth & gravity. If I start a pendulum to progress in a clockwise direction, then if you were correct it would cancel out its clockwise progression & proceed to progress anti clockwise. But It doesn't do that. So logic tells you its progressing direction is one of angular starting point of momentum.
-
What to you mean "start a pendulum to progress in the clockwise direction"? Do you mean precess? If so, how do you do that? If not, what do you mean by progress?
Is it really possible that after 34 excruciating pages, you still have no idea about how a Foucault pendulum is supposed to operate? Charles, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not this dense. I don't see how anyone could be. However the only other option I see is that you are taking the piss and wasting everyone's time. Do you even have the bollocks to admit to either one?
-
Spoken like a true elitist Agenda bit of dog shit. So I have to find anther [sic] elitist bit of dog shit with a favourable opinion? Because my factual common bloke conclude [sic] results are not worthy & should be discarded.
I must say you display a certain eloquence with the way you express your opinions Charles. You may well find your somewhat bizarre ramblings considered more meaningfully if you cease using offensive language in every second comment you post here. The use of gutter language may lead some to believe that's where your education took place.
And yes; most of your common-bloke conclusions do deserve to be ignored. They're invariably incorrect, and do nothing more than further defocus the debate from its intended purpose.
I do have to admire your skill at crafting a truly good insult though Charles: "a true elitist agenda bit of dog shit". I don't have the faintest idea as to what it means exactly, but gee, it sure sounds nasty LOL.
-
What to you mean "start a pendulum to progress in the clockwise direction"? Do you mean precess? If so, how do you do that? If not, what do you mean by progress?
Is it really possible that after 34 excruciating pages, you still have no idea about how a Foucault pendulum is supposed to operate? Charles, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not this dense. I don't see how anyone could be. However the only other option I see is that you are taking the piss and wasting everyone's time. Do you even have the bollocks to admit to either one?
You still have no idea about how a Foucault pendulum is supposed to operate. You mean supposed to be configured to give the resulted manipulated out come desired. How does one guarantee the pendulum maintains an exact parallel to perpendicular & tension on its supporting line, at start of being set in motion.? seriously your claim a Foucault pendulum proves the world is rotating in the manner you describe to. Is just plain & simple total witch craft rubbish
-
Spoken like a true elitist Agenda bit of dog shit. So I have to find anther [sic] elitist bit of dog shit with a favourable opinion? Because my factual common bloke conclude [sic] results are not worthy & should be discarded.
I must say you display a certain eloquence with the way you express your opinions Charles. You may well find your somewhat bizarre ramblings considered more meaningfully if you cease using offensive language in every second comment you post here. The use of gutter language may lead some to believe that's where your education took place.
And yes; most of your common-bloke conclusions do deserve to be ignored. They're invariably incorrect, and do nothing more than further defocus the debate from its intended purpose.
I do have to admire your skill at crafting a truly good insult though Charles: "a true elitist agenda bit of dog shit". I don't have the faintest idea as to what it means exactly, but gee, it sure sounds nasty LOL.
Well I'm sorry my lingo disappoints you Geoff & tends to have a straya Bogan ruff around the edges tone about it. Maybe I should be using a more Agenda elitist treacherous nicety vocabulary. Using words such as awesome, absolutely, community minded ,fabulous, stupendous, sensational, flexibility, strategic, sustainable, environmentally friendly.
Unfortunately I'm not Anal retentive & elite enough to have the sun shine out my butt hole. So ya just going to have to put up with me bogan lingo mate!!!!
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess?
witch craft
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
-
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
Charles, what you are doing here is being incredibly stubborn and aggressive. We have provided a lengthy list of pendulums that behave exactly as expected, with the plane of oscillation rotating according to the latitude. If you could point us to any which does NOT follow this rule, without strong interference from things like air movement, that would be something important and, to be honest, very surprising.
By the way, what do you mean by Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum. ? You surely do realize that there are only three general ways of starting the pendulum after pulling it to the side:
1. letting it go, without applying any additional force to it
2. giving it a slight push in the exact direction towards the point below the pivot/anchor/whatever it should be called point - meaning no initial velocity in any plane other than the one described by the starting point, the pivot point and the directly-below-pivot point
3. pushing it in any other direction, giving it an initial velocity component not in the previously mentioned plane
The first two will give a similar-looking arc trajectory in the starting plane. The only difference would be that the second one would swing in a wider arc. When viewed from top, it would be a straight line. It would be very slightly curved on each cycle if the Earth rotated, it would remain straight if the Earth was stationary, regardless whether it was flat or round.
The last one would immediately give you an elliptic trajectory when seen from the top.
There is no way of launching the pendulum so that it would follow an asteroid-like curve(viewed from top) without rotating the observer's position relative to the starting plane(which would happen with rotating Earth - again, regardless of its shape). It will either follow a straight line, or an ellipse. And as you can surely understand, an ellipse is almost the opposite of an asteroid. While moving along an ellipse, you are constantly curving "towards" the center point. While moving along an asteroid, each single curve is bending "away" from the middle.
-
You haven't provided anything but a display of brow beating. Your not interested in fact, Because it doesn't fit with your dogma rotating spherical earth bullshit. It seems I will just have to film a series of demonstrations & post them on you tube. What do they say . You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.In this case it should read. You can lead a herd of dumb ass to water, but you cant make them drink . Have a nice day.
-
That is exactly what we are all trying to get you to do. Cut the bullsh*t about "it is easily possible" and simply do this. And show us. You claim it can all be done in many ways. Like, recently, by some specific way of launching the pendulum swinging. I would absolutely love to see a video by you which would show an untouched(after launching) pendulum going two different ways in two different launches of the same set. A video either from the top or from the bottom would be perfect.
And by two different ways, I mean a slightly clockwise asteroid, and then a slightly counter-clockwise one. Not an ellipse, which can perfectly be done by launching the pendulum to the side, but which is not the matter in question.
By the way, yes, there is a way to fake this video pretty easily. Build the whole set on a motorised bearing which will slowly rotate it around the pendulum while filming.
Which, after some thinking, the round, spinning Earth exactly is...
-
That is exactly what we are all trying to get you to do. Cut the bullsh*t about "it is easily possible" and simply do this. And show us. You claim it can all be done in many ways. Like, recently, by some specific way of launching the pendulum swinging. I would absolutely love to see a video by you which would show an untouched(after launching) pendulum going two different ways in two different launches of the same set. A video either from the top or from the bottom would be perfect.
And by two different ways, I mean a slightly clockwise asteroid, and then a slightly counter-clockwise one. Not an ellipse, which can perfectly be done by launching the pendulum to the side, but which is not the matter in question.
By the way, yes, there is a way to fake this video pretty easily. Build the whole set on a motorised bearing which will slowly rotate it around the pendulum while filming.
Which, after some thinking, the round, spinning Earth exactly is...
