Foucault's Pendulum

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.  That is evidence right there.  What is important is how you interpret that evidence.  Just as all existing geology supports evolution and not creation, it is easier to fit all observed evidence into a round earth than a flat earth.  Your idea of a southern center of rotation is nonsense.  Since FE does not have a south pole there can be no center of rotation to rotate around. 

So once again the article I linked said how the observed behavior of the pendulums matched the round earth model.  How does the FE model explain that behavior.  Again some real math would be nice, no hand waving about centers of rotation etc..

Tom wants us to travel through the internet into his house and perform an experiment in front of him. Anything you post does not count.

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

Wrong again Tom-boy.  We both have observed the motion of the pendulum.  The rotating earth theory perfectly explains the motion of he pendulum.  I have not seen any FE theory to explain its motion.  I supplied an explanation, where is yours.

Wrong again Tom-boy.  We both have observed the motion of the pendulum.  The rotating earth theory perfectly explains the motion of he pendulum.  I have not seen any FE theory to explain its motion.  I supplied an explanation, where is yours.

Um, the pendulum isn't in motion in the RE theory. I don't know what you're talking about. Your theory states that the pendulum is not in motion. If you're saying that the pendulum is in motion then it contradicts your model. Try to keep up.

Quote from: Subduction Zone on December 08, 2008, 08:49:08 PM

Wrong again Tom-boy.  We both have observed the motion of the pendulum.  The rotating earth theory perfectly explains the motion of he pendulum.  I have not seen any FE theory to explain its motion.  I supplied an explanation, where is yours.

Um, the pendulum isn't in motion in the RE theory. I don't know what you're talking about. Your theory states that the pendulum is not in motion. If you're saying that the pendulum is in motion then it contradicts your model. Try to keep up.

You're not that stupid, you did that on purpose.

No, I seriously think that he is.  One more time, a Foucault pendulum has an apparent motion.  It does not only swing back and forth but it also has an apparent rotation.  This rotation varies in speed dependent on the latitude of the pendulum.  At the poles it would rotate once a day.  At 30 degrees latitude it only makes it half way around in a day.  At the equator it does not rotate at all.  You can read about the round earth model that explains this perfectly here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucalt_Pendulum  Meanwhile to quote Tom "still waiting for your reply".  Where is your mathematical theory that explains this motion.  Or are you going to use one of those famous defenses.  I am going to bet that he goes with, "I don't understand this theory so it must be wrong".  Or he could just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Quote from: Subduction Zone 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. 

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.

Um, Tom. When I was testing this my self (years ago), I got onto a merry go round with a pendulum. No matter how far away form the centre of the merry go round I was, the pendulum appears to rotate once for every revolution of the merry go round. There first hand observation that this claim by you is wrong.

If you doubt me, go down to the local park (if they have a merry go round there - and if not yo the nearest one with a merry go round) and try it yourself (I have even done the same experiment with an old Record - LP - player and a bead on a string, it is that easy to check the correctness of my claim)

So on a disk (flat Earth) the distance from the centre has no effect on the apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum. Fact (and easily testable fact at that).

RET makes very precise predictions as to the rate of apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum which is matched by observation.

As for the claim of a force causing the pendulum to rotate, well if that force can effect normal matter (which he pendulum is made of), then I should feel that same force on me. If you proposition of a celestial force that is strong enough to twist several hundred kilograms of pendulum (like the one focult used), then this force should be felt by something far less than that, say a person standing around.

We should feel pushed to one side. But we don't.

Thus using just our senses, we can disprove the celestial force proposition.

So, if there is no outside force (as we should feel it if there was), and the pendulum rotates, then the only conclusion is that it is not the pendulum that is rotating, but the surface underneath it. As a FE would require the same rotation rate for the pendulum regardless of its location on the Earth, and we have a variable rotation rate which depends on its location on Earth, we can conclude based on logical derivation form the evidence, that the Earth must be round and it is rotating.

Now, so we have a break down of this to better examine the evidence:

1) Force: If there is a force that causes the pendulum to rotate and there is no difference between the matter that makes up the pendulum and us, we should feel the same force.

Also, such a force should also effect non oscillating systems in the same way. Thus  a balance with two unequal masses would experience this force and rotate, even though it is otherwise stationary. As this effect is not seen we can reject any kind of outside force causing the pendulum to rotate (I have done this experiment, and you can easily do it yourself too, so you can verify my evidence and you don't have to reject it as being part of the conspiracy).

