The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: V on May 18, 2014, 02:14:50 PM

Title: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 18, 2014, 02:14:50 PM
How does FE explain Foucault pendulum (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)s?
Please don't tell me the aetheric wind.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 18, 2014, 02:24:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 18, 2014, 03:12:07 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 18, 2014, 04:44:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on May 19, 2014, 09:33:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 11:42:50 AM
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?  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 19, 2014, 12:37:43 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

2. You can pick one you like and go with it - or you can think for yourself. (P.S. I like how my phrase is catching on.)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 19, 2014, 08:41:14 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

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

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 20, 2014, 01:20:11 AM


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...
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 06:02:53 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 09:18:50 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 20, 2014, 09:30:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 20, 2014, 12:19:07 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

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

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.
Well then, it's a good thing I thought to include a second option.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 20, 2014, 12:46:24 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

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

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.
Well then, it's a good thing I thought to include a second option.
Can you answer my original question or not?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 12:51:53 PM
What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

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

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

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 20, 2014, 01:16:48 PM
What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

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

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

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums)
Why don't you go see one near you?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 01:36:44 PM
1. That's a lot of pages, and if we take the first few as a representative sample, then it's a safe assumption that it's all useless - yes.
2. There are as many explanations for things like this are there are FE enthusiasts, so we're unlikely to get the same one this time anyway.
1. So, sifting through some balls - they all may appear red on the surface, but as you dig you find all sorts of fanciful colors that aren't red. That's not how science works. You'd never know anything other than red balls if you don't dig to below them.

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

I can tell you right now, none of those pages provide a definitive answer to how Foucault's pendulum works on a flat Earth.
It works the same as it does now. Because you have yet to prove your on a spherical earth.
Lots of proof we are on a spherical earth.  Please list the fe proof, eg maps, distances etc.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 02:03:59 PM
What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

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

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

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 20, 2014, 02:10:03 PM
What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

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

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

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 02:15:29 PM
What I don't get is how you can make a thread about Foucault pendulums without possessing one or performing an experiment to prove how they function.

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

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

Until you can ask a serious question with experiments and evidence to back up what you're asking then you will not get a serious answer from any of us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums (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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 02:18:12 PM
V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 02:53:47 PM
Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

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

An illustrative example: I have never seen the sky, any time I try to go outside or near to a window, I'm stopped by sinister robots with FET livery on their weapons.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 03:04:47 PM
Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

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

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

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

Clown, I have one question for you. If you're interested, please respond back by saying "What is your question" or some variation of that.
(Also I have reported you for aggressive posts)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 20, 2014, 03:08:17 PM
Did you try to visit one in a private home? Or in a government building when it was closed?

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

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

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

Clown, I have one question for you. If you're interested, please respond back by saying "What is your question" or some variation of that.
(Also I have reported you for aggressive posts)
I do not understand how Clown's post was "aggressive."
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2014, 03:09:16 PM
V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 03:11:29 PM
V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 03:23:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2014, 03:27:35 PM
V, the photo is not proof of anything. Even if that pendulum is real, it could be motorized. Simply posting a picture does not prove anything. You should know this by now.

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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 03:41:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 04:00:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 04:03:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 05:24:24 PM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 05:26:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2014, 05:36:01 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 20, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 05:53:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 20, 2014, 06:00:31 PM

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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 06:25:00 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 20, 2014, 07:16:40 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 20, 2014, 07:17:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 20, 2014, 07:23:40 PM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 20, 2014, 09:31:09 PM
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.         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 20, 2014, 11:42:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 21, 2014, 02:15:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 21, 2014, 06:12:10 AM
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... ::)