Not an ellipse, which can perfectly be done by launching the pendulum to the side, but which is not the matter in questionThat is the matter in question because that's what is occurring. because when the bob is realest the torque generated before it reaches vertical, creates an ellipse. Secondly all theses so called accurate Foucault pendulums, that I have viewed. When you study the method of setting it in motion. Its not accurate at all & you find what they are lining it up with, is not in true line with the vertical line of the still bob. When confronted you get the bullshit dogma response its of no significance. WELL HELLO it is as it will determine its direction of rotation.
-
What is incorrect in the historically traditional way of launching the ball by tying it to another, thin line, which is pulled to the side, tied to something else, and, after the set comes down to rest, burned through with a candle? The ball is released and free to swing on the main line. In this case you can not say that there was some initial "push" to the side. Such a set will always be exactly vertical, no matter how you want to make it.
-
Do the bearing test for your self. Mount a bearing on a shaft & place it in the chuck of a drill press so the bearing rotates horizontally, then attach your bob line to the outer circumference of the bearing. set the bob in motion & watch the bearing rotate back & forth. According to you lot there's no torque being developed at the pivot point. Please explain ?
-
What is incorrect in the historically traditional way of launching the ball by tying it to another, thin line, which is pulled to the side, tied to something else, and, after the set comes down to rest, burned through with a candle? The ball is released and free to swing on the main line. In this case you can not say that there was some initial "push" to the side. Such a set will always be exactly vertical, no matter how you want to make it.
No way of cheeking calibration that centres of pivot to stationery bob location is being maintained during duration of bob motion.
-
What force do you propose that may account for such an acceleration Charles?
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
When you deny the facts presented by hundreds of experiments that are all in agreement, you actually do need a reason, unless you're fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot.
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
When you deny the facts presented by hundreds of experiments that are all in agreement, you actually do need a reason, unless you're fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot.
The facts presented by a hundreds of experiments. Then you should have no problem in explaining your claim there's no torque being developed at the pivot point.
I will ask you to do the bearing test your self. Mount a bearing on a shaft & place it in the chuck of a drill press so the bearing rotates horizontally, then attach your bob line to the outer circumference of the bearing. set the bob in motion & watch the bearing rotate back & forth. I'm fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot. Again please explain.
-
Care to post a video of that experiment? I happen not to own a drill press and I'm dubious of our ability to communicate these ideas clearly with just the written word.
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
When you deny the facts presented by hundreds of experiments that are all in agreement, you actually do need a reason, unless you're fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot.
The facts presented by a hundreds of experiments. Then you should have no problem in explaining your claim there's no torque being developed at the pivot point.
pretty simple. A cable isn't a rigid member fixed to the pivot. It's free swinging. Hence, no torque.
I will ask you to do the bearing test your self. Mount a bearing on a shaft & place it in the chuck of a drill press so the bearing rotates horizontally, then attach your bob line to the outer circumference of the bearing. set the bob in motion & watch the bearing rotate back & forth.
Do it yourself, lazy. Besides, this has nothing to do with how a foucault pendulum works. What will happen is the bob will just swing in a wider ellipse until it follows a circular path, if I understand your setup correctly. If you think I'm wrong go ahead and show your work.I'm fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot. Again please explain.
Well you've certainly made that abundantly clear. You're the one who needs to explain both how the Foucault pendulum can be faked, and how it is in fact faked. You've done neither nor even come close in the last 35 pages.
-
35 pages of debate how mass ive.
-
No word on why these random irregularities with the pendulum would always cause it to precess the same way every time?
It doesn't precess the same way every time. Direction is dependent on lean of vertical. Momentum & torque developed which is instigated by the first swing of the pendulum.
Well yes. Yes it does. The conversation really stops here because apparently we disagree. So until you can provide some evidence to prove otherwise, you aren't convincing anybody by simply denying it.
Well no.No it doesn't & saying yes it does is nothing but shit talk by shit talkers.
When you deny the facts presented by hundreds of experiments that are all in agreement, you actually do need a reason, unless you're fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot.
The facts presented by a hundreds of experiments. Then you should have no problem in explaining your claim there's no torque being developed at the pivot point.
pretty simple. A cable isn't a rigid member fixed to the pivot. It's free swinging. Hence, no torque.
I will ask you to do the bearing test your self. Mount a bearing on a shaft & place it in the chuck of a drill press so the bearing rotates horizontally, then attach your bob line to the outer circumference of the bearing. set the bob in motion & watch the bearing rotate back & forth.
Do it yourself, lazy. Besides, this has nothing to do with how a foucault pendulum works. What will happen is the bob will just swing in a wider ellipse until it follows a circular path, if I understand your setup correctly. If you think I'm wrong go ahead and show your work.I'm fine with being perceived as nothing but a crank and/or an idiot. Again please explain.
Well you've certainly made that abundantly clear. You're the one who needs to explain both how the Foucault pendulum can be faked, and how it is in fact faked. You've done neither nor even come close in the last 35 pages.
pretty simple. A cable isn't a rigid member fixed to the pivot. It's free swinging. Hence, no torque.
Then the bearing wouldn't be rotating back & forth .Dumb ass ::)
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
-
Do the bearing test for your self. Mount a bearing on a shaft & place it in the chuck of a drill press so the bearing rotates horizontally, then attach your bob line to the outer circumference of the bearing. set the bob in motion & watch the bearing rotate back & forth. According to you lot there's no torque being developed at the pivot point. Please explain ?
Charles, once again just so we're clear; if the apparatus is set up as you describe it, is this your expected result?
(http://i.imgur.com/sUMJu.gif)
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
I'm not going to answer that question, as it would be cruel of me to do so & I've become quite fond of your intoxicating venom. Wink Smile*
-
Bloomin hell Charley Boy you are so good at alternative physics you should be able to make the first perpetual motion machine.
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
I'm not going to answer that question, as it would be cruel of me to do so & I've become quite fond of your intoxicating venom. Wink Smile*
Hm, no problem being aggressive earlier, but now when backed into a corner he plays dead. Where did all your bluster and outrage go, Charlie B? Surely you've got me where you want me? All you need to do is grab a piece of string, or rope, wire, anything like that, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a lever, thus saving your argument!
-
After responding with repeated foul-mouthed comments and personal insults (which I've reported) I think we can conclude that Charles is not really interested in taking part in any sort of meaningful debate.
The best thing for all concerned would be to put this now-pointless thread out of its misery and lock it. ::)
Moderators?
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
I'm not going to answer that question, as it would be cruel of me to do so & I've become quite fond of your intoxicating venom. Wink Smile*
Hm, no problem being aggressive earlier, but now when backed into a corner he plays dead. Where did all your bluster and outrage go, Charlie B? Surely you've got me where you want me? All you need to do is grab a piece of string, or rope, wire, anything like that, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a lever, thus saving your argument!
Aggressive ? Grrrrrr I thought that was just foreplay baby. Please spank me more for being naughty. lol
Ok lets see some examples of a piece of string , thread ,rope or cable as a leaver And obtain some leverage over miss Prissy Shmeggley. Ummmmm Tying a hitch knot. Tying shoelaces. Over a pulley or series of pulleys. All of course utilizing a fulcrum & applied leverage via manipulation of tension. A fulcrum being the supporting base one leavers off. Now that would be the pivoting point of your pendulum.
