Foucault pendulums

  • 826 Replies
  • 67585 Views
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #210 on: May 27, 2014, 11:23:08 PM »
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.
It's the use by various posters of the word 'your' that suggests they are the same person.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #211 on: May 28, 2014, 01:01:30 AM »
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.
I can assure you I'm not sceptimatic & I'm more then happy to reply to the mod of this forum via my  email mail address.     
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #212 on: May 28, 2014, 01:15:52 AM »
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.
 


I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area.  Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth.  I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information.  I hope this helps settle this matter. 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #213 on: May 28, 2014, 01:18:58 AM »
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.
It's the use by various posters of the word 'your' that suggests they are the same person.

It is a running joke, too.  For many years, people post things like, "Your a retart" or "Your a moran".  Please don't get your panties in a wad over it. 

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #214 on: May 28, 2014, 01:24:59 AM »
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.
 


I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area.  Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth.  I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information.  I hope this helps settle this matter.
Just to help the Mod out I'm a Glaswegian who  live in country Victoria  Australia.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 01:27:07 AM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #215 on: May 28, 2014, 01:37:31 AM »
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.
 


I can only confirm that sceptimatic has only used one IP address recently and that charles bloomington has used many, but they are all from the same general area.  Neither of them have IPs from the same part of the Earth.  I can't go into more detail without giving away their personal information.  I hope this helps settle this matter.
Just to help the Mod out I'm a Glaswegian who  live in country Victoria  Australia.

I can confirm that charles' IP addresses all come from Australia, while sceptimatic's do not. 

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #216 on: May 28, 2014, 07:05:28 AM »
They must be long lost brothers, because they both act exactly the same way.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #217 on: May 28, 2014, 07:08:52 AM »
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.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.

The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D

Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #218 on: May 28, 2014, 07:11:53 AM »
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.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.

The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D

I also don't understand why, according to him, mass has a shape?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #219 on: May 28, 2014, 07:33:37 AM »
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.
I am genuinely confused by what charles is saying, as I'm sure everyone is. If anyone isn't please chime in.

The centre of mass of an object is, by definition, the point where the mass is symmetrical on either side of any plane you draw through it. If there were more mass on the right hand side of that point, then the point wouldn't be there! It would need to be over to the right :D
You forgot the axis. So dont get to existed  rubbing your genie bottle just yet. ::)     
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #220 on: May 28, 2014, 07:54:17 AM »
The axis also passes through the center of gravity, what is your point?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #221 on: May 28, 2014, 08:15:08 AM »
The earth's axis of rotation has to pass through its centre of mass. There's nowhere else that it could pass through.


No matter where I attach the thread, exactly half the mug will be on one side and half on the other. The centre of gravity is directly below the string in each case. If I could be bothered to set up a more orthographic view and take a load more photos from a fixed position, it would become pretty clear where exactly the centre of mass is. But that isn't especially interesting.

The fact that my mug isn't a perfect sphere doesn't stop it having a centre of mass, nor does it stop it rotating quite happily about any axis which passes through that centre of mass. Now, if you tried to rotate it about an axis which didn't pass through the centre, you'd get a wobble. Like a misaligned wheel. But the earth isn't skewered on a cosmic axle, it's freely rotating in space. So it can only rotate about its centre of mass.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #222 on: May 28, 2014, 09:39:15 AM »
The earth's axis of rotation has to pass through its centre of mass. There's nowhere else that it could pass through.

No matter where I attach the thread, exactly half the mug will be on one side and half on the other. The centre of gravity is directly below the string in each case. If I could be bothered to set up a more orthographic view and take a load more photos from a fixed position, it would become pretty clear where exactly the centre of mass is. But that isn't especially interesting.

The fact that my mug isn't a perfect sphere doesn't stop it having a centre of mass, nor does it stop it rotating quite happily about any axis which passes through that centre of mass. Now, if you tried to rotate it about an axis which didn't pass through the centre, you'd get a wobble. Like a misaligned wheel. But the earth isn't skewered on a cosmic axle, it's freely rotating in space. So it can only rotate about its centre of mass.

Your explanation is almost correct in every sense, but there are a few details that have to be discussed now, before an FE'er with no understanding of Physics starts to make a fuss.