Quote
After I engaged the curator in conversation of Foucault pendulum being  a fraud
Pro-tip:  people tend not to like that.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 21, 2014, 06:14:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 21, 2014, 10:41:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 23, 2014, 03:20:45 AM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 23, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 23, 2014, 05:57:11 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 23, 2014, 06:02:02 AM
Quote from: charles
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 23, 2014, 07:16:15 AM
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.         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 23, 2014, 07:41:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 23, 2014, 07:56:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 23, 2014, 08:02:59 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 23, 2014, 01:46:52 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 07:09:08 AM
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. ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 07:27:42 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 07:51:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 24, 2014, 08:36:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 24, 2014, 08:55:04 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 09:35:20 AM
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 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 24, 2014, 09:50:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 09:51:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 10:13:46 AM
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.            .     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 10:30:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 10:36:25 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 10:45:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 10:49:51 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 10:54:26 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 11:04:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 11:13:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 24, 2014, 12:01:11 PM
here's no point trolling because it just wastes everybodies time;
I think you may have come to the wrong forum.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 12:04:07 PM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 12:09:13 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 12:14:14 PM
Nice pictures of a school and an overhead rip from Google Earth...

What does this prove, exactly?  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 12:21:44 PM
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? :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 12:23:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 12:29:52 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 12:50:20 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 12:52:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: V on May 24, 2014, 12:54:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 12:55:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:00:20 PM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 24, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
Clearly the punchline to Vauxhall's little joke is that imgur is part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 01:04:04 PM
Quote from: V
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:04:49 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 01:10:59 PM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:11:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:12:12 PM
The above image is from Google!
The blog it's from is even titled "Confirming Earths Rotation" - Vaxhaull believes it rotates! Good job guys :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 01:13:13 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:13:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 01:23:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 24, 2014, 01:25:08 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:27:29 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:27:48 PM
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"... ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 24, 2014, 01:31:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:40:08 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:42:25 PM
So you don't know how Google works. Got it.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 01:55:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 01:57:19 PM
LukeB, like I said earlier. I cropped the original picture.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 24, 2014, 01:58:00 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 01:59:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:01:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 02:04:28 PM
I also made a Foucault Pendulum and it worked fine. Furthermore I partied with the Foucault Pendulum guards at the Pantheon is Paris.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 02:05:30 PM
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 ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 02:09:19 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 02:10:49 PM
Here is mine,(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg/320px-Pendule_de_Foucault.jpg)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:13:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 24, 2014, 02:14:27 PM
This thread is fucking hilarious.

Dr Abganusi has confirmed his status as my favourite flat earther.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:24:26 PM
Quote from: LukeB
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?  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: LukeB
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
Quote from: LukeB
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 24, 2014, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: LukeB
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 24, 2014, 02:31:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: LukeB
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:41:51 PM
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...  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 02:43:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:51:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 02:55:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 02:58:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 03:10:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 03:31:36 PM
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?

Quote from: LukeB
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

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 03:58:54 PM
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?

Quote from: LukeB
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".
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 24, 2014, 04:19:34 PM
I'm still waiting on those pictures.


Quote from: LukeB
....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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 04:32:55 PM
I'm still waiting on those pictures.


Quote from: LukeB
....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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 04:35:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2014, 07:37:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 24, 2014, 08:45:53 PM
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?
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 24, 2014, 09:08:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 24, 2014, 10:21:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 24, 2014, 10:29:41 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 24, 2014, 11:10:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 25, 2014, 12:51:02 AM

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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 25, 2014, 07:07:34 AM
So, Vauxhall is a proven liar.

Sort of knew that already.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 25, 2014, 07:26:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 07:28:00 AM

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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: LukeB on May 25, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 10:59:33 AM
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. 
     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 25, 2014, 11:04:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2014, 11:12:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 11:15:03 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 12:02:32 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
(http://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 25, 2014, 12:19:08 PM
t = 2pi sqt (l/g)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 12:27:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 12:31:45 PM
(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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 05:55:34 PM
(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.           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 25, 2014, 06:07:13 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 06:16:57 PM
(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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 06:20:53 PM
(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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 06:50:40 PM
Why don't you tell me what about them?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 08:43:04 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 25, 2014, 08:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 09:21:38 PM
I am a Truth Earther.  What exactly is your problem with these experiments?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 10:55:58 PM
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. ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 11:13:23 PM
Are you calling me a liar? 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 11:23:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 25, 2014, 11:25:20 PM
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)

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 11:52:11 PM
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:

Quote
[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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 26, 2014, 12:57:48 AM
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:

Quote
[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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 26, 2014, 01:09:05 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 26, 2014, 02:23:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on May 26, 2014, 02:31:58 AM
We all expect jroa to repeat the experiment.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 26, 2014, 03:44:52 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:24:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 26, 2014, 07:36:34 AM
Take us through the data.

