aeroplanes

It's compensating for the rotational pull of the stars, not the rotation of the earth.

Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?

Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?

Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows the direction and rate of the stars.

Quote from: ghazwozza on March 13, 2009, 11:44:19 AM

Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?

Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows he direction and rate of the stars.

Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.

I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?

Quote from: ghazwozza on March 13, 2009, 11:44:19 AM

Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?

Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows he direction and rate of the stars.

Nope. Patently false. You've once again confused correlation with cause. Furthermore your observation works only on the NP.

Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.

I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?

At the equator the stars overhead at the edges of the Northern celestial system are making such broad strokes across the sky that they appear to be traveling in straight lines.

Quote

Not so. At the equator a Foucalt's pendulum does not rotate at all, but the stars rotate once in 24 hours. In fact, rotation as a function of latitude follows RE predictions exactly.

I have yet to see a rigorous scientific derivation of this magical FE effect. Could you provide one?

At the equator the stars overhead at the edges of the Northern celestial system are making such broad strokes across the sky that they appear to be traveling in straight lines.

So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?

So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?

Have you tried it?

Quote

So what? Why is the pendulum's motion pulled along that straight line? I can start the pendulum to swing from NE to SW. Why wouldn't the effect you cite occur at the Equator?

Have you tried it?

Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?

Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?

If you haven't tried it, or know of any references from anyone who has, I'm not sure how you can say what happens when you set up the pendulum in the way you described.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 06:02:54 PM

Why do you ask? Shouldn't you have verified your claim BEFORE posting it?

If you haven't tried it, or know of any references from anyone who has, I'm not sure how you can say what happens when you set up the pendulum in the way you described.

I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.

Quote from: ghazwozza on March 13, 2009, 11:44:19 AM

Have you got any evidence for this magical "rotational pull"?

Yes. Set a Foucault Pendulum in motion and you will find that it follows the direction and rate of the stars.

Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.

For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.

How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?

Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.

Nope.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 06:17:55 PM

I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.

How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?

I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 06:17:55 PM

I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.

How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?

Fallacy.

It doesn't matter where Foucault Pendulums are. They all work as defined, and are underpinned by a rotating spherical earth.

I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.

If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.

I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 07:24:25 AM

I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.

If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.

I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 04:41:29 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 07:24:25 AM

I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.

If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.

I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction.

All I want to know is, do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?

Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 04:41:29 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 07:24:25 AM

I don't know. Why do you care? RET still does a better job of predicting their behavior than FET.

If you will recall from page one you were arguing what a Foucault Pendulum does at the equator.

I'm not sure how you can say what goes on with the Foucault Pendulum at the equator if there aren't any there.

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction.

All I want to know is, do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

Then the answer 'yes' should sate your curiosity.

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 10:38:31 PM

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?

Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?

GOOGLE is your friend.

GOOGLE is your friend.

No google is TBs enemy. Its a tool of the conspiracy after all.

The lovely warm feeling from a 1st edition ENaG is all he needs. Awww.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 14, 2009, 11:07:06 PM

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 14, 2009, 10:38:31 PM

Do keep up. No one said that there aren't any FPs at the Equator. RE's prediction of the FP's behavior at any latitude is well documented. Yes, the experiment has been performed at the Equator to confirm FP's prediction. No, I don't know whether there's an FP running right now at the Equator swinging north to south. Again, why do you care?

Where are the documents and studies you're referencing?

GOOGLE is your friend.

So no studies then?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 13, 2009, 06:17:55 PM

I do know of many museums and scientific efforts that have shown that FPs act exactly as RET predicts. Clearly RET is the better model, again.

How many museums with Foucault Pendulums are on the equator?

Quote

Tom, I suggest you do your research a bit more thoroughly. The Foucault Pandulum is subject to the inertia of its mass. It's own inertia is what makes it look like its moving round in circles as inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion. To put it simply, The pendulum wants to keep going backwards and forwards in a straight line. but as the Earth is spinning the Earth is trying to push the pendulum off its original course. The pendulum resists this change and continues along the same line. This makes it look like its moved off its original line and adopted a new line, but in reality the reference point that we percieve has moved in the opposite direction.

Nope.

If your answer to doing research is "nope" then you are too rigid for proper debate. You refuse to do research even though the appropriate links were handed to you.

If your answer to doing research is "nope" then you are too rigid for proper debate. You refuse to do research even though the appropriate links were handed to you.

What links? I keep asking for the studies you keep referencing, but I keep getting none.

For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

Please read all of my posts before responding

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 AM

For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

Please read all of my posts before responding

Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 15, 2009, 10:08:09 AM

Quote from: RAFboiMF on March 14, 2009, 06:13:30 AM

For further clarification please visit http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

Please read all of my posts before responding

Where in that link does it prove that the movement is caused by the rotation of the earth rather than the overhead rotation of the stars?

3 paragraphs down. Under the heading "Does The Earth Move For You Too?"
The observation of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that one cannot feel the rotation of the earth is correct. However, the rate of rotation required for the heliocentric picture (0.0007 revolutions per minute) is so slow that one would not expect to feel it. How can one measure such a slow rotation? In 1851, Jean-Bernard-Leon Foucault suspended a 67 metre, 28 kilogram pendulum from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. The plane of its motion, with respect to the earth, rotated slowly clockwise. This motion is most easily explained if the earth turns.

1st paragraph under "Why Does The Orbit Of Foucault's Pendulum Precess?"
Suppose* someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc. To someone directly above the Pole and not turning with the earth, the pendulum would seem to trace repeatedly an arc in the same plane while the earth rotated slowly clockwise below it. To someone on the earth, however, the earth seems to be stationary, and the plane of the pendulum's motion would seem to move slowly anticlockwise, viewed from above. We say that the pendulum's motion precesses. The earth turns on its axis every 23.93 hours, so to the terrestrial observer at the pole, the plane of the pendulum seems to precess through 360 degrees in that time.

For any more...read the f*****g page!

3 paragraphs down. Under the heading "Does The Earth Move For You Too?"
The observation of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that one cannot feel the rotation of the earth is correct. However, the rate of rotation required for the heliocentric picture (0.0007 revolutions per minute) is so slow that one would not expect to feel it. How can one measure such a slow rotation? In 1851, Jean-Bernard-Leon Foucault suspended a 67 metre, 28 kilogram pendulum from the dome of the Pantheon in Paris. The plane of its motion, with respect to the earth, rotated slowly clockwise. This motion is most easily explained if the earth turns.

1st paragraph under "Why Does The Orbit Of Foucault's Pendulum Precess?"
Suppose* someone put a pendulum above the South Pole and sets it swinging in a simple arc. To someone directly above the Pole and not turning with the earth, the pendulum would seem to trace repeatedly an arc in the same plane while the earth rotated slowly clockwise below it. To someone on the earth, however, the earth seems to be stationary, and the plane of the pendulum's motion would seem to move slowly anticlockwise, viewed from above. We say that the pendulum's motion precesses. The earth turns on its axis every 23.93 hours, so to the terrestrial observer at the pole, the plane of the pendulum seems to precess through 360 degrees in that time.

For any more...read the f*****g page!

Where's the proof that it's the earth is moving and not the pendulum as directly observed?

OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.

OMG Tom! How can you not understand inertia? The earths movement is what causes the percieved movement in the pendulum.

Where's the evidence for that?