First, your plomb does not exactly point to the center of gravity of Earth. The difference is minuscule, but measurable with the best equipment available. For example, if you measure the angle between the line of the plumb and a true vertical (using stars as your point of reference) while you are on the side of a heavy, rocky mountain, you will find an angle different from zero. Your plumb will show the approximate location of the CoG but not the exact place. In fact, for some time we had more than one estimate of the height of Mount Everest because the triangulation from different places gave different results.

Also, when you spin a non-homogeneous object from its center of gravity there may be a wobble. Take, for example, a car wheel with a dented rim. You measure the center of gravity and it is pretty much in the center of the rim. But you spin the wheel at some 100 km/h and the whole car shakes. By putting weights on the rim the dynamic balance is restored even though the static balance is slightly affected.

All of the above has affected Earth's spinning and makes it a very complex movement if we look at tens of thousands of years at a time. But because most of our planet is liquid magma, these effects are small. On the other hand, the slight imbalance of the Moon, and its lack of liquid magma, have contributed to its synchronization with Earth, making one side of the Moon face Earth all the time.

Now, back to the thread, nothing of the above affects the simple, straightforward experiment of the Foucault's Pendulum. The effect of these minuscule differences is orders of magnitude less than the typical one degree or so that Foucault's Pendulum moves.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #223 on: May 28, 2014, 10:17:00 AM »
You're a braver man than I <hat-tip> We were still struggling to agree that "things which aren't spheres" have centres of mass at all.

I think.

It's hard to tell. But the last thing I wanted to do was run before we could walk. Or, I guess, crawl before we could lie down unsupervised without suffocating ourselves.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #224 on: May 28, 2014, 10:22:14 AM »
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #225 on: May 28, 2014, 11:01:41 AM »
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
Has anyone put up a video of their own non-assisted pendulum as of yet?
Make one, demonstrate it simply, and I will be more willing to answer any questions you may have about it.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #226 on: May 28, 2014, 11:13:57 AM »
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
They are all hoaxes is the standard line.  They haven't really got anywhere else to go with it. 

Apart from Charles' mad as a brain damaged squirrel incoherence, I suppose.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #227 on: May 28, 2014, 11:26:31 AM »
They aren't entirely trivial things to construct. I'd like to try making one but I can't think of a suitable place I've got access to. However, if every single one that already exists and every single account of how those behave isn't enough, what good will adding one more to the pile do?

On reflection - Dr Vauxhall linked to a 2005 blog where he created a working one in a stairwell. Will that do?
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #228 on: May 28, 2014, 11:42:19 AM »
It would be nice if an FET expert could chime in on this, someone who could actually be coherent, and explain how the Foucault pendulum works on a flat Earth. I think it says something about FET that this thread is dominated by someone like Charles and treated like a biohazard by the rest of the believers, because things like Foucault's pendulum are really FE kryptonite.
Has anyone put up a video of their own non-assisted pendulum as of yet?
Make one, demonstrate it simply, and I will be more willing to answer any questions you may have about it.

There are plenty of examples you can find on the web of homemade Foucault pendulums I'm sure. Why would you trust anyone on this site any more than you'd trust the ones you can find online? So either look at those examples and explain them, or make your own if you're not satisfied with someone else's setup.

I'll start you off: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #229 on: May 28, 2014, 11:50:04 AM »
Take it from me. Foucault Pendulums are hard to make. They require a lot of space, time, and equipment to be done correctly. That's why REers asking us to "make our own" are just being unrealistic and obviously don't understand the huge time investment (and monetary investment) that goes into making one of these fraud devices.

Oh, did I mention the motor to get these things working like they should according to RE'ers costs up to $100 dollars?  ::)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 11:58:26 AM by Vauxhall »
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #230 on: May 28, 2014, 12:01:06 PM »
Take it from me. Foucault Pendulums are hard to make. They require a lot of space, time, and equipment to be done correctly. That's why REers asking us to "make our own" are just being unrealistic and obviously don't understand the huge time investment (and monetary investment) that goes into making one of these fraud devices.

No one is asking you to make a fraudulent device, what are you thinking?  ??? Of course, making a legitimate one that gives clear results is no small task either.

So, since they are so difficult and time consuming to make, then you can't reasonably expect REers to make one either I suppose?

Therefore all you can really do is argue from your own personal experience that you were thrown out of a facility that had one, before you could view it, so that you don't actually have any first hand experience of a Foucault pendulum, and thus you can't really say for sure that they are actually fraudulent devices in the first place.