It is all right there in the article for you to read.

Cool

Quote
This incident still appears today in secondary accounts with such incomplete documentation that one is tempted to consider it an urban legend.

and then

Quote
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....
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 26, 2014, 09:12:08 AM
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
Quote
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).
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 26, 2014, 12:03:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 26, 2014, 12:21:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:01:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:16:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:22:30 PM
A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY  
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2014, 07:23:46 PM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: PiemanFiddy on May 26, 2014, 07:27:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:28:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:30:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: PiemanFiddy on May 26, 2014, 07:33:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:53:43 PM
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 !!!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 08:04:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 08:14:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 09:18:28 PM
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? ::)   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 26, 2014, 11:02:27 PM

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?
 

 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 11:11:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 12:52:39 AM

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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 04:12:16 AM

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.   
     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 04:28:25 AM

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  ::)       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sceptimatic on May 27, 2014, 05:10:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 27, 2014, 05:38:19 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 06:52:13 AM

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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 27, 2014, 07:04:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
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...
 

 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 09:20:39 AM

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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 27, 2014, 09:26:26 AM

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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 27, 2014, 09:29:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 09:58:45 AM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 10:08:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 27, 2014, 10:49:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 10:50:41 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 27, 2014, 11:23:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 28, 2014, 01:01:30 AM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 28, 2014, 01:15:52 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 28, 2014, 01:18:58 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 28, 2014, 01:24:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 28, 2014, 01:37:31 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 07:05:28 AM
They must be long lost brothers, because they both act exactly the same way.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 07:08:52 AM
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

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 07:11:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 28, 2014, 07:33:37 AM
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. ::)     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 07:54:17 AM
The axis also passes through the center of gravity, what is your point?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 08:15:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: RealScientist on May 28, 2014, 09:39:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 10:17:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 10:22:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on May 28, 2014, 11:01:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on May 28, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 11:26:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 11:42:19 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
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?  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:01:06 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 12:03:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 12:12:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:16:56 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 12:18:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:20:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 12:23:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:29:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 12:30:54 PM
.... 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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:34:18 PM
.... 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".
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
.... 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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 12:58:58 PM
.... 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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 01:16:11 PM


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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 01:30:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 01:34:58 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 02:29:13 PM
Watch, and allow your minds to be blown with REAL science.


I especially encourage FE hypothesizers to watch.


(http://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 02:38:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 02:44:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 02:48:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 02:55:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 02:57:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 02:58:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 03:13:01 PM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 03:14:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 03:22:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 03:27:36 PM
(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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 03:41:27 PM
You're right, it's suddenly very clear exactly what is going on here.  ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 03:44:02 PM
You ask for an explanation. I give you one. You ridicule me. What's up with that?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 03:47:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 03:50:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 28, 2014, 03:52:31 PM
Accounts get deleted all the time to save server space.  I am not saying this is what happened.  Just saying that it happens. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 03:53:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 03:57:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 04:10:52 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 04:23:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 04:26:39 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 04:53:15 PM
That's all you wanted to hear? That some things can be faked? :D Nobody's been saying otherwise for 14 long pages.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
Vauxhall, I sincerely hope you are not trying to say that all Foucault's pendulums are conspiring against you.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 05:02:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2014, 05:08:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 28, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Did anyone besides Shmeggley even watch the video I posted?