-
After responding with repeated foul-mouthed comments and personal insults (which I've reported) I think we can conclude that Charles is not really interested in taking part in any sort of meaningful debate.
The best thing for all concerned would be to put this now-pointless thread out of its misery and lock it. ::)
Moderators?
LOL find a tissue ya shook.
-
So Charles, with all these miniscule random factors you claim as affecting the swing of the pendulum, how is it that the pendulum always acts in a predictable manner according to which latitude it's at?
-
So Charles, with all these miniscule random factors you claim as affecting the swing of the pendulum, how is it that the pendulum always acts in a predictable manner according to which latitude it's at?
That's because Gravity has a predictability.
-
So Charles, with all these miniscule random factors you claim as affecting the swing of the pendulum, how is it that the pendulum always acts in a predictable manner according to which latitude it's at?
That's because Gravity has a predictability.
Please explain in detail.
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
I'm not going to answer that question, as it would be cruel of me to do so & I've become quite fond of your intoxicating venom. Wink Smile*
Hm, no problem being aggressive earlier, but now when backed into a corner he plays dead. Where did all your bluster and outrage go, Charlie B? Surely you've got me where you want me? All you need to do is grab a piece of string, or rope, wire, anything like that, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a lever, thus saving your argument!
Aggressive ? Grrrrrr I thought that was just foreplay baby. Please spank me more for being naughty. lol
Ok lets see some examples of a piece of string , thread ,rope or cable as a leaver And obtain some leverage over miss Prissy Shmeggley.
(http://themidnightalliance.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/i-just-threw-up-in-my-mouth-a-little-bit.gif?w=720)
Ummmmm Tying a hitch knot. Tying shoelaces. Over a pulley or series of pulleys. All of course utilizing a fulcrum & applied leverage via manipulation of tension. A fulcrum being the supporting base one leavers off. Now that would be the pivoting point of your pendulum.
What is this gibberish? Are you ever going to post a demonstration or what?
-
What bearing? ???
Listen, if you really think there can be a torque on the anchor point from the wire, try this. Take a piece of rope and try using it as a lever.
I'm not going to answer that question, as it would be cruel of me to do so & I've become quite fond of your intoxicating venom. Wink Smile*
Hm, no problem being aggressive earlier, but now when backed into a corner he plays dead. Where did all your bluster and outrage go, Charlie B? Surely you've got me where you want me? All you need to do is grab a piece of string, or rope, wire, anything like that, and demonstrate its effectiveness as a lever, thus saving your argument!
Aggressive ? Grrrrrr I thought that was just foreplay baby. Please spank me more for being naughty. lol
Ok lets see some examples of a piece of string , thread ,rope or cable as a leaver And obtain some leverage over miss Prissy Shmeggley.
(http://themidnightalliance.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/i-just-threw-up-in-my-mouth-a-little-bit.gif?w=720)
Ummmmm Tying a hitch knot. Tying shoelaces. Over a pulley or series of pulleys. All of course utilizing a fulcrum & applied leverage via manipulation of tension. A fulcrum being the supporting base one leavers off. Now that would be the pivoting point of your pendulum.
What is this gibberish? Are you ever going to post a demonstration or what?
Apparently not. I'm just not Shmeggley enough for the shmeggley. :'( I'm off to lick my wounds ;D
-
Charlie boy, go get a bit of rope and a bucket of water, play to your hearts content, and when your own pendulum always turns the same way make a noose and use it. 35 pages of your crap is a bit much.
-
Charlie boy, go get a bit of rope and a bucket of water, play to your hearts content, and when your own pendulum always turns the same way make a noose and use it. 35 pages of your crap is a bit much.
Which is why I suggested earlier on that it should be locked. It's turned into nothing more than a personal soap-box for poor old Charles to spew forth his hilariously humourous, pseudo-scientific drivel. He'd do well at Hyde Park corner with the end-of-the-world loonies. Although at least they can speak intelligibly LOL.
-
Charlie boy, go get a bit of rope and a bucket of water, play to your hearts content, and when your own pendulum always turns the same way make a noose and use it. 35 pages of your crap is a bit much.
Which is why I suggested earlier on that it should be locked. It's turned into nothing more than a personal soap-box for poor old Charles to spew forth his hilariously humourous, pseudo-scientific drivel. He'd do well at Hyde Park corner with the end-of-the-world loonies. Although at least they can speak intelligibly LOL.
Well you keep piss in ya bucket guv & playing with ya self . I will just keep not Having to rebalance any fly wheels from the northern hemisphere or the equator.
-
Charlie boy, go get a bit of rope and a bucket of water, play to your hearts content, and when your own pendulum always turns the same way make a noose and use it. 35 pages of your crap is a bit much.
Which is why I suggested earlier on that it should be locked. It's turned into nothing more than a personal soap-box for poor old Charles to spew forth his hilariously humourous, pseudo-scientific drivel. He'd do well at Hyde Park corner with the end-of-the-world loonies. Although at least they can speak intelligibly LOL.
Your suggesting it be locked. Because the penny dropped,that I'm correct about there being torque at the pivot point. Making you look like a horses ass. Hilariously humorous, pseudo-scientific drivel ? only in you pathetic little mind . Know lets talk about the bob its self. Being someone who as actually made & used one,on numerous structural building aliment applications. I can tell you first hand, no bob will be 100% dead true. This means that the bob will always have a lean. Parallel only exists in the line if tension is equalled along the whole line. Never attached line to end point of bob. Best that will ever be is +- a thou. There for torque will exist at the bob line attachment. It will be minuscule,But never the less exist.
-
Being someone who as actually made & used one,on numerous structural building aliment applications. I can tell you first hand, no bob will be 100% dead true. This means that the bob will always have a lean. Parallel only exists in the line if tension is equalled along the whole line. Never attached line to end point of bob. Best that will ever be is +- a thou. There for torque will exist at the bob line attachment. It will be minuscule,But never the less exist.
Does this minuscule amount of torque affect the motion of the bob to any significant degree, or is it just something that you feel the need to be pedantic about? Also, won't this torque be in line with the swing of the bob? How would that affect the precession of the bob's motion?
-
Does this minuscule amount of torque affect the motion of the bob to any significant degree, or is it just something that you feel the need to be pedantic about? Also, won't this torque be in line with the swing of the bob? How would that affect the precession of the bob's motion?
Having worked in the civil and structural engineering profession for forty years, I can reassure everyone here (flat earthers included) that Charles has—literally—not the faintest idea of what he's talking about. Tell any building surveyor that their plumb bob is "leaning" and they'll laugh you out of town.
And what's just as funny, poor old Charles seems to think that we still rely on lumps of brass at the end of a piece of string to construct multi-storey buildings or bridges.
My suggestion markjo? Don't bother wasting any more of your time replying to Charles. As they say.....
(http://suicideproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/aaa.jpg)
-
Does this minuscule amount of torque affect the motion of the bob to any significant degree, or is it just something that you feel the need to be pedantic about? Also, won't this torque be in line with the swing of the bob? How would that affect the precession of the bob's motion?
