Foucault's Pendulum

  • 212 Replies
  • 54543 Views
?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2008, 07:29:45 PM »
So still no evidence other than "go ask someone else", then?

I suppose that you won't go ask an astronomer, because if you did you might have some evidence you couldn't ignore. Am I right?

Remember, it's not up to me to convince you. It's up to you to find out what's true. Ignoring what the scientists say doesn't make you right.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #31 on: December 06, 2008, 07:32:33 PM »
Quote
I suppose that you won't go ask an astronomer, because if you did you might have some evidence you couldn't ignore. Am I right?

What evidence am I ignoring? "The space man said so" and "to think otherwise is ridiculous"?

Real convincing evidence there.  ::)

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2008, 07:34:23 PM »
Quote
I suppose that you won't go ask an astronomer, because if you did you might have some evidence you couldn't ignore. Am I right?

What evidence am I ignoring? "The space man said so" and "to think otherwise is ridiculous"?

Real convincing evidence there.  ::)

Just like your evidence: "the mad victorian englishman said so".

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2008, 02:30:57 AM »
Quote
Rotational gravitation has never been experimentally confirmed. It is pure speculation.

Watch the pendulum as it swings. It will rotate in the direction of the stars overhead.

That's a direct cause and effect.
But not at the same rate. And this is the important bit. A Focult pendulum would work on a flat Earth if the Earth was rotating. You would get a rotation of the pendulum.

BUT

On that Flat Earth, no matter where your position on the Earth was, the pendulum would rotate at the same rate.

However, a Focult pendulum on a Round Earth would have different rotational periods depending on your location on the Earth.

A Pendulum on one of the RE Poles would rotate once every 24 hours. A pendulum on the RE Equator would not rotate at all.

If you are correct and it is the Heavens that are causing the Pendulum to rotate, then it too would exhibit a constant rotation rate regardless of your position on the Earth.

The problem is that you are ignoring evidence (against the express statement by Rowbotham in ENaG -page 1 - to include all the evidence) where by (even unpowered) Focult Pendulums have a variable rotation rate depending on their position on the Earth.

Also, you don't need to have the pendulum rotate for a full day to measure the rate of rotation. An hour would be sufficient to make accurate enough measurements. You can increase the time a pendulum would swing by increasing the weight of the pendulum.

Also, would you accept it if a FEer built a Focult Pendulum and used a magnetic driver to keep it swinging? Then you could be assured that there was not conspiracy adding in devices that would cause the pendulum to rotate.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2008, 01:14:26 PM »
Unpowered pendulums are influenced not by the rotation of the earth, but by the gravitation of the rotating heavens, which rotate overhead at one rotation per 24 hours.

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth Tom. Pendulums are operated by tiny monkeys, who are attracted by the smell of chocolate. It is unknown why they make the pedulums move how they do, they just do. This has been peer reviewed by myself first hand. It is a simple observation to make. Try it sometime.

Also, I'm not sure how a rotating heavens helps you here.

So, in conclusion, monkeys: yes, rototing heavens: no.



and derailed.  :)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2008, 02:08:38 AM »
Still waiting for that evidence showing that the earth is moving in the experiment and not the pendulum, as observed.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2008, 03:13:15 AM »
Still waiting for that evidence showing that the earth is moving in the experiment and not the pendulum, as observed.

Will do: There is no torque on the pendulum, therefore, by Newton's second law, it can't rotate.

Care to provide some evidence that there is a torque on the pendulum?

EDIT: Before anyone nitpicks, I mean torque about the vetical axis.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2008, 03:29:41 AM »
Quote
Will do: There is no torque on the pendulum, therefore, by Newton's second law, it can't rotate.

How do you know that there is no torque on the pendulum? A blunt statement doesn't make it so.

Have you identified every possible universal and cosmic phenomenon which can attract or pull an object?

Quote
Care to provide some evidence that there is a torque on the pendulum?

Feel free to watch the Focault Pendulum sometime and watch it spin above a motionless earth.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 03:31:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2008, 03:33:47 AM »
So still no evidence that the earth is moving in the experiment and not the pendulum, as observed?