Conclusion: the apparent rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the frame the pendulum is attached to.

2) Under a FE, if the disk if the Flat Earth is rotating once every 24 hours, then thus would cause the pendulum to rotate once every 24 hours regardless of the pendulum distance form the hub. This can be confirmed by having a pendulum on any rotating system, say a merry-go-round.

I have done this, and it can easily be verified by you, which eliminates any claim of a conspiracy causing this or any counter claim that it does depend on the distance form the hub.

3) The apparent Rotation rates of Focault Pendulums does depend on the distance from the Pole. This can be verified by looking at different Foucault Pendulums, or by making one yourself and operating it at different locations.

I have not personally seen multiple Focault Pendulums like this, but where I used to work, we had a Focault Pendulum where I could see it for hours on end. I can confirm that this pendulum did not make a full Rotation every 24 hours, unless it accelerated during the 8 hours I was not there (I had several time worked 16 hour days where the next morning I arrived after 8 hours of sleep). Also, by measuring the amount of rotation that did occur in the 16 hours I had observed it, it could not have made a full 360 degree rotation in 24 hours based on the angle turned in that time.

However, I did work with several people that had seen Different Focault Pendulums at different distances form the Poles, and had confirmed that they did indeed appear to rotate at different rates that matched the predicted rate of apparent rotation according to RET.

Now, Tom, I have presented Evidence here for you, so you can no longer say that we have not presented any. If you have a specific problem with a piece of this evidence, then we can discuss that problem and that evidence.

However, if we can agree on this evidence, then under the Zetetic Methodology, you will have to come to the conclusion that there is no Celestial Force (or other force) and that that the rates of rotation are incompatible with a Rotating Flat Earth.

So if this rules out a Stationary Flat Earth and a Rotating Flat Earth, what other kinds of motion on a Flat Earth could cause this effect. From all available evidence there is no currently existing model of a flat Earth that can account for these observations and evidence. However a Rotating Round Earth can account for these observation and evidence.

So as a Zetetic, if there is no problem with the evidence (and if there is the burden of proof is upon you to test it), then the ONLY conclusion is that the Earth is Round and Rotating.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 03:47:17 PM

Quote from: Subduction Zone 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. 

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.

Hello. I think we have a Tom Bishop theory on FE here.

Except he forgot that it rises again in rate as you approach the South Pole, oops, I mean the Ice Wall

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 03:47:17 PM

Quote from: Subduction Zone 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. 

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.

Um, Tom. When I was testing this my self (years ago), I got onto a merry go round with a pendulum. No matter how far away form the centre of the merry go round I was, the pendulum appears to rotate once for every revolution of the merry go round. There first hand observation that this claim by you is wrong.

If you doubt me, go down to the local park (if they have a merry go round there - and if not yo the nearest one with a merry go round) and try it yourself (I have even done the same experiment with an old Record - LP - player and a bead on a string, it is that easy to check the correctness of my claim)

So on a disk (flat Earth) the distance from the centre has no effect on the apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum. Fact (and easily testable fact at that).

RET makes very precise predictions as to the rate of apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum which is matched by observation.

As for the claim of a force causing the pendulum to rotate, well if that force can effect normal matter (which he pendulum is made of), then I should feel that same force on me. If you proposition of a celestial force that is strong enough to twist several hundred kilograms of pendulum (like the one focult used), then this force should be felt by something far less than that, say a person standing around.

We should feel pushed to one side. But we don't.

Thus using just our senses, we can disprove the celestial force proposition.

So, if there is no outside force (as we should feel it if there was), and the pendulum rotates, then the only conclusion is that it is not the pendulum that is rotating, but the surface underneath it. As a FE would require the same rotation rate for the pendulum regardless of its location on the Earth, and we have a variable rotation rate which depends on its location on Earth, we can conclude based on logical derivation form the evidence, that the Earth must be round and it is rotating.

Now, so we have a break down of this to better examine the evidence:

1) Force: If there is a force that causes the pendulum to rotate and there is no difference between the matter that makes up the pendulum and us, we should feel the same force.

Also, such a force should also effect non oscillating systems in the same way. Thus  a balance with two unequal masses would experience this force and rotate, even though it is otherwise stationary. As this effect is not seen we can reject any kind of outside force causing the pendulum to rotate (I have done this experiment, and you can easily do it yourself too, so you can verify my evidence and you don't have to reject it as being part of the conspiracy).

Conclusion: the apparent rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the frame the pendulum is attached to.