Having worked in the civil and structural engineering profession for forty years, I can reassure everyone here (flat earthers included) that Charles has—literally—not the faintest idea of what he's talking about. Tell any building surveyor that their plumb bob is "leaning" and they'll laugh you out of town.
And what's just as funny, poor old Charles seems to think that we still rely on lumps of brass at the end of a piece of string to construct multi-storey buildings or bridges.
My suggestion markjo? Don't bother wasting any more of your time replying to Charles. As they say.....
(http://suicideproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/aaa.jpg)
Care to state what tolerances you were working to clown. Fact You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet. That being the case. means your talking though your bung hole Geoff when it comes to you claiming you can achieve exact. So its a tolerance.
-
If you had a valid case to discuss you would have no need to resort to personal abuse, however...
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
Almost!!!. Well that's no cigar. ::) GRAVITY O' GRAVITY Why does that perfect sphere allude me.
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
Almost!!!. Well that's no cigar. ::) GRAVITY O' GRAVITY Why does that perfect sphere allude me.
Yes, almost. Do you know what atoms are? How would you try to make a perfect sphere, if matter itself is not perfect? And what do you actually need a "perfect sphere" for anyway?
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
Almost!!!. Well that's no cigar. ::) GRAVITY O' GRAVITY Why does that perfect sphere allude me.
Yes, almost. Do you know what atoms are? How would you try to make a perfect sphere, if matter itself is not perfect? And what do you actually need a "perfect sphere" for anyway?
How do you make a perfect balanced bob for your pendulum , if your not able to make a perfect sphere. You can't. That means there will be a measurable torque at both ends of the line.
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
Almost!!!. Well that's no cigar. ::) GRAVITY O' GRAVITY Why does that perfect sphere allude me.
Yes, almost. Do you know what atoms are? How would you try to make a perfect sphere, if matter itself is not perfect? And what do you actually need a "perfect sphere" for anyway?
How do you make a perfect balanced bob for your pendulum , if your not able to make a perfect sphere. You can't. That means there will be a measurable torque at both ends of the line.
WHAT part of the system has to be a perfect sphere for your ideas to work?... The pivot point, the weight? The Earth, perhaps? This is what I asked, which part do you want to be this sphere. It is never clearly stated and might confuse some people.
-
If you had a valid case to discuss you would have no need to resort to personal abuse, however...
And this is exactly the point that Charles seems unable to comprehend. Which is why I posted the image above. Is poor old Charles suffering from some sort of intellectual aberration, or is he nothing more than a particularly irritating troll?
His repetitive use of personal insults as a means of debate makes me think the latter. No rational thinker could come up with the bizarre notions he has. The best so far being the "leaning" plumb bob! Maybe we could start a list?
"Charles Bloomington's Theories: The 21st Century Answers to Samuel Rowbotham"
;D
-
You cant produce a perfect sphere on this planet.
Why the hell not? Have you ever heard of the recently created 1kg standard silicone orb? It is actually almost the most perfect thing its size anything can get, down to the molecular level.
Almost!!!. Well that's no cigar. ::) GRAVITY O' GRAVITY Why does that perfect sphere allude me.
Yes, almost. Do you know what atoms are? How would you try to make a perfect sphere, if matter itself is not perfect? And what do you actually need a "perfect sphere" for anyway?
How do you make a perfect balanced bob for your pendulum , if your not able to make a perfect sphere. You can't. That means there will be a measurable torque at both ends of the line.
WHAT part of the system has to be a perfect sphere for your ideas to work?... The pivot point, the weight? The Earth, perhaps? This is what I asked, which part do you want to be this sphere. It is never clearly stated and might confuse some people.
What idea. You claim a pendulum swings back & forth in a parallel line & produces no torque. using this claim you proclaim its sequenced rotation is the resultant of a rotating spherical earth. The fact is a pendulum does produce torque & in doing so would produce its own rotational action . Negating the necessity for a rotating earth.
-
You just keep ignoring what everyone says. Almost 40 pages of this crap. Again, we know what you think will happen and why. You also what we think will happen and why. The next part is the evidence. There isn't anything left to say until you prove your claims. /thread.
-
You just keep ignoring what everyone says. Almost 40 pages of this crap. Again, we know what you think will happen and why. You also what we think will happen and why. The next part is the evidence. There isn't anything left to say until you prove your claims. /thread.
Its basic physics, are you that F-IN DUMB.
-
Of a rotating ANYTHING Earth, moron. The shape of Earth has nothing to do with the fact that a pendulum would change its plane of oscillation. The only part affected by the shape of Earth is if the rate of change is constant(it would be on a flat Earth), or if it is a function of some variable. By the way you still haven't said anything about what has to be this "perfect sphere" of yours.
-
Oooohh..... This is actually getting quite scary! I think we have a certified psychopath with paranoid delusions posting in our midst.
Tread gently guys, otherwise poor old Charles will hunt you down and shoot you like the treacherous dogs your are.
;D
-
Oh, and Charlie boy, torque is a direct consequence of some kind of leverage through which a force is applied. Do us a favor, grab a piece of string and try to use it as a lever on anything.
-
I don't care about why the pendulum turns right now. Just show us that it doesn't turn at a different rate at different latitudes and your golden.
-
I have to ask why exactly poor old Charles has been crapping on about the alleged effects of "torque" on a pendulum for nearly 40 pages?
Listen up Charles: You CANNOT produce torque (something that causes or tends to cause torsion or rotation) in a body with a piece of string. End of story. Please go away.
-
Of a rotating ANYTHING Earth, moron. The shape of Earth has nothing to do with the fact that a pendulum would change its plane of oscillation. The only part affected by the shape of Earth is if the rate of change is constant(it would be on a flat Earth), or if it is a function of some variable. By the way you still haven't said anything about what has to be this "perfect sphere" of yours.
I can see the last 22 years of the agenda has worked in dumbing you people down. if you cant produce a perfect sphere on earth . Then you can't produce a perfectly balanced bob. So it will have a lean on it moron. So its not going to swing back & forth in a exact line of trajectory.
-
I have to ask why exactly poor old Charles has been crapping on about the alleged effects of "torque" on a pendulum for nearly 40 pages?
Listen up Charles: You CANNOT produce torque (something that causes or tends to cause torsion or rotation) in a body with a piece of string. End of story. Please go away.
I'm not going any where ya Agenda low life.
-
I can see the last 22 years of the agenda has worked in dumbing you people down. if you cant produce a perfect sphere on earth . Then you can't produce a perfectly balanced bob. So it will have a lean on it moron. So its not going to swing back & forth in a exact line of trajectory.
And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?
-
And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?
Apparently poor old Charles seems to think that a plumb bob has to be symmetrical around its long axis. Which of course it doesn't. You could make a pendulum out of a house brick if you wanted to. He also seems to think sphericity is somehow related to the Foucault pendulum's method of action; which it's clearly not (other than the earth's shape of course).
And he can't post a sketch or photo of a "leaning" plumb bob because there is no such thing. In fact throughout all this blather of his, Charles has been reluctant to illustrate his claims with any diagrams or photos. And the reason for this is more than obvious LOL.