Vauxhall?  Was it faked?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 05:29:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 05:38:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Rama Set on May 28, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 28, 2014, 06:08:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: RealScientist on May 28, 2014, 06:16:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on May 28, 2014, 06:36:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 28, 2014, 07:52:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 28, 2014, 10:49:17 PM

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.
 

 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 28, 2014, 11:49:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 29, 2014, 12:35:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 29, 2014, 01:16:42 AM
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.
 
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: DonaldC on May 29, 2014, 02:29:47 AM
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.]   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 03:52:09 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: RealScientist on May 29, 2014, 05:18:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 06:04:46 AM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 06:15:56 AM
Its pretty obvious the shyt talkers that make their living out theses bogus theories. Protect there own interests.
   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 06:23:20 AM
http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php (http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 06:37:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 29, 2014, 07:06:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 29, 2014, 07:10:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 07:36:48 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 29, 2014, 07:45:32 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 29, 2014, 07:49:01 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 29, 2014, 08:05:06 AM
 Saturthurs. Obviously they are using metric time.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 29, 2014, 08:19:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: RealScientist on May 29, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 29, 2014, 09:59:37 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
 

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: DonaldC on May 29, 2014, 11:53:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 30, 2014, 01:20:48 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on May 30, 2014, 03:59:48 AM
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...

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 30, 2014, 05:30:20 AM
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...

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 07:18:50 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 08:07:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 09:48:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 10:53:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 30, 2014, 11:15:17 AM
Where was the evidence of magnets? I must have missed it.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:18:04 AM
Where was the evidence of magnets? I must have missed it.

(http://i.imgur.com/jTObZJX.png)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:19:28 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:20:20 AM
Now we know he's a troll.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:20:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:24:08 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:28:55 AM
Aren't you being a bit hypcrotical right now?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:31:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:33:45 AM
Is calling me a child not a form of name calling now? Maybe you don't understand what hypocritical means.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:35:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:36:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:38:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:41:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 30, 2014, 11:43:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:45:43 AM
That's a very impressive depiction of a Foucault Pendulum, Clown.

However, you forgot to add the magnets.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on May 30, 2014, 11:46:25 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 11:47:38 AM
I fixed it for you, Clown.

(http://i.imgur.com/v8pcpdB.png)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 30, 2014, 11:55:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 12:14:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on May 30, 2014, 03:45:57 PM
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...
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 30, 2014, 04:56:47 PM
Is it not possible that the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon may influence the very slight rotation of a pendulum? 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 30, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
Possibly, if you assume round Earth numbers for a gravitational force. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 05:20:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 05:21:16 PM
Funny how you accuse us of brushing off all photographic evidence as fake, but then you turn around and do the exact same thing... ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 30, 2014, 05:26:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 30, 2014, 05:29:36 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on May 30, 2014, 05:30:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2014, 06:29:59 PM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 30, 2014, 08:16:15 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on May 31, 2014, 01:59:10 AM
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".
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on May 31, 2014, 05:59:40 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 31, 2014, 07:03:33 AM

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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 31, 2014, 07:10:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on May 31, 2014, 07:48:53 AM
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.             
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on May 31, 2014, 08:17:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on May 31, 2014, 08:28:43 AM
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.

Quote from: charles
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: RealScientist on May 31, 2014, 02:33:40 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on May 31, 2014, 04:21:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 31, 2014, 11:41:17 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 01, 2014, 12:25:02 AM
 
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 01, 2014, 12:30:32 AM
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.

Quote from: charles
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.                 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 01, 2014, 12:54:17 AM

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.               
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 01, 2014, 01:40:15 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 01, 2014, 02:17:39 AM
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.
 