Didn't think so.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2008, 03:43:48 AM »
Quote
Will do: There is no torque on the pendulum, therefore, by Newton's second law, it can't rotate.

How do you know that there is no torque on the pendulum? A blunt statement doesn't make it so.

Have you identified every possible universal and cosmic phenomenon which can attract or pull an object?

Can you prove that there is not an invisible teapot in orbit around the Earth, controlling our destiny? Just because we can't rule something out doesn't mean it exists, or even could exist. Until you have proof that there is another force acting on the pendulum, your arguments are worthless.

Quote
Care to provide some evidence that there is a torque on the pendulum?

Feel free to watch the Focault Pendulum sometime and watch it spin above a motionless earth.

I see the Earth turning under the pendulum. Your argument is subjective and worthless.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2008, 03:48:26 AM »
Quote
Can you prove that there is not an invisible teapot in orbit around the Earth, controlling our destiny?

I don't need to disprove the unobservable. I don't need to prove a negative. I don't need to prove that ghosts *don't* exist. I don't need to prove that there *isn't* an invisible teapot in the sky. The burden is always on he who makes the claim to prove the unobservable.

The fact that the pendulum spins over a motionless earth is observable. Everyone can see that.

The idea that the pendulum is still and its really the earth that is moving is unobservable. No one observes that.

So where's your evidence for the unobservable and unexperienced?

Still don't have any? That means you lose.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 03:51:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2008, 05:21:31 AM »
The fact that the pendulum spins over a motionless earth is observable. Everyone can see that.

Um, nope. The only observable thing is the indeterminacy of the earth's motion at ground level;  As an observer you cannot be sure.   You have a similar problem with the shape of the earth at ground level.  Only the naive would make such a judgement.

So where's your evidence for the unobservable and unexperienced?

Apart from the pendulum, the heavens (FET cannot explain it without bendy light) and cyclones (FET cannot explain these without star gravity).   FET requires these gaps to be plugged with unconnected phenomena:  No supporting evidence, no experimentation, no maths, no predictions, just words.

Still don't have any? That means you lose.

Non of your arguments are falsifiable:  Your "game" is invalid.  You are the weakest link.  Good bye.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2008, 05:31:21 AM »
Quote
Can you prove that there is not an invisible teapot in orbit around the Earth, controlling our destiny?

I don't need to disprove the unobservable. I don't need to prove a negative. I don't need to prove that ghosts *don't* exist. I don't need to prove that there *isn't* an invisible teapot in the sky. The burden is always on he who makes the claim to prove the unobservable.

Precisely, Tom, now you're getting it.

I don't need to prove that there is *not* a rotational gravitational force (RGF). It is up to you to prove and experimentally verify that the RGF exists!

Until you can prove that the motion of a pendulum is caused by this unknown force outside of human experience, I see no reason to accept you explanation. On the other hand, rotation (the RET explanation) is an easily observed phenomenon.
Until you prove the RGF, the only explanation we have is that the Earth is rotating underneath the pendulum.

So, where's your proof?

The fact that the pendulum spins over a motionless earth is observable. Everyone can see that.

The idea that the pendulum is still and its really the earth that is moving is unobservable. No one observes that.

Like I said before, stop bringing subjective opinion into proper debate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2008, 07:22:28 AM »
Quote
Edtharan has already explained that a pendulums motion is based on its location on the earth (All other things being equal). There's plenty of pendulums in museums all over the world to verify this.

Go verify it and get back to us then.

Quote
What's Rowbothams opinion on the matter? Where's the evidence that his refutions are correct?

Read the Foucault Pendulum section of ENAG.

Quote
Um, nope. The only observable thing is the indeterminacy of the earth's motion at ground level;  As an observer you cannot be sure.   You have a similar problem with the shape of the earth at ground level.  Only the naive would make such a judgement.

As an observer I am as certain that the pendulum moves in circles as I am certain that soccer balls roll down hills. It's a direct observation.

When you have some evidence for the unobserved let me know.

Quote
On the other hand, rotation (the RET explanation) is an easily observed phenomenon.

