Foucault pendulums

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!

Is that the same rotation they slow by half & have the moon travelling in the opposite direction to what direction  its viewed travelling . So they can say their conjured up figures work out.

He's talking about the 1 rotation per day of the Earth, which works out to about 1000mph at the equator.

What rotation are you talking about that's slowed by half? Nobody controls the Earth's rotation, so you must be talking about something else.

The only relevant rotation to the Foucault pendulum is the Earth's rotation, so please try to keep up.

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY  

Quote from: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

Plum bobs will align with more mass. Doesn't have to be the center of mass of the entire object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment

Quote from: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society. Where all the evidence we hash out that they CAN'T explain is automatically null.

Quote from: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?

A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY

Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:22:30 PM

A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY

Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?

No need to be a grammar nazi. I believe he meant to split that sentence to further reinforce the tone of what he's trying to say. It's all about context, not letters, man.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:19:03 PM

Quote from: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?

Well why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning the impossibility with  the claim made, that Foucault pendulum proves the earth is rotating. You need a Spherical centre of mass. nothing less will do. Got it !!!

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:30:19 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:22:30 PM

A plumb bob proves. The Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY

Wow, a story that consists of two incomplete sentences. When do you publish?

No need to be a grammar nazi. I believe he meant to split that sentence to further reinforce the tone of what he's trying to say. It's all about context, not letters, man.

I admit, this was low hanging fruit and I went for it. But it's not like I picked on the one little mistake out of many sensible posts with decent grammar. No, his typically horrible grammar and spelling is nothing compared to how incoherent, ignorant and plain insulting his posts are. He's been going on for page after page trying to make some kind of argument that I don't think anyone has a clear idea of. So this isn't an attempt to bully poor CB, it's just that I've pretty much given up on him ever making any sense or coming up with anything remotely intelligent to say and now I'm just having a dig at him. I wouldn't do it if he showed the least bit of humility or willingness to understand anything anyone has said to him. On the contrary, he's been unabashedly arrogant and belligerent towards anyone who's asked him a moderately difficult question or disagreed with him in any way.

So let's give him the benefit of the doubt here. Fixing up his post a bit, we get this:

A plumb bob proves the Foucault pendulum to be a fraud. END OF STORY

OK, so it's another baseless assertion backed up by absolutely nothing, capped off by a stubborn, arrogant unwillingness to even discuss the matter further. Hats off to you CB, you total fucking genius. You've solved the case. Bravo.

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 26, 2014, 07:28:29 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 26, 2014, 07:19:03 PM

Quote from: evildylan on May 26, 2014, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 26, 2014, 12:01:13 PM

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.

I tell you what's blatantly untrue. Telling people the cause of a pendulum rotating is due to the earth rotating & travelling  1039 mph at the imaginary equator. I will tell you what else is untrue, that a plum bob aligns with a spherical  centre of mass When that doesn't exist in relationship with earth , other then in the minds of deluded people.       

There is no "spherical centre of mass". A centre is a single point. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from the centre. A centre of mass exists for any object regardless of its shape. Why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning what words actually mean?

Well why do you continue to waste everyone's time instead of learning the impossibility with  the claim made, that Foucault pendulum proves the earth is rotating. You need a Spherical centre of mass. nothing less will do. Got it !!!

There's nothing for me to "get". You've explained nothing. All you've done is repeat the same nonsense phrase "spherical centre of mass" after I explained why it made no sense the first 20 times you said it.

Once again, I have no problem with the Earth not being a perfect sphere. I thought you were trying to say it's flat, but you've given no explanation as to how the Foucault pendulum is supposed to work on a flat, non-rotating Earth. All you've done is repeatedly deny that it can work on a slightly non-spherical Earth without giving any good reasons why.

Your own premise proves its wrong, so why are you getting angry with me? when it was you who swallowed their bullshit. Hell they probable gave you a nice printed degree for that gullibility !!!.
The measure of some ones intelligence, has never been spelling & grammar. I've meet some very stupid persons in my time that had majored in  English.     Gabh mo leisgeul! a bheil Gŕidhlig agat/agaibh?    