 

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 01, 2014, 05:30:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 01, 2014, 06:01:40 AM
How, exactly, do these magnets affect the swing if they are at the top, and what if the string is non magnetic?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 01, 2014, 12:23:48 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2014, 12:36:27 PM
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 01, 2014, 12:42:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2014, 01:12:20 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 01, 2014, 01:20:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2014, 01:54:32 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 01, 2014, 02:33:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 01, 2014, 06:39:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 01, 2014, 07:42:21 PM
Vauxhaull, not only have you failed to explain how Foucault pendulums work, you've never even shown convincingly how they could be faked.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 01, 2014, 08:53:10 PM
Have you not seen the diagrams? I don't want to have to post them again.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2014, 08:56:34 PM
...
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 01, 2014, 08:57:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 01, 2014, 09:24:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 01, 2014, 09:55:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 02, 2014, 02:57:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on June 02, 2014, 03:34:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 02, 2014, 05:46:59 AM

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.




Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 05:55:28 AM
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
       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 05:57:53 AM
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. ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 02, 2014, 06:40:12 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 02, 2014, 06:43:48 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 07:23:53 AM
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)       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 07:35:16 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 08:08:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 09:13:40 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 09:24:06 AM
I'm not sure. Clearly it was long enough to see the rotation happening.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 09:27:03 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 02, 2014, 09:34:12 AM
"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://#)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 10:56:00 AM
"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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on June 02, 2014, 12:51:57 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 01:15:31 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 02, 2014, 01:19:53 PM
"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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 01:26:46 PM
"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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2014, 02:48:54 PM


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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 02, 2014, 03:03:44 PM
"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? 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 03:20:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 02, 2014, 03:22:15 PM
Still waiting for a detailed technical explanation of how magnets might be controlled and work.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 03:35:43 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 02, 2014, 03:47:00 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 02, 2014, 03:51:35 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 03:55:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 04:02:32 PM
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.

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 02, 2014, 04:18:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2014, 04:23:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 02, 2014, 04:41:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: spaceman spiff on June 02, 2014, 05:29:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 02, 2014, 05:38:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 05:50:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 02, 2014, 05:55:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 02, 2014, 06:06:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2014, 06:33:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 02, 2014, 06:52:00 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 07:19:17 PM
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 ?   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 07:27:59 PM
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,
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 08:31:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 08:40:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 08:57:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 11:05:25 PM
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 ?   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on June 02, 2014, 11:23:02 PM
This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 03, 2014, 12:26:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 03, 2014, 03:22:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 04:26:57 AM

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?
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 05:10:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 06:42:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 07:01:06 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 07:07:22 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 03, 2014, 07:41:12 AM

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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 07:51:56 AM

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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 03, 2014, 08:04:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 08:28:14 AM

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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 03, 2014, 08:31:17 AM

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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 03, 2014, 08:39:01 AM
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 ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 03, 2014, 07:10:12 PM
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.   ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 09:22:17 PM
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.     
                     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 09:36:45 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 03, 2014, 10:46:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 11:12:24 PM
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.                         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 12:48:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 01:21:40 AM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 01:49:47 AM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 02:18:37 AM
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  :)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 03:54:04 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 04, 2014, 04:25:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 04, 2014, 05:58:30 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 04, 2014, 07:14:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 04, 2014, 07:26:25 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 04, 2014, 08:09:43 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 04, 2014, 08:14:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 04, 2014, 08:32:50 AM
Iirc, Charles is a native Glaswegian living in Australia. So any failure to learn English was probably Scotland's fault rather than Australia's.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 04, 2014, 09:29:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 04, 2014, 10:00:50 AM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 04, 2014, 10:10:40 AM
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..  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 04, 2014, 10:25:14 AM
Yeah, it's weak tea compared to that huge working pendulum you set up, but it illustrates the two effects that were mentioned, nicely.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2014, 02:43:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 04, 2014, 02:51:51 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 04, 2014, 03:00:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 04, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 04, 2014, 03:10:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 04, 2014, 03:52:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 04:05:44 PM
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...  :-[
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 04, 2014, 05:07:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 04, 2014, 08:49:47 PM
  Judge them on the content of what they are saying.
We do that too.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 05, 2014, 05:10:29 AM

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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 05, 2014, 08:52:46 AM
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?