So... your diagram of the leaning plumb bob please Charles?
-
You claim a pendulum swings back & forth in a parallel line & produces no torque.
No, that isn't what's being claimed. We're claiming that a pendulum swings back and forth in its own line. Parallel lines mean there there is an offset between one swing and the next. We are not making this claim, you are.
using this claim you proclaim its sequenced rotation is the resultant of a rotating spherical earth. The fact is a pendulum does produce torque & in doing so would produce its own rotational action . Negating the necessity for a rotating earth.
And you have yet to prove that any torque generated by the pendulum would affect its precession.
-
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
I think this is the law that's in action here...
-
What idea. You claim a pendulum swings back & forth in a parallel line & produces no torque. using this claim you proclaim its sequenced rotation is the resultant of a rotating spherical earth. The fact is a pendulum does produce torque & in doing so would produce its own rotational action . Negating the necessity for a rotating earth.
Even if this were true (which it isn't, but let's suppose for a moment that it is so we can move on), then the rate at which the pendulum precesses would depend on the torque produced at the attachment point, which is not the case. Also you still have to deal with the fact that you would expect a steady rate of precession depending on latitude simply due to basic conservation of momentum.
-
And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?
Apparently poor old Charles seems to think that a plumb bob has to be symmetrical around its long axis. Which of course it doesn't. You could make a pendulum out of a house brick if you wanted to. He also seems to think sphericity is somehow related to the Foucault pendulum's method of action; which it's clearly not (other than the earth's shape of course).
And he can't post a sketch or photo of a "leaning" plumb bob because there is no such thing. In fact throughout all this blather of his, Charles has been reluctant to illustrate his claims with any diagrams or photos. And the reason for this is more than obvious LOL.
So... your diagram of the leaning plumb bob please Charles?
That's a really good point, and gives me a simple idea for an experiment. Make 2 pendulums, one with the roundest, most perfectly balanced bob available, the other with a brick or something with a non-spherical shape. Then run them both and see whether there's any difference in the rate of precession. I'm betting on no significant difference. There you go charles, perfect test for your bob-balance hypothesis. Get to it.
-
What's made it so difficult—impossible?—to debate the Foucault pendulum with Charles is his almost total lack of knowledge regarding physics, mechanics, geometry and trigonometry, Newtonian laws, and geophysics.
To successfully debate something like this requires at least a basic understanding of the science that governs it. Charles obviously doesn't have this, so any meaningful debate is ultimately a waste of our time. And what further compounds the issue with people like poor old Charles is their stubborn, head-in-the-sand refusal to even contemplate the alternatives to their bizarre personal theories, regardless of how ludicrous they are. This also explains why conspiracy theorist seem to thrive; empirical evidence isn't high on their list of priorities—if it is at all.
The mechanics of the pendulum is obvious even to kids in any high-school science class, so one can only imagine that Charles missed out on this education for some reason or other.
Sad really.
-
What's made it so difficult—impossible?—to debate the Foucault pendulum with Charles is his almost total lack of knowledge regarding physics, mechanics, geometry and trigonometry, Newtonian laws, and geophysics.
To successfully debate something like this requires at least a basic understanding of the science that governs it. Charles obviously doesn't have this, so any meaningful debate is ultimately a waste of our time. And what further compounds the issue with people like poor old Charles is their stubborn, head-in-the-sand refusal to even contemplate the alternatives to their bizarre personal theories, regardless of how ludicrous they are. This also explains why conspiracy theorist seem to thrive; empirical evidence isn't high on their list of priorities—if it is at all.
The mechanics of the pendulum is obvious even to kids in any high-school science class, so one can only imagine that Charles missed out on this education for some reason or other.
Sad really.
I will tell you what's sad. The crap you continuously dribble out.
Torque at the pivot point accounts for the rotation. Inertia regulates the timing of the rotation.
-
How does Torque account for the rotation?
DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?
-
How does Torque account for the rotation?
DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?
He doesn't. We have been over almost 40 pages regarding this subjects. Our friend Charlie keeps sticking fingers in his ears whenever asked to provide any proof - which he easily could have done already. Instead, he opts for babbling about "torque, inertia and indoctrination". Maybe he will get fed up after a while.
-
How does Torque account for the rotation?
DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?
He doesn't. We have been over almost 40 pages regarding this subjects. Our friend Charlie keeps sticking fingers in his ears whenever asked to provide any proof - which he easily could have done already. Instead, he opts for babbling about "torque, inertia and indoctrination". Maybe he will get fed up after a while.
Who the hell do you think you are. To think you can speak on my behalf. Did I appoint you as my advocate ? My spokes person. How dare you assume to speak on my behalf. You ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tard
To date you have only resight like a parrot the missives of your doctrine. That doctrine being torque doesn't exists because I say so. You have not demonstrated it not to exist. Its forty pages of nothing more then your parroting . Torque can be deduced & calculated by arc of circle intercept. Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.
-
Show me how that shift in equilibrium is being negated & not transformed in to torque ?
-
Torque can be deduced & calculated by arc of circle intercept.
Then why don't you deduce and calculate it for us like we've asked you to?
Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.
Huh? ???
-
Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.
Huh?
As best as I can make out, Charles is claiming that if the bob is not absolutely symmetrical about its long axis (as in an irregular lump of rock for example) then there's some sort of overturning moment (?) introduced into the suspension system. Obviously though, any shape of bob works as a pendulum, as its individual and unique centre of gravity never varies, and the suspension system is absolutely flexible.
IF Charles's perfectly spherically-shaped bob was fixed rigidly to its means of suspension, but not along the vertical axis of its centre of gravity, and that means was a rigid rod, then one can then imagine there would be a few strange forces induced into the mechanically closed system.
I can't be bothered doing the maths, but Charles might care to clarify if this is at least similar to what he's getting at.
-
After 40 pages of his drivel I doubt you're going to get any further clarification. Charles doesn't understand how a pendulum works, what inertia is, what momentum is, what torque is, and he thinks you can use a rope as a lever. I suggested, I don't know how many pages ago, that we should call an end to this particular debate and put it to a vote based on the arguments in this thread, and I still think that. Not that that would settle anything for good, but while it's been a really entertaining thread, I really think this debate is over. Unfortunately I think the OP has fled the FES forums, probably finding a much better use for his time.
-
What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then referencing it to the bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
You mean Isoclinal location. ;)
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
You mean Isoclinal location. ;)
Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.
-
What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then referencing it to the bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.
Diagram please.
-
Here is a list of pendulums around the world just in case anyone here wants to actually go and do some science.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums)
-
What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then referencing it to the bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.
You clearly don't understand what equilibrium means. There is no "imbalance in equilibrium". Equilibrium is a state where forces are balanced.
if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel
Can you even explain what this means? Could you at least make a diagram as people have asked? I'm guessing not, since this is incoherent gobbledegook.
-
What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then referencing it to the bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.
Even if what you say is true, can you show that this "imbalance" causes a predictable percession of the pendulum's swing that corresponds with the pendulum's latitude?
-
What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then referencing it to the bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.