Charles obviously has very little understanding of what the term "centre of gravity" (CoG)means.  He seems to think (erroneously) that an oblate spheroid—such as the earth—doesn't have a mathematically-defined centre of gravity that never moves from its location.  And that it hasn't moved for 4.54 billion years.  He also can't comprehend that a banana or a pear or a grapefruit each have a fixed CoG.  In fact the grapefruit's CoG is located exactly where the earth's CoG is located with regard to their masses and geometry.

And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.  Which is why our theoretical plumb bobs in a deep mine shaft will actually converge, and not diverge.  It also explains why the parallel planes of each opposing wall on a skyscraper will not pass through the earth's CoG.  Although some flat earthers have suggested that a skyscraper "tapers" from top to bottom LOL.

The other point (that's already been raised) is that flat earthers inevitably rely on relatively primitive experiments carried out under dubious control conditions—and often by academically unqualified people—well over a century ago.  They stubbornly refuse to accept that science has moved forwards at an ever-increasing rate since the 19th century.

Why is it for example that they're unable to give us any scientific data supporting their flat earth theory that's been published from 2000 to 2014.  Surely their must be some new developments, or more sophisticated experiments, or further astronomical observations made that reinforce their theory?  There have been numerous enhancements made to "round earth" science during the past 14 years.

So... why haven't similar enhancements been made to the flat earth theories?
 

 

Your own premise proves its wrong, so why are you getting angry with me? when it was you who swallowed their bullshit. Hell they probable gave you a nice printed degree for that gullibility !!!.
The measure of some ones intelligence, has never been spelling & grammar. I've meet some very stupid persons in my time that had majored in  English.     Gabh mo leisgeul! a bheil Gŕidhlig agat/agaibh?    

I thought I made it clear that I could really care less about how badly you spell and write, it's your total ignorance combined with arrogance that's annoying.

I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.

It just doesn't work that way Charles.  You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.

Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.

On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.
 

Charles obviously has very little understanding of what the term "centre of gravity" (CoG)means.  He seems to think (erroneously) that an oblate spheroid—such as the earth—doesn't have a mathematically-defined centre of gravity that never moves from its location.  And that it hasn't moved for 4.54 billion years.  He also can't comprehend that a banana or a pear or a grapefruit each have a fixed CoG.  In fact the grapefruit's CoG is located exactly where the earth's CoG is located with regard to their masses and geometry.

And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.  Which is why our theoretical plumb bobs in a deep mine shaft will actually converge, and not diverge.  It also explains why the parallel planes of each opposing wall on a skyscraper will not pass through the earth's CoG.  Although some flat earthers have suggested that a skyscraper "tapers" from top to bottom LOL.

The other point (that's already been raised) is that flat earthers inevitably rely on relatively primitive experiments carried out under dubious control conditions—and often by academically unqualified people—well over a century ago.  They stubbornly refuse to accept that science has moved forwards at an ever-increasing rate since the 19th century.

Why is it for example that they're unable to give us any scientific data supporting their flat earth theory that's been published from 2000 to 2014.  Surely their must be some new developments, or more sophisticated experiments, or further astronomical observations made that reinforce their theory?  There have been numerous enhancements made to "round earth" science during the past 14 years.

So... why haven't similar enhancements been made to the flat earth theories?

rely on relatively primitive experiments.lol  Its better then relying on your hypothesised verbal excrement.
I have put forward why its a fraud. So rather then insulting me by claiming I haven't a clue what I'm talking about. kindly provide a diagram demonstrating you claims.   
     

I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.

It just doesn't work that way Charles.  You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.

Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.

On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.

Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp  measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool         

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.

You mean like how you jump on other people for what you're complaining about?
Get real.

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 12:52:39 AM

I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.

It just doesn't work that way Charles.  You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.

Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.

On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.

Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp  measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool         

How the expansion of railway lines is dealt with is well known, what's your issue?  Nothing to do with the topic, you could be banned.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 27, 2014, 04:28:25 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 12:52:39 AM

I also have to laugh at Charles' notion that if you use a huge, bolded font, that it makes what you're posting more meaningful.

It just doesn't work that way Charles.  You could post your pseudo-scientific notions in a 72-point, triple bolded, underlined, red, italicised font and it wouldn't make an iota of difference to their content.

Although I know one of my 8-year-old grand-nephews does that sort of thing in his "Kindergarten Playtime" kid's forum at school LOL.