2) Under a FE, if the disk if the Flat Earth is rotating once every 24 hours, then thus would cause the pendulum to rotate once every 24 hours regardless of the pendulum distance form the hub. This can be confirmed by having a pendulum on any rotating system, say a merry-go-round.

I have done this, and it can easily be verified by you, which eliminates any claim of a conspiracy causing this or any counter claim that it does depend on the distance form the hub.

3) The apparent Rotation rates of Focault Pendulums does depend on the distance from the Pole. This can be verified by looking at different Foucault Pendulums, or by making one yourself and operating it at different locations.

I have not personally seen multiple Focault Pendulums like this, but where I used to work, we had a Focault Pendulum where I could see it for hours on end. I can confirm that this pendulum did not make a full Rotation every 24 hours, unless it accelerated during the 8 hours I was not there (I had several time worked 16 hour days where the next morning I arrived after 8 hours of sleep). Also, by measuring the amount of rotation that did occur in the 16 hours I had observed it, it could not have made a full 360 degree rotation in 24 hours based on the angle turned in that time.

However, I did work with several people that had seen Different Focault Pendulums at different distances form the Poles, and had confirmed that they did indeed appear to rotate at different rates that matched the predicted rate of apparent rotation according to RET.

Now, Tom, I have presented Evidence here for you, so you can no longer say that we have not presented any. If you have a specific problem with a piece of this evidence, then we can discuss that problem and that evidence.

However, if we can agree on this evidence, then under the Zetetic Methodology, you will have to come to the conclusion that there is no Celestial Force (or other force) and that that the rates of rotation are incompatible with a Rotating Flat Earth.

So if this rules out a Stationary Flat Earth and a Rotating Flat Earth, what other kinds of motion on a Flat Earth could cause this effect. From all available evidence there is no currently existing model of a flat Earth that can account for these observations and evidence. However a Rotating Round Earth can account for these observation and evidence.

So as a Zetetic, if there is no problem with the evidence (and if there is the burden of proof is upon you to test it), then the ONLY conclusion is that the Earth is Round and Rotating.

I'm not sure what you're mumbling about. But when you manage to prove that the Foucault Pendulum is still in the experiment please let us know.

Except he forgot that it rises again in rate as you approach the South Pole, oops, I mean the Ice Wall

There's another center of celestial rotation over Antarctica.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 03:47:17 PM

Quote from: Subduction Zone 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. 

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.

Um, Tom. When I was testing this my self (years ago), I got onto a merry go round with a pendulum. No matter how far away form the centre of the merry go round I was, the pendulum appears to rotate once for every revolution of the merry go round. There first hand observation that this claim by you is wrong.

If you doubt me, go down to the local park (if they have a merry go round there - and if not yo the nearest one with a merry go round) and try it yourself (I have even done the same experiment with an old Record - LP - player and a bead on a string, it is that easy to check the correctness of my claim)

So on a disk (flat Earth) the distance from the centre has no effect on the apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum. Fact (and easily testable fact at that).

RET makes very precise predictions as to the rate of apparent rotation of a swinging pendulum which is matched by observation.

As for the claim of a force causing the pendulum to rotate, well if that force can effect normal matter (which he pendulum is made of), then I should feel that same force on me. If you proposition of a celestial force that is strong enough to twist several hundred kilograms of pendulum (like the one focult used), then this force should be felt by something far less than that, say a person standing around.

We should feel pushed to one side. But we don't.

Thus using just our senses, we can disprove the celestial force proposition.

So, if there is no outside force (as we should feel it if there was), and the pendulum rotates, then the only conclusion is that it is not the pendulum that is rotating, but the surface underneath it. As a FE would require the same rotation rate for the pendulum regardless of its location on the Earth, and we have a variable rotation rate which depends on its location on Earth, we can conclude based on logical derivation form the evidence, that the Earth must be round and it is rotating.

Now, so we have a break down of this to better examine the evidence:

1) Force: If there is a force that causes the pendulum to rotate and there is no difference between the matter that makes up the pendulum and us, we should feel the same force.

Also, such a force should also effect non oscillating systems in the same way. Thus  a balance with two unequal masses would experience this force and rotate, even though it is otherwise stationary. As this effect is not seen we can reject any kind of outside force causing the pendulum to rotate (I have done this experiment, and you can easily do it yourself too, so you can verify my evidence and you don't have to reject it as being part of the conspiracy).

Conclusion: the apparent rotation of the pendulum is caused by the rotation of the frame the pendulum is attached to.