You clearly don't understand what equilibrium means. There is no "imbalance in equilibrium". Equilibrium is a state where forces are balanced.
if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel
Can you even explain what this means? Could you at least make a diagram as people have asked? I'm guessing not, since this is incoherent gobbledegook.
intercept.means the distance the bob travels in its circler arc till it heads back the other way.
-
Still makes no sense to me, but anyway how does this all relate the rate of precession to its location on Earth?
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
You mean Isoclinal location. ;)
Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.
Well at lest I know how to produce a microwave, magnetron manufacturer was my bread & butter for a few years . ;)
Do you actually know what a Isoclinal fold is?
If you cant demonstrate how the pendulums configuration negates the imbalance in equilibrium ,Then I'm afraid its your position that's is in a shambles.
-
Charlie, have you ever seen anything that when hanging freely at rest on a piece of string, not affected by outside forces other than gravity and string tension(so no blowing on it, no playing with magnets etc.), would NOT point straight down?
-
Playing with it has a lot to do with this debate. It is getting MASSive.
-
Charlie, have you ever seen anything that when hanging freely at rest on a piece of string, not affected by forces other than gravity and string tension(so no blowing on it, no playing with magnets etc.), would NOT point straight down?
If you take a rod made of steel & suspend it vertically. it will hang vertically in line. from point A to point B. Now take that same rod & put a bend in it. Will it maintain its A & B location . No it wont. it will hang according to its weight of mass distribution to gravity . Know lets take a string & bob. Will it hang from point A to point B. No it wont. Because it has A B & C Points in its configuration . A being string attachment B being point of connection to bob.C being end of bob. It will hang in accordance to its weight of mass distribution & Not in true vertical line from point A to C.
-
We are not talking about C as the "end of" bob or bent bar. We are talking about C being the center of mass of the bob or bent bar. It can be either located experimentally(if the object was hanging freely - tied/glued to a string, not like welded to a hinge - C would be directly below the point where the thread is fixed to a ceiling, regardless where on the hanging object itself the thread is tied/glued, when the system was hanging peacefully) or calculated - the second option is much easier if the object is of uniform density and reasonable shape, like a steel orb or a glass. These three points - A, the upper attachment point of the string(to the ceiling), B - the bottom attachment point of the string(to the thing hanging) and C - the hanging object's center of mass, naturally align into one vertical line. The B can actually lie somewhere a bit to the side, if the lower attachment point doesn't rotate freely, but A and C will be in an exact vertical line either way.
-
We are not talking about C as the "end of" bob or bent bar. We are talking about C being the center of mass of the bob or bent bar. It can be either located experimentally(if the object was hanging freely - tied/glued to a string, not like welded to a hinge - C would be directly below the point where the thread is fixed to a ceiling, regardless where on the hanging object itself the thread is tied/glued, when the system was hanging peacefully) or calculated - the second option is much easier if the object is of uniform density and reasonable shape, like a steel orb or a glass. These three points - A, the upper attachment point of the string(to the ceiling), B - the bottom attachment point of the string(to the thing hanging) and C - the hanging object's center of mass, naturally align into one vertical line. The B can actually lie somewhere a bit to the side, if the lower attachment point doesn't rotate freely, but A and C will be in an exact vertical line either way.
So B can lie somewhere a bit to the side. But B fluctuates in tension. So there has to be oscillation being produced.
-
You mean fluctuates due to tension? In a way it does, but at a diminishing rate and strength, due to all ways to loose energy in our imperfect world. As through friction inside the string itself, and with the air around it. This is why a once set in motion pendulum doesn't swing forever, but comes to rest after a while. Nevertheless, the "resting" position is constant for a given setup - a specific bob, tied to a specific thread in the same manner - will always have the same resting position. That is unless there are several stable positions possible. But even then, it assumes one of them, it doesn't jump between any of them randomly.
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
You mean Isoclinal location. ;)
Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.
Well at lest I know how to produce a microwave, magnetron manufacturer was my bread & butter for a few years . ;)
Do you actually know what a Isoclinal fold is?
If you cant demonstrate how the pendulums configuration negates the imbalance in equilibrium ,Then I'm afraid its your position that's is in a shambles.
Do you know what produce evidence means? The pendulum has been shown to vary precisely with latitude. Can you demonstrate this exact precision in a simple imbalance or are you going to continue to just talk?
-
Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.
You mean Isoclinal location. ;)
Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.
Well at lest I know how to produce a microwave, magnetron manufacturer was my bread & butter for a few years . ;)
Do you actually know what a Isoclinal fold is?
If you cant demonstrate how the pendulums configuration negates the imbalance in equilibrium ,Then I'm afraid its your position that's is in a shambles.
Do you know what produce evidence means? The pendulum has been shown to vary precisely with latitude. Can you demonstrate this exact precision in a simple imbalance or are you going to continue to just talk?
There are numerous faults in your mathematical calculation. You negate anything that exists that challenger's your dogmatic proclaim. You ignore Isoclinal folds !!!!!!!. & crap on about latitude & the equator like they are not made Up configuration of a map projection of a spherical earth that isn't. Do you know what produce evidence means?Do you know what manipulating result means?
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
Charles, are you saying that there is absolutely no margin for error in pendulum experiments?
-
Man, get real. You are pointing out how someone got within like 5% of the expected result by watching a ball of concrete, I think, for a few minutes, claiming that the method is bullsh*t as it is not reliable(in fat it is; it is simply difficult to measure the angles precisely after such a short time - it's just a slight data gathering error). While at the same time you propose some not-yet-seen or mathematically/physically described magical behaviour of stuff, like torque being transmitted through a simple soft string, no point of lowest potential existing for a hanging object, or that some random variations would always produce the same effect, regardless of the kind of string, weight or time it was swinging...
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.
1.4% precision for a simple homemade Foucault pendulum that ran for what, an hour? Let's see you do any better, and cheap talk doesn't count.
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.
167 km is 1.4%. That is pretty accurate. It's also homemade and as Rama mentioned, he didn't use a stellar day which makes it 1.2%.
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.
167 km is 1.4%. That is pretty accurate. It's also homemade and as Rama mentioned, he didn't use a stellar day which makes it 1.2%.
Apparently Charles wants it to be accurate to withing 167 meters instead of kilometers.
-
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off as per demonstrated & A great Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight. ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right.
(http://)
That guy really does look like he worships Satan, no wonder you didn't believe him. I also commend you guys for keeping me entertained on a 5 hour layover the other day while reading this, keep up the good work.
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle. ::)
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle. ::)
Where did you get the idea that people would be relying on a homemade Foucault pendulum for navigation? ???
Do you have any sense of what the term "proof of concept" means?
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle. ::)
Not sure why the mods continue to let you go on in this crass fashion but it's not my call. Are you familiar with the ideas of accuracy, and experimental uncertainty?
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle. ::)
Not sure why the mods continue to let you go on in this crass fashion but it's not my call. Are you familiar with the ideas of accuracy, and experimental uncertainty?
Um Um because I'm a likeable guy ? Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. not admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe Or am I missing something here.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
So you don't understand then. Moving on.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Was it the % sign? Goodness knows those are confusing. Maybe the +/-? I mean how can something be both plus and minus, amirite?
