Foucault's Pendulum

  • 212 Replies
  • 54537 Views
?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #120 on: December 12, 2008, 02:04:57 PM »
Does this all really matter? Public display pieces can use motors or adjust the position all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that a freely swinging pendulum will rotate with respect to the surface of the planet, if it's not at or near the equator.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #121 on: December 13, 2008, 03:12:50 PM »
Does this all really matter? Public display pieces can use motors or adjust the position all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that a freely swinging pendulum will rotate with respect to the surface of the planet, if it's not at or near the equator.

Raist is trying to imply that a motor affects the motion of the pendulum. The magnetics only replace the loss due to friction, they do not prevent it from moving in a certain direction. Hence, absent from any man made influence, FE'ers need to come up with a reason why the pendulum behaves the way it does.

So far... nada.

It does effect the motion. Without the motor it would move differently. Other than that I've said nothing. You have projected motive onto me and continued a senseless debate. I never said the fact that they weren't free swinging mattered in any way. You guys having to be right argued it is in fact free swinging.

I believe this goes to show you, RE'ers will argue anything no matter how untrue it is to further their agenda.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #122 on: December 13, 2008, 04:07:43 PM »
Raist is trying to imply that a motor affects the motion of the pendulum. The magnetics only replace the loss due to friction, they do not prevent it from moving in a certain direction. Hence, absent from any man made influence, FE'ers need to come up with a reason why the pendulum behaves the way it does.

So far... nada.

It does effect the motion. Without the motor it would move differently. Other than that I've said nothing. You have projected motive onto me and continued a senseless debate. I never said the fact that they weren't free swinging mattered in any way. You guys having to be right argued it is in fact free swinging.

I believe this goes to show you, RE'ers will argue anything no matter how untrue it is to further their agenda.

Wait -- so all along you agreed that the pendulum was evidence for a rotating Earth? Am I right?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #123 on: December 13, 2008, 04:28:26 PM »
Raist is trying to imply that a motor affects the motion of the pendulum. The magnetics only replace the loss due to friction, they do not prevent it from moving in a certain direction. Hence, absent from any man made influence, FE'ers need to come up with a reason why the pendulum behaves the way it does.

So far... nada.

It does effect the motion. Without the motor it would move differently. Other than that I've said nothing. You have projected motive onto me and continued a senseless debate. I never said the fact that they weren't free swinging mattered in any way. You guys having to be right argued it is in fact free swinging.

I believe this goes to show you, RE'ers will argue anything no matter how untrue it is to further their agenda.

Wait -- so all along you agreed that the pendulum was evidence for a rotating Earth? Am I right?

No.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #124 on: December 13, 2008, 05:03:03 PM »
Wait -- so all along you agreed that the pendulum was evidence for a rotating Earth? Am I right?

The rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating pendulum.

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #125 on: December 13, 2008, 05:15:12 PM »
Raist is trying to imply that a motor affects the motion of the pendulum. The magnetics only replace the loss due to friction, they do not prevent it from moving in a certain direction. Hence, absent from any man made influence, FE'ers need to come up with a reason why the pendulum behaves the way it does.

So far... nada.

It does effect the motion. Without the motor it would move differently. Other than that I've said nothing. You have projected motive onto me and continued a senseless debate. I never said the fact that they weren't free swinging mattered in any way. You guys having to be right argued it is in fact free swinging.

I believe this goes to show you, RE'ers will argue anything no matter how untrue it is to further their agenda.

Wait -- so all along you agreed that the pendulum was evidence for a rotating Earth? Am I right?

No.
Ok, I'll agree that the Pendulum is effected by the magnet, in so much as it can be used to counter act air resistance. However, will you agree that although the system effect there magnet, the system does not influence any rotational motion of the pendulum?

If the system does not effect the rotational motion of the pendulum, then we can rule out that the pendulum is rotated by the system and we need find another reason that the pendulum rotates. FET says that the Earth turns, not the pendulum. So there is at least one explanation for the rotation of the pendulum, but it is RET not FET. Does FET have a reason for the pendulum to rotate (in light of the fact that although the system does influence the pendulum's amplitude of motion, it does not influence its rotation motions)?