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 05, 2014, 12:11:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 04:53:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 05, 2014, 05:50:47 PM
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  >:("
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 06:18:14 PM
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 ?         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 05, 2014, 06:39:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 06:47:56 PM
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.         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 05, 2014, 07:02:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 05, 2014, 07:06:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 05, 2014, 07:28:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 05, 2014, 08:51:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 09:33:36 PM
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.               
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 10:04:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 06, 2014, 02:47:00 AM
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:

Quote from: charles
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 06, 2014, 07:26:29 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 06, 2014, 07:57:59 AM
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.


Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 02:07:48 AM
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 .     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 03:19:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 07, 2014, 11:03:53 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 07, 2014, 11:07:33 AM
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 07, 2014, 12:06:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 07, 2014, 01:55:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 05:07:36 PM
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?   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 07, 2014, 05:55:59 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 07, 2014, 06:02:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 06:04:36 PM
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.~~~~~~~
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 06:11:09 PM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 07, 2014, 06:30:17 PM
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 07, 2014, 06:35:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 07, 2014, 06:49:07 PM
Everyone, I know that discussions can get a little heated, but let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 07, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
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 ?     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 07, 2014, 09:00:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 07, 2014, 11:52:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 08, 2014, 12:49:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 08, 2014, 01:22:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 08, 2014, 01:44:20 AM
...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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Vauxhall on June 08, 2014, 09:13:17 AM
...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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 08, 2014, 09:30:22 AM
...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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 08, 2014, 01:32:48 PM
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.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 08, 2014, 01:50:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 08, 2014, 10:04:33 PM
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. ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 08, 2014, 10:26:40 PM
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.

Quote
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.  ;)   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 09, 2014, 02:33:54 AM
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.


 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 04:54:47 AM
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 .     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 06:05:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 06:43:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 06:49:47 AM
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.           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on June 09, 2014, 07:01:08 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 07:12:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 07:14:44 AM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 07:20:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 07:26:55 AM
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.   
   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 07:43:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 07:44:13 AM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 07:51:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 07:54:14 AM
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!!! 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 07:55:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 08:04:22 AM
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)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 08:08:00 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 08:12:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 08:20:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 08:33:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 08:49:24 AM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2014, 08:50:28 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 09:08:41 AM
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) 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 09:30:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 09, 2014, 10:42:26 AM
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2014, 12:25:33 PM
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?  ???
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 09, 2014, 01:09:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 02:27:22 PM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 05:48:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 06:05:17 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: markjo on June 09, 2014, 07:31:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 09, 2014, 09:30:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 09:41:28 PM
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.               
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 10:03:50 PM
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://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 09, 2014, 10:49:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 09, 2014, 11:06:54 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: guv on June 10, 2014, 02:10:11 AM
     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?.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 10, 2014, 02:55:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 10, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
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 ? 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 10, 2014, 05:01:22 AM
     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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2014, 07:02:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 10, 2014, 07:10:44 AM
I like how he conveniently ignores my question. He knows the answer will destroy his ridiculous argument.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 07:41:36 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: guv on June 10, 2014, 09:39:40 AM
   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 Genevive. 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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: sceptimatic on June 10, 2014, 10:07:47 AM
I'd like to see this pendulum be tested in an evacuated chamber.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on June 10, 2014, 10:59:59 AM
I'd like to see this pendulum be tested in an evacuated chamber.
Get on it then!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 10, 2014, 03:49:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 10, 2014, 04:33:40 PM
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.               
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 04:58:09 PM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 10, 2014, 05:05:16 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 10, 2014, 05:46:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: guv on June 10, 2014, 06:01:03 PM
    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   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 10, 2014, 06:12:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 10, 2014, 08:19:34 PM
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.             
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 10, 2014, 08:41:04 PM
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.

Quote
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on June 11, 2014, 07:35:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 11, 2014, 10:27:45 AM

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.


Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on June 11, 2014, 10:45:19 AM
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???
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 12, 2014, 01:58:20 AM
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.         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: markjo on June 12, 2014, 06:09:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 12, 2014, 07:40:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 13, 2014, 07:48:57 AM
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.



Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 12:52:07 AM
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.                       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 22, 2014, 01:15:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 22, 2014, 01:44:58 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 03:01:43 AM
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.       
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 03:47:44 AM
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.  :-*           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 04:30:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:05:46 AM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 05:51:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 22, 2014, 08:31:09 AM
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.

Quote
Pivot point, gravity, stationary bob correspondence [sic] to ground.
What?  Please write in technical terms that make some sense Charles.

Quote
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.

Quote
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!



Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 08:32:45 AM
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.           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 08:34:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 22, 2014, 09:53:23 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 22, 2014, 10:31:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:40:49 PM
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.
           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:57:42 PM
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 .         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:01:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:38:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 07:07:39 PM
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 .     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 07:20:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 07:59:33 PM
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...
Quote from: clown
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 07:52:00 AM

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?

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:10:22 AM
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?



 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 08:22:11 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 05:09:57 PM
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   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 05:41:34 PM
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. ::)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 05:47:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 05:49:53 PM
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. ::) 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 05:53:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 05:58:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 06:24:37 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2014, 06:30:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 23, 2014, 06:32:09 PM
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?

Quote
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know?  Did you measure it? 

Quote
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
 
Quote
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 06:37:35 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Rama Set on June 23, 2014, 06:39:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 07:02:44 PM
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?

Quote
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know?  Did you measure it? 

Quote
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
 
Quote
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?

Quote
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.           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 07:14:16 PM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 23, 2014, 07:29:19 PM
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!
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 07:58:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 23, 2014, 08:03:44 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 08:31:39 PM
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://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 08:45:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 10:06:33 PM

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

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 10:54:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 11:40:36 PM

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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 24, 2014, 12:00:53 AM
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.           
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: guv on June 24, 2014, 03:12:41 AM
 Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 24, 2014, 05:17:31 AM
Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.
More like you need to stop sampling your own product.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: 29silhouette on June 24, 2014, 08:53:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 09:31:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 25, 2014, 12:15:28 AM
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.)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 25, 2014, 01:47:55 AM
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 )     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Scintific Method on June 25, 2014, 02:36:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 25, 2014, 04:48:07 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 25, 2014, 05:57:25 AM
...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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on June 27, 2014, 09:08:30 PM
...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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on June 27, 2014, 11:15:42 PM
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.



Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on June 28, 2014, 03:20:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: QuQu on June 28, 2014, 12:03:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on June 28, 2014, 12:11:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 12:11:06 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 01, 2014, 01:52:16 AM
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).

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: bodzza on July 01, 2014, 02:52:16 AM
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
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 07:27:57 AM
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.     
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on July 01, 2014, 11:39:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 03:21:46 PM
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 .         
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on July 01, 2014, 03:27:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 02, 2014, 01:29:25 AM
The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.
Nope.  Totally erroneous.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 02, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
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.

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: inquisitive on July 02, 2014, 01:44:33 AM
What is a fixed constant?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 02, 2014, 03:56:52 AM
What is a fixed constant?

That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments?  LOL.

Quote
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



Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 02, 2014, 06:58:38 AM
What is a fixed constant?

That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments?  LOL.

Quote
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 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 03, 2014, 01:13:02 AM
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)]

Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM
    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:33:31 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:43:47 AM
    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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: evildylan on July 03, 2014, 09:41:12 AM
    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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 04:05:08 PM
    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 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Shmeggley on July 03, 2014, 05:22:14 PM
    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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Goddamnit, Clown on July 04, 2014, 05:27:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: ausGeoff on July 04, 2014, 07:13:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 04, 2014, 10:37:28 AM
Please, let's try to reduce the ad hominum attacks.  Keep these debates civil.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Foucault pendulums
Post by: charles bloomington on July 04, 2014, 04:42:22 PM
    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 c