2) Under a FE, if the disk if the Flat Earth is rotating once every 24 hours, then thus would cause the pendulum to rotate once every 24 hours regardless of the pendulum distance form the hub. This can be confirmed by having a pendulum on any rotating system, say a merry-go-round.

I have done this, and it can easily be verified by you, which eliminates any claim of a conspiracy causing this or any counter claim that it does depend on the distance form the hub.

3) The apparent Rotation rates of Focault Pendulums does depend on the distance from the Pole. This can be verified by looking at different Foucault Pendulums, or by making one yourself and operating it at different locations.

I have not personally seen multiple Focault Pendulums like this, but where I used to work, we had a Focault Pendulum where I could see it for hours on end. I can confirm that this pendulum did not make a full Rotation every 24 hours, unless it accelerated during the 8 hours I was not there (I had several time worked 16 hour days where the next morning I arrived after 8 hours of sleep). Also, by measuring the amount of rotation that did occur in the 16 hours I had observed it, it could not have made a full 360 degree rotation in 24 hours based on the angle turned in that time.

However, I did work with several people that had seen Different Focault Pendulums at different distances form the Poles, and had confirmed that they did indeed appear to rotate at different rates that matched the predicted rate of apparent rotation according to RET.

Now, Tom, I have presented Evidence here for you, so you can no longer say that we have not presented any. If you have a specific problem with a piece of this evidence, then we can discuss that problem and that evidence.

However, if we can agree on this evidence, then under the Zetetic Methodology, you will have to come to the conclusion that there is no Celestial Force (or other force) and that that the rates of rotation are incompatible with a Rotating Flat Earth.

So if this rules out a Stationary Flat Earth and a Rotating Flat Earth, what other kinds of motion on a Flat Earth could cause this effect. From all available evidence there is no currently existing model of a flat Earth that can account for these observations and evidence. However a Rotating Round Earth can account for these observation and evidence.

So as a Zetetic, if there is no problem with the evidence (and if there is the burden of proof is upon you to test it), then the ONLY conclusion is that the Earth is Round and Rotating.

Was there anything of interest in this post, Tom?

You mean over the South Pole,  I thought you did not believe in that.  Plus you have not done anything other than doing a little hand waving to describe what causes this to occur.  

Lets look and see how this debate is going so far:

The Round Earth side has supplied a mathematically based theory to describe observed motions of the Foucault pendulum.  It is elegant, simple, and fits observed phenomena without importing some strange unexplainable force that is not observed elsewhere.

The Flat Earth side has not supplied any mathematical models, in fact they did not know how a Foucault pendulum changes its velocity as the latitude changes.   Then when confronted with this some vague hand waving and a mention of celestial rotation is used to try to explain this action.  Also a reading of his earlier posts indicates that he thought it would decrease as you moved south, in fact slowing even more as it passes the equator.  When pointed out that it speeds up again south of the equator he has to call in another center of celestial rotation.  Still no math, just some vague hand waving.  No outside sources to support his argument, just hand waving.  

I am definitely biased for my side of the argument but I think that Tom has earned a definite fail here.

I'm not sure what you're mumbling about.

Just because you don't understand something does not make it wrong. Just because you understand something does not make it right.

I understand Newtonian Gravity. But does that make it right? No.

I don't (completely) understand how a car engine works, does this make all cars cease working? No.

But when you manage to prove that the Foucault Pendulum is still in the experiment please let us know.

If the pendulum is experiencing a Force, so are we. As we are not experiencing such a force, therefore the force does not exist.

Here is an experiment: I balance a pencil on its end. It only takes a very small force to knock it over. If I leave the pencil there for 24 hours, doe sit fall over by itself? No. Therefore the pencil is not experiencing any significant force. At least not a force strong enough to cause a massive weight on a pendulum to rotate. Therefore this experiment shows that there is no force.

Try it yourself.

So I have proven that there is no force.

Quote

Except he forgot that it rises again in rate as you approach the South Pole, oops, I mean the Ice Wall

There's another center of celestial rotation over Antarctica.

How? Really How?

If the Earth is flat and the Sky is a dome that rotates over the North pole, then how can that dome have another centre of rotation.

With any object that is rotated, there exist two hubs, and they are diametrically opposite to each other along the axis of rotation.

Also, this would not effect Pendulums on the opposite side of the Hub to Antarctica, thus there would be locations on the Earth that the Pendulums would not conform to the predictions. As there are no incidences of this and Focault Pendulums exist all over the world (and are easily move there), then this shows there is not data to support this claim. As a Zetetic, Tom, you then have to reject this claim you made.