Really? I've never observed the earth spinning. I don't know anyone who has seen the earth spin.

When you manage to find some evidence for the spinning of the earth please let us know so we can continue this debate.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 07:29:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2008, 09:13:26 AM »
So you're not going to reply to my post then? Do you agree that you have no proof for this unobserved RGF?

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2008, 11:19:17 AM »
Quote
Really? I've never observed the earth spinning. I don't know anyone who has seen the earth spin.

Well, you can observe it by watching the motion of the celestial objects. Or by watching a pendulum. Or by observing the changes in the apparent force of gravity between the equator or the poles.

FE on the other hand doesn't have any way to observe the fact the planet is stationary. You can't observe objects separate to the planet, as they're being moved by unknown forces. Yon can't swing a pendulum to check it's not being moved around, as there's more unknown forces acting on that. You can't take an accelerometer to different places to check that everything is stationary relative to everything else, as the accelerometer will read differently depending on where you are due to yet more unknown forces.

Why do you think the planet is stationary? Simply because your senses don't present that fact to you in a obvious way?

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2008, 11:20:22 AM »
Really? I've never observed the earth spinning. I don't know anyone who has seen the earth spin.

When you manage to find some evidence for the spinning of the earth please let us know so we can continue this debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2008, 12:36:21 PM »
A Foucault pendulum's motion is more complex than you reaize.  A Foucault pendulum does not rotate in a full circle each day except at the poles.  At the equator there is no rotation at all.  The angular rotation that a Foucault pendulum will undergo is 360*sin(latitude) degrees a day.  So at 30 degrees latitude it takes to days to fully rotate.  This has been checked by unpowered focault pendulums at various locations.  An unpowred Foucault pendulum will swing for several hours before it stops enabling these measurements.  You can read about it here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucalt_Pendulum

I see Tom keeps saying "prove it".  As has been pointed out when you are making an argument and almost everyone is against you, then you have to prove your side, they do not have to prove their side, that is if you want anything meaningful to come out of the debate.  You can sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears and your eyes tightly closed saying  "I think things fall up, the only reason they fall down is that an invisible blue ogre/fairy pulls them down, prove me wrong".   That is troll behavior at best, this is my first post on this site, I don't know why I finally decided to sign up, but a troll's site might be interesting for a while.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2008, 01:41:15 PM »
Well, you can observe it by watching the motion of the celestial objects.

Really? How does watching the motion of celestial objects tell you that they are still and it's really the earth that's moving?

When you have some coherent evidence get back to me and we can continue this discussion.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2008, 01:41:49 PM »
A Foucault pendulum's motion is more complex than you reaize.  A Foucault pendulum does not rotate in a full circle each day except at the poles.  At the equator there is no rotation at all.  The angular rotation that a Foucault pendulum will undergo is 360*sin(latitude) degrees a day.  So at 30 degrees latitude it takes to days to fully rotate.  This has been checked by unpowered focault pendulums at various locations.  An unpowred Foucault pendulum will swing for several hours before it stops enabling these measurements.  You can read about it here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucalt_Pendulum

I see Tom keeps saying "prove it".  As has been pointed out when you are making an argument and almost everyone is against you, then you have to prove your side, they do not have to prove their side, that is if you want anything meaningful to come out of the debate.  You can sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears and your eyes tightly closed saying  "I think things fall up, the only reason they fall down is that an invisible blue ogre/fairy pulls them down, prove me wrong".   That is troll behavior at best, this is my first post on this site, I don't know why I finally decided to sign up, but a troll's site might be interesting for a while.

Still no proof? Didn't think so.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2008, 02:10:25 PM »
Quote
Can you prove that there is not an invisible teapot in orbit around the Earth, controlling our destiny?

I don't need to disprove the unobservable. I don't need to prove a negative. I don't need to prove that ghosts *don't* exist. I don't need to prove that there *isn't* an invisible teapot in the sky. The burden is always on he who makes the claim to prove the unobservable.

Precisely, Tom, now you're getting it.

I don't need to prove that there is *not* a rotational gravitational force (RGF). It is up to you to prove and experimentally verify that the RGF exists!