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
Pretty much exactly what I wanted to say. Also, despite all this it was fairly accurate. The idea here to suggest a way to figure out where you are in the world in a room with no windows. 173 km is about the average size of an american state. If you could use this method, whilst only doing the experiment long enough for it to turn about 6° and still at least determine what country you are in then that's not bad at all.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
So you don't understand then. Moving on.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Well I'm terribly sorry, but being politically correct is not in my ojeador. Weakling ,why thank you flattery. I will cherish the moment. Now could you please answer the question. Shmeggley doesn't seem to understand protractors are a 90 degree evenly distributed segmented +- calibration .
Now the question again is. Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. Admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
So you don't understand then. Moving on.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Well I'm terribly sorry, but being politically correct is not in my ojeador. Weakling ,why thank you flattery. I will cherish the moment. Now could you please answer the question. Shmeggley doesn't seem to understand protractors are a 90 degree evenly distributed segmented +- calibration .
Now the question again is. Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. Admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe.
Everything about this video proves you wrong. Everything about your responses proves you don't understand how to measure things, or do math.
-
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.
So you don't understand then. Moving on.
Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees) Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Well I'm terribly sorry, but being politically correct is not in my ojeador. Weakling ,why thank you flattery. I will cherish the moment. Now could you please answer the question. Shmeggley doesn't seem to understand protractors are a 90 degree evenly distributed segmented +- calibration .
Now the question again is. Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. Admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe.
Everything about this video proves you wrong. Everything about your responses proves you don't understand how to measure things, or do math.
Really the calculation was wrong by 167 km & I dont know how to measure things or do maths. There is something defiantly mentally wrong with you people.
-
Yup that is accurate. The earth circumference is 40,075 km. We are talking about half that circumference in each hemisphere meaning that we do 167/20,037.5 to get 0.00833. So less than a percent there.
-
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees. I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle. ::)
What would you consider an acceptable margin of error for a pendulum in a garage?
-
Do you not have any concept of variations in accelerated gravitational fall, in relationship to location. Have you never heard of the use of a pendulum to keep time & that they were used right up until 1930. till they were replaced with a better more accurate method. Did they not tell you in your physics class .There are slight variations in gravities numerical value (to the second decimal place) that are dependent primarily upon altitude.
-
Do you not have any concept of variations in accelerated gravitational fall, in relationship to location. Have you never heard of the use of a pendulum to keep time & that they were used right up until 1930. till they were replaced with a better more accurate method. Did they not tell you in your physics class .There are slight variations in gravities numerical value (to the second decimal place) that are dependent primarily upon altitude.
Thank for pointing out another factor contributing to the uncertainty in this experiment. Perhaps he was more accurate than we initially thought.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Is that so? ::)
-
Do you not have any concept of variations in accelerated gravitational fall, in relationship to location. Have you never heard of the use of a pendulum to keep time & that they were used right up until 1930. till they were replaced with a better more accurate method. Did they not tell you in your physics class .There are slight variations in gravities numerical value (to the second decimal place) that are dependent primarily upon altitude.
And why is this relevant? The method has nothing to do with oscillation period, it is about a steady shift in the apparent plane of oscillations, which is the same regardless of how fast the pendulum is swinging. The only thing is that the effect is easier to notice if the pendulum is swinging slowly on a long rope, as the lines marked by it are longer, therefore easier to measure accurately.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be panic stations the worlds not spinning.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be panic stations the worlds not spinning.
What does the wire compressing have anything to do with the pendulum turning?
-
Charles, is "compression" another word for "tension" in your vocabulary?
-
There is no pull, it's all push.
-
There is no pull, it's all push.
Push on push, to be precise. ;D
-
It's become increasingly obvious that Charles's understanding of Newtonian physics and mechanics is virtually zero.
I suggest everybody refrain from responding to his ludicrous claims about such topics. You're only further feeding his delusions. The more empirical evidence that we supply, the harder Charles works at manufacturing more of his fanciful theories.
And for Charles's benefit (and anyone else interested in pendulums) I suggest a quick browse through THIS SITE (http://bit.ly/1sjUfgb) which explains very clearly the principles of simple pendulums.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be panic stations the worlds not spinning.
Feel free to revise your claim under the very minor compression of the wire, which would mean the bob does not travel is a circular arc. I'll then correct your error again of failing to consider movement outside of a simple circular arc. The point is you've erred and really should fix your mistake.
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be panic stations the worlds not spinning.
Feel free to revise your claim under the very minor compression of the wire, which would mean the bob does not travel is a circular arc. I'll then correct your error again of failing to consider movement outside of a simple circular arc. The point is you've erred and really should fix your mistake.
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
-
Are you saying that it is an arc because the pendulum is making these ellipses like in this gif?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif)
-
You know I'm so sick of the false statements made in theses clips. Foucault pendulum is free to move in any direction. No it doesn't. its movement is governed to circular arc.
Then I fear you're making yourself sick. The bob is constrained by the UA (or gravity) and the wire (cable, string, etc.) connecting it to its pivot point. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire, the tip of the bob sweeps out the surface a section, roughly made by a plane parallel to the ground, of a sphere centered on the pivot point, most certainly NOT just a circular arc.
But it is travelling on a governed circular arc. Ignoring the very minor compression of the wire Why should that be ignored. If its part of the process ? I love the way you people pick & chose what suits your dogma. It amounts to fudging the findings & making false claims of the out come. How about you include the compression. Oh that's right ,that would mean there's a torque being developed at the pivot point & we cant have that can we. It would be panic stations the worlds not spinning.
Feel free to revise your claim under the very minor compression of the wire, which would mean the bob does not travel is a circular arc. I'll then correct your error again of failing to consider movement outside of a simple circular arc. The point is you've erred and really should fix your mistake.
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
Wait, you believe in gravity? Don't you think the Earth is flat? How does gravity work on a flat Earth? It would certainly have to fluctuate, a lot, depending on where you were on Earth. But then why wouldn't gravity pull the Earth into the shape of a ball anyway? I'm so confused. ???
-
I would need a list of Charlie boys meanings for all these blooming big words he is trying to use to even start to understand what he is on about. Bet he don't know either.
-
Are you saying that it is an arc because the pendulum is making these ellipses like in this gif?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif)
The swing not the rotation.
-
I would need a list of Charlie boys meanings for all these blooming big words he is trying to use to even start to understand what he is on about. Bet he don't know either.
Well you need to sit back & crack a long neck & enjoy the contents. Hopeful not brewed from GM barley watered by trailed cocktail. ;D
-
Are you saying that it is an arc because the pendulum is making these ellipses like in this gif?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif)
The swing not the rotation.
So the little ellipses right? The little circles it is making. That is what you mean by circular arc no?
-
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.
Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.
Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".
Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.
Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.
-
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.
Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.
Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".
Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.
Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.
No altitude & location. Altitude is taken at Sea level mid range. Its fluctuating tension. But you keep dancing to that one beat tune pedantic & attending to that slicked down comb over, ya side winder.