Wait -- so all along you agreed that the pendulum was evidence for a rotating Earth? Am I right?

The rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating pendulum.
It is also evidence for a rotating Earth. If you make the assumption that the Earth is not rotating, then sure you are correct, but if you make the assumption that the Earth is rotating, then you are not correct.

But can we eliminate any assumptions.

Well, An object in Motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.

If the Pendulum is rotating, and it start off not rotating, then we can say that it had to have been acted upon by an outside force.

If there is an outside force that is causing the pendulum to rotate, then we should be able to detect it by other means.

Other objects balanced carefully should also feel this force, even if they are not rotating. Therefore if we balance a pencil on its end, then if there is a force acting on the pendulum it will also act on the pencil and knock it over. If the Pencil does not fall over, then we can eliminate an outside force.

If there is no outside force acting on the Pendulum, then the laws of Inertia state that the Pendulum can not be moving. If the pendulum appears to rotate, and we can eliminate an outside force causing it to rotate, then we can be certain, as long as the conservation of momentum hods, that the pendulum is not moving, we are.

I have done this pencil experiment and so far it has remained standing for 2 days (48 hours) and hasn't fallen. Well as far as I am concerned, that eliminates any outside force that is influencing the pendulum, and therefore we are the ones actually rotating.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #126 on: December 13, 2008, 05:32:06 PM »
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth. It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around. It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #127 on: December 13, 2008, 05:33:28 PM »
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth   [asssumption]   . It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around    [assumption]    . It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #128 on: December 13, 2008, 05:47:54 PM »
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth   [asssumption]   . It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around    [assumption]    . It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.
As I showed, it is not an assumption that a rotating pendulum is indicative of a rotating Earth. I gave a direct experiment where by you could test for outside forces that couldn't be acting on the pendulum. As the experiment had a Null result (ie no external forces), then the only conclusions are:

1) The force mysteriously can distinguish between Pendulums and Pencils

2) The Pendulum itself contains the force (but then you have to explain why pencils don't even though they can be used in pendulum).

3) The Earth is rotating

As both 1 and 2 require assumptions, we can eliminate them. Thus the Earth is rotating as proven by direct experimentation and observation.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #129 on: December 13, 2008, 05:49:45 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #130 on: December 13, 2008, 06:18:09 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #131 on: December 13, 2008, 06:18:53 PM »
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth   [asssumption]   . It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around    [assumption]    . It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.
As I showed, it is not an assumption that a rotating pendulum is indicative of a rotating Earth. I gave a direct experiment where by you could test for outside forces that couldn't be acting on the pendulum. As the experiment had a Null result (ie no external forces), then the only conclusions are:

1) The force mysteriously can distinguish between Pendulums and Pencils

2) The Pendulum itself contains the force (but then you have to explain why pencils don't even though they can be used in pendulum).

3) The Earth is rotating

As both 1 and 2 require assumptions, we can eliminate them. Thus the Earth is rotating as proven by direct experimentation and observation.

Yes it is. What you observed is that the pendulum is rotating. The only explanation is some sort of force is acting on it. So you assume the only force acting on it could be its own inertia.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #132 on: December 13, 2008, 06:19:45 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Not if you start eliminating from the bottom of the list...

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #133 on: December 13, 2008, 06:31:50 PM »
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth   [asssumption]   . It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around    [assumption]    . It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.
As I showed, it is not an assumption that a rotating pendulum is indicative of a rotating Earth. I gave a direct experiment where by you could test for outside forces that couldn't be acting on the pendulum. As the experiment had a Null result (ie no external forces), then the only conclusions are:

1) The force mysteriously can distinguish between Pendulums and Pencils

2) The Pendulum itself contains the force (but then you have to explain why pencils don't even though they can be used in pendulum).