Aah, sweet vindication.  didn't I say that Tom's defense would be on the order of "I don't understand this so it must be wrong"?  I don't think that your repost with more examples will do any good Edtharan.  He still has not supplied any mathematical model for his hand waving claim.

You mean over the South Pole,  I thought you did not believe in that.  Plus you have not done anything other than doing a little hand waving to describe what causes this to occur.  

Lets look and see how this debate is going so far:

The Round Earth side has supplied a mathematically based theory to describe observed motions of the Foucault pendulum.  It is elegant, simple, and fits observed phenomena without importing some strange unexplainable force that is not observed elsewhere.

The Flat Earth side has not supplied any mathematical models, in fact they did not know how a Foucault pendulum changes its velocity as the latitude changes.   Then when confronted with this some vague hand waving and a mention of celestial rotation is used to try to explain this action.  Also a reading of his earlier posts indicates that he thought it would decrease as you moved south, in fact slowing even more as it passes the equator.  When pointed out that it speeds up again south of the equator he has to call in another center of celestial rotation.  Still no math, just some vague hand waving.  No outside sources to support his argument, just hand waving.  

I am definitely biased for my side of the argument but I think that Tom has earned a definite fail here.

Still not sure what you're mumbling about. But when you manage to prove that the Foucault Pendulum is motionless in the experiment please let us know.

Quote from: Subduction Zone on December 09, 2008, 02:59:55 PM

You mean over the South Pole,  I thought you did not believe in that.  Plus you have not done anything other than doing a little hand waving to describe what causes this to occur.  

Lets look and see how this debate is going so far:

The Round Earth side has supplied a mathematically based theory to describe observed motions of the Foucault pendulum.  It is elegant, simple, and fits observed phenomena without importing some strange unexplainable force that is not observed elsewhere.

The Flat Earth side has not supplied any mathematical models, in fact they did not know how a Foucault pendulum changes its velocity as the latitude changes.   Then when confronted with this some vague hand waving and a mention of celestial rotation is used to try to explain this action.  Also a reading of his earlier posts indicates that he thought it would decrease as you moved south, in fact slowing even more as it passes the equator.  When pointed out that it speeds up again south of the equator he has to call in another center of celestial rotation.  Still no math, just some vague hand waving.  No outside sources to support his argument, just hand waving.  

I am definitely biased for my side of the argument but I think that Tom has earned a definite fail here.

Still not sure what you're mumbling about. But when you manage to prove that the Foucault Pendulum is motionless in the experiment please let us know.

By the theory of relativity, I thought you can't.

By the theory of relativity, I thought you can't.

You're right. It's impossible to tell whether the pendulum is moving, or why.

Looks like it's a draw.

Quote

By the theory of relativity, I thought you can't.

You're right. It's impossible to tell whether the pendulum is moving, or why.

Looks like it's a draw.

...
I-
...
Well, I could have told you that from the beginning.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2008, 02:30:16 PM

Quote

Except he forgot that it rises again in rate as you approach the South Pole, oops, I mean the Ice Wall

There's another center of celestial rotation over Antarctica.

Just to be clear Tom. The earth is flat, the earth doesn't rotate, it just accelerates upwards.

So what is it that makes the pendulum behave so consistantly the way it does, in the in hundreds of museums across the world?

That would be a motor. How would they keep a pendulum going the whole time the museum is open? Ever heard of wind resistance? Friction?

Quote from: goldstein on December 10, 2008, 03:36:33 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2008, 02:30:16 PM

Quote

Except he forgot that it rises again in rate as you approach the South Pole, oops, I mean the Ice Wall

There's another center of celestial rotation over Antarctica.

Just to be clear Tom. The earth is flat, the earth doesn't rotate, it just accelerates upwards.

So what is it that makes the pendulum behave so consistantly the way it does, in the in hundreds of museums across the world?

That would be a motor. How would they keep a pendulum going the whole time the museum is open? Ever heard of wind resistance? Friction?

Thjey don't use a motor, how can you change rotational movment easily into lateral movment (you can, but it is complex, and since ther are simpelr ways to make it why use the more complex one that would break down more often).

They use a toroidal (doughnut shaped) electromagnets (essentially they have a coil of wire and pass an electric current through it with the pendulum cable passed through the centre of the coil) with a magnet attached to the cable. As the toroidal magnet's north is pointing in one direction and the "South" in the other. The magnet in the wire is oriented so as to be attracted to this toroidal electromagnet. Also, as the toroidal electromagnet is.. well a toroid... the magnetic field is the same at any position around it as it is made from a coil of wire, so no spin will come from this.