On the other hand, several people here say they have witnessed one personally without any obstruction, so they do have first hand experience that you lack. My advice would be to NOT get thrown out of a facility before you are able to determine the fraud, so that you have some actual observations to argue from.  :D
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #231 on: May 28, 2014, 12:03:28 PM »
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 12:06:01 PM by Goddamnit, Clown »
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #232 on: May 28, 2014, 12:12:45 PM »
Shmeggley, I don't even know where to being with you most of the time. It seems like you misunderstand on purpose.

Are you now claiming that people can see through walls?

Just because some people have observed foucault pendulums "working properly" doesn't prove anything. Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.

Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.

No, I am not sticking to that. You need to learn how to recognize satire. I have made my own foucault pendulum, but the one I posted was not mine. It was a similar one in design, but (once again) it was not mine. I posted it in response to unreasonable requests by several RE'ers to simply "make my own", even though you know how damn difficult it is to make one.
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #233 on: May 28, 2014, 12:16:56 PM »
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.

Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #234 on: May 28, 2014, 12:18:57 PM »
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.

Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?

Despite whether or not you want to believe me, that pendulum was controlled by a motor (which was not pictured). So there's really not much to discuss, unless you get your kicks from discussing made-up science?
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #235 on: May 28, 2014, 12:20:27 PM »
Shmeggley, I don't even know where to being with you most of the time. It seems like you misunderstand on purpose.

Are you now claiming that people can see through walls?

Just because some people have observed foucault pendulums "working properly" doesn't prove anything. Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.

Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.

No, I am not sticking to that. You need to learn how to recognize satire. I have made my own foucault pendulum, but the one I posted was not mine. It was a similar one in design, but (once again) it was not mine. I posted it in response to unreasonable requests by several RE'ers to simply "make my own", even though you know how damn difficult it is to make one.

So you did actually build one, OK, but you didn't make a visual record of it. Disappointing, but I guess it happens. I mean, it's not like a regular person just has access to a camera at any time or anything. But I digress.

So what were the results exactly? Did you write anything down we could talk about? How would you explain the differences in your results from (the real) Dr. Abganusi?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #236 on: May 28, 2014, 12:23:53 PM »
Without the motor the pendulum displayed a slight wobble from the aetheric whirlpool effect, but it was negligible. There's not much to discuss when the original experiment (the pendulum itself) barely moves without a motor.

It's all an elaborate fraud done with motors. Is there something else you wanted to discuss?
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #237 on: May 28, 2014, 12:29:24 PM »
Well Vaux, you managed to make yours just fine without a motor last time, and it worked as predicted for a rotating earth. You are sticking to that, right? Being Dr Ikemefuna Agbanusi, PhD maths, creator of a round-earth-confirming Foucault pendulum in 2005?

In any case, the time investment is not huge it's just not negligible and if every other example on earth is dismissed as fraud, why go to any trouble to have your work thrown on the same pile.

Oh, Vauxhall came clean about that lie, as soon as he was cornered. However, he did seem to think that Dr. Agbanusi's work was relevant enough to steal. So how about it Vauxhall, why don't we discuss the results of this and other similar experiments posted online, and you can explain to us how these results are explained by FET?

Despite whether or not you want to believe me, that pendulum was controlled by a motor (which was not pictured). So there's really not much to discuss, unless you get your kicks from discussing made-up science?

There are pictures from the top to the bottom. I don't see any motor either. Where would the motor have to be in the setup to give the results he got?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #238 on: May 28, 2014, 12:30:54 PM »
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.
Read the FAQS.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #239 on: May 28, 2014, 12:34:18 PM »
.... Most foucault pendulum's have a string or wire that holds the pendulum itself, this wire goes up into the ceiling (usually anchored on the roof of the building). On the roof near the anchor is where you'd find the motor controlling the pendulum. No one is going to see the motor unless they climb up onto the roof of the building the pendulum is housed in.


OK, but in this setup, the ball doesn't actually swing directly from the anchor point. They used a webbing to create a pivot point lower down to reduce friction, so how is a motor at the anchor point supposed to cause the precession observed?

If you could actually explain in detail how the fake Foucault pendulum works, that would be helpful. If you can't, you may as well just keep hand waving and say it's done with smoke and mirrors, or magnets, or a hidden hamster wheel in the ball or something. Unless you can give an account of how you get the results obtained through trickery, you are basically just standing on the sidelines yelling "FAKE!!!11".
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 12:41:36 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?