PS let me know when you have something ground breaking intelligent to say dip shyt~~~~~~~ I wont be holding my breath.
-
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.
Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.
Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".
Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.
Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.
No altitude & location. Altitude is taken at Sea level mid range. Its fluctuating tension. But you keep dancing to that one beat tune pedantic & attending to that slicked down comb over, ya side winder.
PS let me know when you have something ground breaking intelligent to say dip shyt~~~~~~~ I wont be holding my breath.
So... you still don't see your error. How sad. Can you site one source that agrees that with you accurate location does not include altitude? Did you really think that someone takes two reading of a barometer to determine the "altitude" of the bob? Really? Did you ever spend time in a science lab with a pendulum? Did you use a barometer?
Yes, the tension in a pendulum's wire does fluctuate. Even using the obviously false UA, the bob experiences less "apparent" gravity higher from the surface. However, as I said, that variation is very minor. Given that you use a barometer to determine the bob's altitude, this variation is far too small for you to measure. Since you can't measure it, I have to wonder why you encourage me not to ignore.
Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Have a K-12 teacher from an accredited school system sign off on your measurement, with a barometer measuring the altitude included, showing relevant fluctuating tension. I'm also happy to shown to be wrong.
-
Just found this.
1 February 2011—A new type of microscopic gyroscope could lead to better inertial guidance systems for missiles, better rollover protection in automobiles, and balance-restoring implants for the elderly.
Researchers from the MicroSystems Laboratory at the University of California, Irvine (UCI), described what they’re calling a Foucault pendulum on a chip at last week’s IEEE 2011 conference on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) in Cancun, Mexico. A Foucault pendulum is a large but simple mechanism used to demonstrate Earth’s rotation. The device the UCI engineers built is a MEMS gyroscope made of silicon that is capable of directly measuring angles faster and more accurately than current MEMS-based gyroscopes.
-
I got my engineering degree from UCI, so I guess I'm part of the indoctrinated conspiracy.
Sad face.
-
I'm erred ?My mistake. You mean your retardation . The string attached to the pivot point & bob is under tension. If there is fluctuation in momentum then there is compression taking place as recoil. Now I dont know what dumb ass school you went to or what tosser you had teaching you. The bobs travel is not swinging in a horizontal plane, its swinging in a circular Arc, No matter what you choice to make the diameter. Now I keep hearing the bullshit there's is no torque taking place at the pivot point. Which is untrue because its audible & recordable. so it exists. Now we move on to fall of Gravity. Which fluctuates according to altitude & location. Which will also have an effect on the bob & how it reacts to that fall of gravity. No different to water running down a slop to the end of its course.
I had hoped that you might be able to realize your error.The bob moves in three dimensions--by observation. A circular arc can be described as motion in just two--by definition. Hence, you're wrong. Now please try to correct your mistake again. Thanks.
Oh, I never said that the bob swings in a horizontal plane.
Would you also be more concise. For example, "altitude and location" should just be "location".
Would you also review your understanding of simple physics. Being under tension is not the same as being under constant tension.
Oh, and would you please learn the use of the apostrophe. Reading your error-laced grammar just convinces me even more of your errors in logic, math, and physics.
No altitude & location. Altitude is taken at Sea level mid range. Its fluctuating tension. But you keep dancing to that one beat tune pedantic & attending to that slicked down comb over, ya side winder.
PS let me know when you have something ground breaking intelligent to say dip shyt~~~~~~~ I wont be holding my breath.
So you think resorting to personal abuse will prove your statements, clearly you have never worked in the real world.
-
Bullies can intimidate people enough that they're afraid to stand up for themselves, unfortunately. This probably works for Charles in real life so he thinks it can work here too.
-
Bullies can intimidate people enough that they're afraid to stand up for themselves, unfortunately. This probably works for Charles in real life so he thinks it can work here too.
I'm guessing that—as we haven't had the misfortune of seeing him here for a while now—that Charles's constant stream of personal insults, off-topic posts, and crude language has finally earned him time on the bench.
It was very tiresome arguing from a solely technical stance with someone like Charles, who doggedly refuses to accept—literally—that any of the conventional or proven scientific theories are correct. I don't think he fully grasped many (any?) of the mechanical specifics regarding the Foucault pendulum, nor did he investigate any of the evidence we cited.
-
Bullies can intimidate people enough that they're afraid to stand up for themselves, unfortunately. This probably works for Charles in real life so he thinks it can work here too.
I'm guessing that—as we haven't had the misfortune of seeing him here for a while now—that Charles's constant stream of personal insults, off-topic posts, and crude language has finally earned him time on the bench.
It was very tiresome arguing from a solely technical stance with someone like Charles, who doggedly refuses to accept—literally—that any of the conventional or proven scientific theories are correct. I don't think he fully grasped many (any?) of the mechanical specifics regarding the Foucault pendulum, nor did he investigate any of the evidence we cited.
Also, he's a complete wanker.
-
Too blooming right.
-
Well I loved your speech on Bullies & Insults. Uses all need to take a good hard look in the mirror ::) What part of the torque at the pivot point is audible & recordable ,have you not understood? Torque at the pivot point exists. Which throws a spanner in the works in regards to your world spinning Bullshit Foucault pendulum claim.
-
And you still fail, time after time, to show us how the torque works according to what you say. A step-by-step description, a diagram or even a simple video shot with a cellphone would probably be enough. And another point: why does this "torque" vary only on the location on Earth, not really on the dimensions, weight etc. of the pendulum? REs have provided a simple and plausible explanation for this. What is yours?
-
Well I loved your speech on Bullies & Insults. Uses all need to take a good hard look in the mirror ::) What part of the torque at the pivot point is audible & recordable ,have you not understood? Torque at the pivot point exists. Which throws a spanner in the works in regards to your world spinning Bullshit Foucault pendulum claim.
No it doesn't. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true, kiddo.
-
Uses all need to take a good hard look in the mirror
Uses? Is that even English? Maybe Charles is a Klingon?
What part of the torque at the pivot point is audible & recordable, have you not understood?
Newton would be pleased. Nowadays you can apparently hear the sound of torque (is that a pun?) and even record it. The marvels of modern science never cease to amaze me! And confound Charles at the same time. Bizarre.
-
This is all torque.
-
This is all torque.
And no action..... from Charles.
-
And I thought torque made things spin. 41 pages of spin.
-
Remember this. Charlie at his blooming best.
-
No internet in the lunatic asylum. But he will be released soon.
-
No internet in the lunatic asylum. But he will be released soon.
Apparently they've been trying—unsuccessfully—to teach Charlie grade school arithmetic. He's mastered adding and subtracting OK, but still has issues with multiplication and division. Apparently his release is dependent on getting those two figured out.
;D
-
No internet in the lunatic asylum. But he will be released soon.
Apparently they've been trying—unsuccessfully—to teach Charlie grade school arithmetic. He's mastered adding and subtracting OK, but still has issues with spelling, multiplication and division. Apparently his release is dependent on getting those two three figured out.
;D
Then maybe he'll make more sense.
-
This subject needs some torque.
-
For the new guys, read back a few pages and see Charlie at his best.