They switch the electromagnet on as the swinging pendulum just passes the lowest point. The magnet on the cable is attracted to the toroidal magnet, and this give the cable a slight push (well pull to be technically correct) in the same direction it is swinging. They cut the power to the electromagnet before the pendulum reaches the maximum height of the swing.

I know this, because I used to work in a place where they had a Focault's Pendulum and I was there when it was services (several times) and saw how it was constructed (and talked to the guys that serviced it). They are not that difficult to make, but you have to either use the maths to make sure you don't put too much force and cause the pendulum to hit anything (even the toroidal magnet), and give it enough force so as to counteract air resistance.

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

The burden of proof is on both sides here. Everyone should have to prove their claims.

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

You have supplied no evidence for your theoretical "rotational gravitational force".

Looks like RET is winning this one...

Still not sure what you're mumbling about. But when you manage to prove that the Foucault Pendulum is motionless in the experiment please let us know.

It's motionless because it is. We don't observe anything pushing it, why should it move? I'm not sure what you want us to show. An absence of force on the pendulum?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 10, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Again, you show that you either have no understanding of science or don't bother reading links. The Eotvos effect causes the apparent strength of gravity (that is, downwards acceleration) to appear weaker when moving in one direction, and stronger when moving in another.

This effect can be easily predicted from Newtonian mechanics. There is no explanation offered in
Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Also, you still haven't provided any evidence for your "rotational gravitational force".

Quote from: Raist on December 10, 2008, 04:57:08 AM

So what is it that makes the pendulum behave so consistantly the way it does, in the in hundreds of museums across the world?

That would be a motor. How would they keep a pendulum going the whole time the museum is open? Ever heard of wind resistance? Friction?

A motor that forces the pendulum's motion along a set path? Or a motor that just keeps the pendulum freely swinging?


[/quote]

A motor that causes the pendulum to swing freely? Other than the problem with the definitions of all those words, this is highly impossible.

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 10, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Good job not reading the link. The Eotvos effect is a vertical component, similar to the Coriolis effect.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2008, 01:51:58 PM

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 10, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Good job not reading the link. The Eotvos effect is a vertical component, similar to the Coriolis effect.

Dude... the coriolis effect is an East-West effect. Now TB's going to claim we RE'ers don't know our own model.
*facepalms*

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 10, 2008, 03:31:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 10, 2008, 01:51:58 PM

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 10, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Good job not reading the link. The Eotvos effect is a vertical component, similar to the Coriolis effect.

Dude... the coriolis effect is an East-West effect. Now TB's going to claim we RE'ers don't know our own model.
*facepalms*

LOL. You mean a tangent to sphere effect?

Quote from: Raist on December 10, 2008, 02:17:38 PM

A motor that forces the pendulum's motion along a set path? Or a motor that just keeps the pendulum freely swinging?

A motor that causes the pendulum to swing freely? Other than the problem with the definitions of all those words, this is highly impossible.

Nope. It is possible to have a motor that allows a pendulum to swing freely. Not only is it possible, it exists. See Edtharans explanation about how it works.

So I'll ask again. Are you saying that there's a motor that forces the pendulum's motion along a set path? Or a motor that just keeps the pendulum freely swinging (as per Edtharans explanation)?
[/quote]

I'm just asking how a motor could cause something to "swing freely" When the very definition would mean it prevents that.

Quote from: ghazwozza on December 10, 2008, 10:41:00 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2008, 06:27:22 PM

Quote

What evidence are you talking about Tom?  I told you how a Foucault pendulum has been observed to move.

Right. I also observed the Foucault Pendulum to move.

Your job is to prove that the Foucault Pendulum really didn't move, remember?

So far, we have supplied the E?tv?s effect as evidence that the Earth is rotating.

Nope. The Eotvos doesn't do anything to support your model. It would also be easier walking eastwards if the rotating heavens had a slight gravitational field.

Another brilliant FE argument   Here we have anther observation of data from the Earth that is explained very accurately by using math and every day physics in the RE model.  And by waving your hands and not using any math you try to claim that the same thing will be observed in a FE model.  Where is your theory Tom?  Where is your math?  I could use the same specious argument and claim that it was magic.  Or better yet the FSM.  Yes, for every silly, stupid unsupported FE argument I think I will have to take the pastafarian approach (R)amen.