Until you can prove that the motion of a pendulum is caused by this unknown force outside of human experience, I see no reason to accept you explanation. On the other hand, rotation (the RET explanation) is an easily observed phenomenon.
Until you prove the RGF, the only explanation we have is that the Earth is rotating underneath the pendulum.

So, where's your proof?

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • +0/-0
  • Ding dong!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2008, 02:34:42 PM »
Quote
Um, nope. The only observable thing is the indeterminacy of the earth's motion at ground level;  As an observer you cannot be sure.   You have a similar problem with the shape of the earth at ground level.  Only the naive would make such a judgement.

As an observer I am as certain that the pendulum moves in circles as I am certain that soccer balls roll down hills. It's a direct observation.

When you have some evidence for the unobserved let me know.


Tom,

1.  Evidence of the unobserved rotating round earth:  Motion of the heavens (clockwise/anti-clockwise), pendulums (clockwise/anti-clockwise), cyclones (clockwise/anti-clockwise).  They can be directly attributed to one cause in a measurable, explainable and predictable way, underpinned by mathematical models

2.  You originality said "The fact that the pendulum spins over a motionless earth is observable. Everyone can see that".  You have therefore concluded ("fact") that the earth is motionless, which is a terrible judgment because your observational test is invalid (i.e. is not falsifiable).  In fact, it is a good example of why it is not a good idea to trust your senses.

When you have some proper evidence for the observed (i.e. your motionless flat earth), let me know.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2008, 02:43:11 PM »
Still no evidence that the unobserved is occurring?

Well, when you can prove the unobservable send me an email and we can continue this thread.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2008, 02:53:10 PM »
When you manage to prove your contentions of the unobserved we can continue our discussion. As it is there is nothing more to discuss.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2008, 03:09:03 PM »
Typical troll behavior, but atypical site founder behavior.  How does FE explain the observed variable speed of a Foucault pendulum?  As I said it has been observed to have an angular speed that is determined by latitude.  That can be explained by RE, but I have not heard one for FE. 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2008, 03:47:17 PM »
Typical troll behavior, but atypical site founder behavior.  How does FE explain the observed variable speed of a Foucault pendulum?  As I said it has been observed to have an angular speed that is determined by latitude.  That can be explained by RE, but I have not heard one for FE. 

The center of rotation is over the North Pole, so of course as you get closer or farther away from the NP, the pendulum will vary in its period.

But let me know when you guys have some actual evidence to bring to the table and can prove that the pendulum is unmoving in the experiment, contrary to what is observed and experienced.

Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2008, 03:54:17 PM »
Typical troll behavior, but atypical site founder behavior.  How does FE explain the observed variable speed of a Foucault pendulum?  As I said it has been observed to have an angular speed that is determined by latitude.  That can be explained by RE, but I have not heard one for FE. 

The center of rotation is over the North Pole, so of course as you get closer or farther away from the NP, the pendulum will vary in its period.

But let me know when you guys have some actual evidence to bring to the table and can prove that the pendulum is unmoving in the experiment, contrary to what is observed and experienced.

Except for one thing Tom, it gets slower as you approach the equator as you get south of the equator it speeds up again.  So that argument failed.  A little math would help, or at least a link to a site with a mathematical explanation.  It works in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres by the equation I supplied a=360sin(l)  where a is the angular velocity and l is the latitude North or South of the equator.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2008, 03:55:32 PM »
Quote
Except for one thing Tom, it gets slower as you approach the equator as you get south of the equator it speeds up again.  So that argument failed.

There's another center of celestial rotation beyond the equator called the South Celestial Pole.

But hey, where's that evidence I asked for?

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #58 on: December 08, 2008, 04:19:10 PM »
Quote
Except for one thing Tom, it gets slower as you approach the equator as you get south of the equator it speeds up again.  So that argument failed.

There's another center of celestial rotation beyond the equator called the South Celestial Pole.

But hey, where's that evidence I asked for?
A pole is not a ring, and a pole under a flat earth cannot cause this effect.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2008, 04:26:44 PM »
Please shoot me a PM when you guys have managed to collect the evidence to prove your contentions.