Foucault pendulums

Again, the pendulum is going to move towards the centre of mass, wherever that is. The earth being a sphere or not doesn't change that.

And as for the pivot point you keep going on about, of course a pendulum has a pivot point. How else could it swing?

Well we seem to be getting there very slowly. Now lets not swing your pendulum & call it a plum bob. Now explain to me how your managing  to achieve your perpendicular in relationship to your hanging apparatus,the hanging piont ,your circumference & your centre of mass.   

t = 2pi sqt (l/g)

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 11:15:03 AM

Again, the pendulum is going to move towards the centre of mass, wherever that is. The earth being a sphere or not doesn't change that.

And as for the pivot point you keep going on about, of course a pendulum has a pivot point. How else could it swing?

Well we seem to be getting there very slowly. Now lets not swing your pendulum & call it a plum bob. Now explain to me how your managing  to achieve your perpendicular in relationship to your hanging apparatus,the hanging piont ,your circumference & your centre of mass.   

Hang the plum bob from the ceiling. Use a big square to get the floor of the apparatus perpendicular to the string. That's about it really. It's irrelevant whether the plumb bob or pendulum is perpendicular to the ceiling, or the ground, or whatever. The anchor point just needs to be stationary with respect to the floor. The nature of the plumb bob is that it points directly to the centre of mass, so that's taken care of. Now what?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

OK...

The period of a pendulum is determined by its length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

OK...

The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?

How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors  from your equations.           

The factors aren't being ignored! The 1000mph rotation you're so bothered by is what causes the swing of the pendulum to rotate

It couldn't be further from being ignored, it's what is being measured!

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 12:31:45 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

OK...

The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?

How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors  from your equations.         

The Earth has a center of mass, whether it's shaped like a sphere, egg, football, pumpkin, or whatever. Your plumb bob points toward that center of mass. The pendulum swings along a plane passing through that center of mass. Perhaps you can explain how shape changes that?

For info on calculating a center of mass, try this http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 05:55:34 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 12:31:45 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 25, 2014, 12:15:56 PM

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

OK...

The period of a pendulum is determined by it's length and acceleration due to gravity. That's it. It's mass, and the precise shape of the Earth, are not factors. What are you trying to say with this video exactly?

How can you say the shape of earth & its centre of mass does not matter? What sort of DODO mathematics & physics is that ? if you negate that aspect . That leaves you proving nothing but your wish full thinking. This whole garbage is based on the premise that the earth is a balanced rotation that it travels 1039mph at the equator. you cant negate that from your equation, then claim its of no consequent the maths is sound. Because its not . Provide your mathematics that allows you to get away with those negated factors  from your equations.         

The Earth has a center of mass, whether it's shaped like a sphere, egg, football, pumpkin, or whatever. Your plumb bob points toward that center of mass. The pendulum swings along a plane passing through that center of mass. Perhaps you can explain how shape changes that?

For info on calculating a center of mass, try this http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/COMRuinaPratap.pdf

What about the mine shaft experiments that prove that either the center of mass is not inside the Earth, or that plumb bobs do not point to the center of mass?  I posted these experiments a week or two ago and can post them again if you need me to. 

Why don't you tell me what about them?

Why don't you tell me what about them?

Over the course of several experiments designed to prove that plumb bobs point to the center of Earth's center of mass, massive weights were hung in very deep mine shafts.  The hypothesis was that the wires that the weights were suspended from would be a little closer together at the bottom compared to the top.  However, in virtually every case, the opposite was true.  The weights did not come closer together at the bottom of the mines.  The wires were accurately measured to be farther apart at the bottom. 

Yay, more experiments from the early early 1900s being used at FE hypothesis evidence. Of course, ignoring all modern science in the process.

I also find it laughable that you are using an experiment that hypothesizes that the earth is HOLLOW and not flat to make your point.

ARe you a hollow earth believer or flat earth believe? If flat, stick to flat earth "evidence" for sake of continuity and for the sake of your reputation.

I am a Truth Earther.  What exactly is your problem with these experiments?

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 25, 2014, 06:50:40 PM

Why don't you tell me what about them?

Over the course of several experiments designed to prove that plumb bobs point to the center of Earth's center of mass, massive weights were hung in very deep mine shafts.  The hypothesis was that the wires that the weights were suspended from would be a little closer together at the bottom compared to the top.  However, in virtually every case, the opposite was true.  The weights did not come closer together at the bottom of the mines.  The wires were accurately measured to be farther apart at the bottom.

Sure they did.

Are you calling me a liar? 

Are you calling me a liar?

Funny that you immediately assume that. I wonder why?

Of course there are several other possibilities. You could be absolutely right, but it's difficult to tell without knowing any details about the experiment.

Could be there were errors in the experiment. Has it been duplicated?

Could be you are honestly mistaken about the results.

But you jump straight to indignation. Huh.

Well, you can read about it for yourself.  If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us. 

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm

Well, you can read about it for yourself.  If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us. 

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm

Oh, so you are convinced now that the Earth is round, but hollow?