3) The Earth is rotating

As both 1 and 2 require assumptions, we can eliminate them. Thus the Earth is rotating as proven by direct experimentation and observation.

Yes it is. What you observed is that the pendulum is rotating. The only explanation is some sort of force is acting on it. So you assume the only force acting on it could be its own inertia.
But through other experiments I was not able to detect any force that could cause the pendulum to rotate.

Also, using Force = Mass * Acceleration, when adjusted to give the Acceleration: Acceleration = Force / Mass

If there is an outside force causing the Pendulum to rotate, then it would cause pendulums of different mass to rotate at different speeds. As the observations show that regardless of the mass of the pendulum, the pendulums all rotate at the same speed that only depends on their location on the Earth.

So unless this force if variable, and can somehow determine the mass of the pendulum before it interacts with it, then there can not be a force acting on them.

So yes, only by looking directly at the pendulum and ignoring all other evidence, can you come to the conclusion that a Rotating Earth is an assumption. Only when you examine all the evidence can we definitely exclude all other scenarios (baring ones that absolutely no evidence for them), and have a Moving Earht as the only possible explanation.

I though Zetetics were required to examine all the evidence.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #134 on: December 13, 2008, 10:32:17 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Not if you start eliminating from the bottom of the list...
If you do that, you must conclude that their is an unknown, unobserved, and undetectable force that distinguishes between pendulums and other objects, causing pendulums to swing as if the earth is rotating.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #135 on: December 13, 2008, 10:40:08 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Not if you start eliminating from the bottom of the list...
If you do that, you must conclude that their is an unknown, unobserved, and undetectable force that distinguishes between pendulums and other objects, causing pendulums to swing as if the earth is rotating.
Sounds like RE gravitation. Anyways, that is all you can know without assuming something.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #136 on: December 13, 2008, 10:43:15 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Not if you start eliminating from the bottom of the list...
If you do that, you must conclude that their is an unknown, unobserved, and undetectable force that distinguishes between pendulums and other objects, causing pendulums to swing as if the earth is rotating.

That is correct.  It distinguishes between a pendulum and other objects for the same reason the rotation of the earth supposedly distinguishes between a pendulum and other objects.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #137 on: December 13, 2008, 11:07:09 PM »
How does the third not require assumption? ???
Because you eliminate all other possibilities...
Not if you start eliminating from the bottom of the list...
If you do that, you must conclude that their is an unknown, unobserved, and undetectable force that distinguishes between pendulums and other objects, causing pendulums to swing as if the earth is rotating.

That is correct.  It distinguishes between a pendulum and other objects for the same reason the rotation of the earth supposedly distinguishes between a pendulum and other objects.
The rotation of the earth does not distinguish between a pendulum and other objects. The pendulum is suspended from a point which it is free to rotate around; if the point is moved, it is unaffected by rotation, because a point has no geometry. The pencil is on the ground and moves with the earth, which is not rapidly accelerating or decelerating.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #138 on: December 14, 2008, 02:03:29 AM »
Quote
A rotating pendulum is evidence for a rotating Earth   [asssumption]   . It is also evidence for a force acting on the pendulum. It's evidence for strings having the mysterious property of changing direction of swing, and evidence of little invisible men pushing things around    [assumption]    . It could be considered evidence for a lot of things.

The problem is that using it as FE model evidence means you need another force with no known cause and unusual behaviour on top of everything else the model already has.

Why do you say that a rotating planet requires an assumption, but a rotating pendulum does not?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #139 on: December 14, 2008, 02:04:38 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that a rotating planet requires an assumption, but a rotating pendulum does not?

A rotating pendulum is a direct observation everyone experiences. A rotating planet is not.

?

ghazwozza

  • 942
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #140 on: December 14, 2008, 04:32:32 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that a rotating planet requires an assumption, but a rotating pendulum does not?

A rotating pendulum is a direct observation everyone experiences. A rotating planet is not.

Tom, please, if you're not going to bring any proper scientific debate, just subjective opinion, then please stop clogging up the serious discussion boards with your rubbish. If you have some evidence that the Earth is stationary, then by all means share it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #141 on: December 14, 2008, 05:03:19 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that a rotating planet requires an assumption, but a rotating pendulum does not?