On serious, mature forums it's considered bad netiquette, and normally not tolerated by moderators.

Laugh away all ya like mate. looking forward to your diagram. Oh & any chance of you stating the metal composition of that railway line you laid. You know the one you claim doesn't expand but they stamp  measure each length encase it ever has to be replaced. what a tool         

How the expansion of railway lines is dealt with is well known, what's your issue?  Nothing to do with the topic, you could be banned.

Banned for what asking could he provide the metal composition he didn't on anther thread. well I hope I'm not Banned before Geoff posts his diagram. Other wise there wont be anyone on this forum  to kick your trolling ass. 

You haven't kicked anyone's ass. You are actually making yourself look worse with your huge bolded words, foot stomping, cussing and yelling.

Take a xanax and breathe, kiddo.

As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works.  I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
 



As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet.  If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.
 
 
 
EDIT:  This forum doesn't like nested coding grrr...
 

 

As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works.  I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
 
 

As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet.  If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.

http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm
The apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet
Geoff wrote in an earlier post And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG
Draw a diagram  proving  your point. 

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 27, 2014, 07:08:04 AM

As Charles seems incapable of comprehending any sort of scientific text without an accompanying diagram, I thought this might be useful in order for him to get an idea of how gravity works.  I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but I'm guessing that there's bound to be something that he claims is unclear and/or unproven.
 
 

As the blue arrow indicates, the apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet.  If apple tress could survive on the equator or at the poles, the diagram would be identical.

http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/gravity/facts.cfm
The apple is travelling towards the centre of gravity of the planet
Geoff wrote in an earlier post And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG
Draw a diagram  proving  your point.

Why should he draw anything? When you were asked to do the exact same thing you predictably dodged.

Keep trolling though. 

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 23, 2014, 05:57:11 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 23, 2014, 03:31:53 AM

I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing  & post something a grade 1 primary school  kid could get their head around & save  you the embarrassment.

So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory?  One that a first-grader could apparently produce?

I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch.  You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory.  Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.

Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you  figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand,  that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical  centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.

What a convenient way of absolving yourself of providing any sort of explanation for the drivel you spew. How so typically convenient.

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 24, 2014, 07:51:22 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on May 23, 2014, 05:57:11 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on May 23, 2014, 03:31:53 AM

I thought it would be easier for you to simply sketch it on a piece of paper. Then drawing  & post something a grade 1 primary school  kid could get their head around & save  you the embarrassment.

So presumably you're unable to produce a sketch yourself Charles in order to explain your theory?  One that a first-grader could apparently produce?

I couldn't comprehend your verbal explanation, which is why I asked you for a sketch.  You then asked me to produce a sketch illustrating your geometric theory.  Yeah... that sure makes a lot of sense LOL.

Well id like to, but that leaves my PC wide open to photo sharing sites having assess to my files. Not a smart thing to do.
What cant you  figure out Geoff ? Its not that hard to understand,  that a pendulum wont swing true unless the earth is a perfect!!! spherical  centre of mass.Its a bullshitting claim it will.

What a convenient way of absolving yourself of providing any sort of explanation for the drivel you spew. How so typically convenient.

Would you like a tissue for your teary. What do they say?Oh  thats right  slowly slowly you catch the monkeys.
Geoff wrote And if we draw a line extending through the earth's surface and ending at its CoG, any tangent drawn at that intersection on the surface will always be perpendicular to the CoG.
So if we draw a line through to the COG & continued the trajectory through  to the other side of the earth. will it be a two half even symmetrical out come for the shape of earths mass. NO !!! So where does that leave your pendulum? Up shyt creek with out a paddle along with  your claimed earth curvature.       

You haven't kicked anyone's ass. You are actually making yourself look worse with your huge bolded words, foot stomping, cussing and yelling.

Take a xanax and breathe, kiddo.

Well I'm Kicking it now.

This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.

They both behave like petulant children.

PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.

This guy has to be an alt for Sceptimatic.

They both behave like petulant children.

PS: Thanks so much for coloring your text, it wasn't easy enough to read before.

I'm also starting to think charles bloomington may be another one of sceptimatic's alts.  Could you please confirm or deny this jroa?  Thanks.