Are you also a scientific satirist jroa? Do you get a kick out of taking the piss and pulling everyone's leg?

From the article you posted:

[1] Editor's note: The last half of this article convinces me that Ray Palmer was a master of parody and scientific satire. He cleverly plays on common misunderstandings of gravity and cosmology to suggest absurd conclusions. And he does it in such a deviously clever way that to the typical non-scientist it all sounds quite plausible.

In the same issue of this issue of Flying Saucers (a magazine edited and published by Palmer) are other articles debunking the idea of the hollow earth, with concocted names of authors, all written by Palmer himself.

Several people who knew Palmer have told me that in their opinion Palmer was having fun "pulling everyone's leg". —Donald Simanek.

Quote from: jroa on May 25, 2014, 11:25:20 PM

Well, you can read about it for yourself.  If you spot any errors in the experiment, please be sure to share them with the rest of us. 

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/palmer.htm

Oh, so you are convinced now that the Earth is round, but hollow?

Are you also a scientific satirist jroa? Do you get a kick out of taking the piss and pulling everyone's leg?

From the article you posted:

Quote

[1] Editor's note: The last half of this article convinces me that Ray Palmer was a master of parody and scientific satire. He cleverly plays on common misunderstandings of gravity and cosmology to suggest absurd conclusions. And he does it in such a deviously clever way that to the typical non-scientist it all sounds quite plausible.

In the same issue of this issue of Flying Saucers (a magazine edited and published by Palmer) are other articles debunking the idea of the hollow earth, with concocted names of authors, all written by Palmer himself.

Several people who knew Palmer have told me that in their opinion Palmer was having fun "pulling everyone's leg". —Donald Simanek.

Maybe you missed the part where he said "last half".  In other words, from the point where the author says he will begin to give his own commentary. 

Also https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

When was it last repeated to prove it?

What about the mine shaft experiments that prove that either the center of mass is not inside the Earth, or that plumb bobs do not point to the center of mass?  I posted these experiments a week or two ago and can post them again if you need me to.

Take us through the data.

We all expect jroa to repeat the experiment.

Take us through the data.

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

We all expect jroa to repeat the experiment.

OK.  I will start digging immediately. 

Also https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

When was it last repeated to prove it?

Interesting. This is why it's so important to fact check. So it would appear jroa made the same mistake others have, in using a misleading article about an experiment that may not really have taken place, by an author known for embellishment and sensationalism.

As I said, even if it were all true, which is highly doubtful, and Palmer's conclusions are correct, which is even more doubtful, the implication is that the Earth is a hollow ball, not a flat disc. Is this what you believe now jroa?

Finally, all this is really a distraction from the OP, since it doesn't explain in any way the observed motions of the Foucault pendulum. Whether there is a convergence or divergence of multiple plumb lines, especially when the effect is so small, really makes no difference.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on May 26, 2014, 02:23:39 AM

Take us through the data.

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

Cool

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

and then

So it seems there's no mystery in this whole affair, and no real challenge to conventional geodesy and gravity theory. The Koreshans were citing misleading newspaper accounts and selecting data to suit their philosophical agenda, without understanding the methodology of the experiments or recognizing the centripetal effect due to earth's rotation (which they didn't accept anyway).

The bolded part sounds familiar for some reason....

There are so many problems with taking the Tamarack mine experiment as anything out of the ordinary. Of course, we went through them last time it came up, but to summarise, the experimenter at the time said that the lines were expected to be nearly parallel, and in most cases they were measured as converging slightly from parallel. In only one case were they measured to diverge. This was thought at the time to be due to air currents and a further experiment corroborated that. The newspapers and some others at the time misinterpreted (or simply lied about) the results and McNair, the experimenter went to some lengths to counteract those reports.

Apparently, he wasn't entirely successful. As, here we are a hundred years later talking about one anomalous result in one experiment conducted one time by a man who

was satisfied that the cause was upward and downward air currents in the vertical mine shaft, determined by his careful experiments in which the currents were blocked (as much as possible), and the plumb lines relocated relative to the air flow.

Interestingly, (and on topic!) the behaviour of a Foucault pendulum would still be observed on a hollow earth if it were rotating. The pendulum would just precess the opposite direction in each hemisphere (assuming the same rotation of the earth).

I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without  experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.

Because you only mention the same handful of century old unrepeated experiments, and you wilfully misinterpret the results even of those?

Just a guess.

Did you read my post before yours? There are good reasons that nobody is taking this interpretation of that experiment seriously.

I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without  experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.

What claims without data?  Measured distances, pictures, angles of satellite dishes, people in an industry, documentation, experience.

I don't understand why everyone will jump an FEer when we mention experiments but REers are scott free to do and say whatever the hell they want without  experimental data to back up their claims. Its such a "I'm right you're wrong" group think mentality, it sickens me.

Because the experiments being referenced by the FE hypothesizers are over 100 years old, have never been duplicated or verified, are not published, and blatantly untrue.

On the other hand, the RE experiments are current, verified, duplicated, published, and observed.

That's why they are right, and you are wrong.