A rotating pendulum is a direct observation everyone experiences. A rotating planet is not.

Tom, please, if you're not going to bring any proper scientific debate, just subjective opinion, then please stop clogging up the serious discussion boards with your rubbish. If you have some evidence that the Earth is stationary, then by all means share it.

I'm not sure why whould assume something which goes against observation and experience.

What evidence do you have for the unobservable and unexperienced?

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #142 on: December 14, 2008, 05:23:39 AM »
Quote
A rotating pendulum is a direct observation everyone experiences. A rotating planet is not.

But you don't see the pendulum rotate. You see it swinging in one direction, and later on you see it swinging in a different direction. The actual rotation is far too small for a person to observe. Why do you assume there is a rotation if you can't see it?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #143 on: December 14, 2008, 07:28:21 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that a rotating planet requires an assumption, but a rotating pendulum does not?

A rotating pendulum is a direct observation everyone experiences. A rotating planet is not.

Tom, please, if you're not going to bring any proper scientific debate, just subjective opinion, then please stop clogging up the serious discussion boards with your rubbish. If you have some evidence that the Earth is stationary, then by all means share it.

He was simply saying that a rotating pendulum is not proof of a rotating Earth. It may suggest it, but it doesn't prove it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #144 on: December 14, 2008, 07:35:21 AM »
Quote
But you don't see the pendulum rotate. You see it swinging in one direction, and later on you see it swinging in a different direction. The actual rotation is far too small for a person to observe. Why do you assume there is a rotation if you can't see it?

People have observed the rotation of the pendulum. There are big museum exhibits where people watch that thing for hours.

Quote
We seem to be approaching an appeal to divine intervention here. The motion of the pendulum is unrelated to the earth, yet is bound by its distance from the centre of the "disc".

The North Star is over that center point. And as everyone knows, the stars rotate with a faster velocity when they're closer to the North Star than when they're farther away. Sound familiar?

Quote
This force acts only on pendulums and not other materials.

Have you put other materials into a swinging free fall to see if they rotate as well?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 07:39:12 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

The Yellow

  • 78
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth evidence never falls flat.
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #145 on: December 14, 2008, 07:42:23 AM »
Quote
The North Star is over that center point. And as everyone knows, the stars rotate with a faster velocity when they're closer to the North Star than when they're farther away. Sound familiar?
AHA!
The southern stars ALSO rotate quicker closer to the southern celestial pole. Why would this happen on a flat Earth.
Rowbotham was not right in all of his explanations. It doesn't help he wrote in victorian english, either.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #146 on: December 14, 2008, 07:47:26 AM »
AHA!
The southern stars ALSO rotate quicker closer to the southern celestial pole. Why would this happen on a flat Earth.

There are at least two point above the earth which the stars and celestial bodies rotate. The pendulum also rotates faster as it approaches the South Celestial Pole, by the way.

?

The Yellow

  • 78
  • +0/-0
  • Round Earth evidence never falls flat.
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #147 on: December 14, 2008, 07:49:51 AM »
Quote
Posted on: Today at 07:47:26 AMPosted by: Tom Bishop 
Insert Quote
Quote from: The Yellow on Today at 07:42:23 AM
AHA!
The southern stars ALSO rotate quicker closer to the southern celestial pole. Why would this happen on a flat Earth.


OMG I just made Tom admit to a Round Earth through proxy!
Why would this acceleration happen if it wern't because of the rotation of a sphere?
Rowbotham was not right in all of his explanations. It doesn't help he wrote in victorian english, either.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #148 on: December 14, 2008, 07:52:06 AM »
Why would what happen? The stars rotate as if they were solid disks rubbing up against each other. That's whats observed.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Foucault's Pendulum
« Reply #149 on: December 14, 2008, 07:54:23 AM »
My Lazy Susan rotates...therefore, the earth is a sphere that rotates?