Foucault pendulums

Its irrelevant? What you having people think brass cant be attracted or repelled by a magnet. Brass is a composition alloy. It consists of a mixture of ether copper & zinc or copper & tin...

Wrong again Charles.  Brass is an alloy of 67% copper and 33% zinc.  (Sometimes a bit of lead is added for malleability.)  You're mistaking bronze—an alloy of 88% copper and 12% tin—with brass.  Obviously your understanding of metallurgy (like everything else it seems) is somewhat lacking.

And neither copper or zinc are attracted to or repelled by a magnet.

Incidentally, you still haven't adequately explained how a system of hidden, switched electromagnets could've influenced the path of a ferrous pendulum—with the crude technology available 150 years ago.  Even today, it would take a complicated, computer-aided set of electronically activated relays to achieve this.  It's not just a matter of hiding four permanent magnets in the floor as one of your fellow flat earthers has suggested.  Or is this simply another example of flat earthers having differing views of basic scientific concepts?
 

Well I best hand my metallurgy ticket in & tear up my degree in industrial chemistry.
Back when Foucault was playing with his exaggerated pendulum. Bronze was referred to as a brass.      
Diamagnetic materials: These materials have a weak, negative susceptibility to magnetic fields, thus slightly repelled by a magnetic field. Diamagnetic materials do not retain the magnetic properties in the absence of magnetic field. Such type of materials have all paired electrons, hence there is no permanent net magnetic moment per atom. Most common examples of diamagnetic material are copper, silver, and gold.

ausGeoff is right in every way relevant to the discussion. The argument was that you can't attract (or repel) brass with a magnet in the context of the Foucault pendulum experiment. This is just another derail attempt by jroa obviously. If he wants to argue that diamagnetism is used to alter the movement of the bob, that's fine by me.

Thank you.  Despite yet another attempt by jroa to derail a perfectly logical thread by introducing something totally unrelated to the thrust of the thread, my claim still stands.

And if jroa seriously considers that the levitating frog has anything relevant to do with the Foucault pendulum, then he's misinterpreting (again) the basic science of how the pendulum actually works.  Plus the fact that it has nothing to do with magnets.

Or frogs for that matter LOL.

This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.

I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll.  I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.

They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science.  They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.

And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least.  Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.

They both rely solely on personal opinions.  And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.
 

Well I best hand my metallurgy ticket in & tear up my degree in industrial chemistry.

Hehe.  So now Charles claims to have a degree in industrial chemistry, and a "ticket" in metallurgy (whatever that means in the real world?).  How convenient for this alleged qualification to suddenly appear in a thread such as this, discussing the properties of metals.

I'm guessing the only degree that poor old Charles ever got was out of a cereal box.     

Nobody with a legitimate university science degree would ever, ever accept the flat earth model even for a nanosecond.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 08:57:49 PM

Quote Mining for Dummies tip #37: If you want to get caught quote mining immediately, end your quote with a fucking comma, so everybody with an IQ greater than that of a bowling shoe can see that you've obviously left out information. Information such as:

This is of great importance in accurate applications, such as GPS, but in common usage, where high accuracy is not required, the reference ellipsoid is not usually stated.

Nasty nasty.Did they put your rent up at the trailer park this week.lol,,,,,,,, I Wasn't mining anything. just leading the witness     High accuracy not required. Well id say if your claiming Foucault  pendulum proves the earth to be rotating. You would want it to be highly accurate wouldn't you say ?

So, accuracy in measuring latitude has improved over the years. That's your bright red, enlarged-font smoking gun?

So, accuracy in measuring latitude has improved over the years. That's your bright red, enlarged-font smoking gun?

Poor old Charles apparently doesn't understand that one does not need the highest degree of accuracy to prove the principles indicated by the Foucault pendulum.

In fact a very broad interpretation of the apparent rotation of its swing plane is all that's needed to prove that the floor is rotating under it.  We don't even need to describe this observed rotation in terms of time and/or degrees to formulate the theory, other than the rotation is observed to be regular rather than random.
 

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 02, 2014, 01:06:53 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 02, 2014, 09:27:03 AM

The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28 kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67 meter long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. The original bob used in 1851 at the Panthéon was moved in 1855 to the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A second temporary installation was made for the 50th anniversary in 1902.

So the plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise 11° per hour, making a full circle in 32.7 hours. How did it keep swinging for 32.7 hours ?

Who said it swung for 32.7 consecutive hours? 

I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. The point is, it doesn't need to. You just need to let it go for a known period of time and measure the angle, then do some basic math:

360°/11 °/hr = 32.7 hr.

Making sense now?

That's not how its worded.Its worded to purposely mislead persons in to thinking it rotated all by its self for 32.7 hr. I mean, with a heavy enough weight and long enough wire, making every effort to reduce friction and limit air currents, maybe it can go that long. You have conveniently left out Gravity. Just as most who promote Foucault pendulum do. So your now telling me a 24hr day is really a 32.7 hr day ?

Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?

The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.

But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.

Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?

The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.

But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.

And yet again, Charles is confused (so what's new LOL).  He seems to think that the Foucault pendulum takes exactly 24 hours to complete its "turn" at every location on the earth's surface, rather than just at the North pole or the South pole (where it's actually 23.93 hours).  When a Foucault pendulum is suspended somewhere along the equator, the plane of its swing arc constantly co-rotates with the rotation of the earth.

He's not aware that the angular speed, (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day) is proportional to the sine of the latitude.  Hence the period of rotation at Paris is around 32.7 hours, and not 24 hours.  And at Sydney University, it's around 43 hours.

Quote from: evildylan on June 03, 2014, 08:04:09 AM

Dear god, man, are you seriously this dense?

The 32.7 hour rotation time has already been explained to you, I guess you just glossed over it like any other piece of scientific fact you encounter.

But you keep rehashing your points that have already been addressed. It really helps your credibility.

And yet again, Charles is confused (so what's new LOL).  He seems to think that the Foucault pendulum takes exactly 24 hours to complete its "turn" at every location on the earth's surface, rather than just at the North pole or the South pole (where it's actually 23.93 hours).  When a Foucault pendulum is suspended somewhere along the equator, the plane of its swing arc constantly co-rotates with the rotation of the earth.

He's not aware that the angular speed, (measured in clockwise degrees per sidereal day) is proportional to the sine of the latitude.  Hence the period of rotation at Paris is around 32.7 hours, and not 24 hours.  And at Sydney University, it's around 43 hours.

This has been explained to him in depth, with the exact equations necessary to show where 32.7 hours came from.

Of course, he ignores hard fact while screaming like chicken little about the new 33 hour day. 

Why would incredible accuracy be required? It precesses over 24 hours-ish at the north pole, longer as you go south, doesn't precess at the equator and then goes back up to about every 24 hours in the opposite direction at the south pole. We're not using it to sync GPS signals

Why would incredible accuracy be required?

Charles has rather demanding standards regarding accuracy.  Don't forget, he was able to determine whether or not the surface of water in a kitchen pan curved at a rate of 8" per mile.   

Quote from: QuQu on June 02, 2014, 11:23:02 PM

This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.

I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll.  I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.

They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science.  They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.

And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least.  Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.

They both rely solely on personal opinions.  And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.

I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields. Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application  & I'm afraid allot of the  theory just doesn't stack up. Yet they keep teaching the flawed theory . Why? corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated. That their life is one of trading as a corporate entity & subject to all kinds of contractual obligations. That puts them in a precarious position to except the lies of the market place, its obligations & burden.
Once you step back & view the big picture. You have an opportunity not to fall in to the laid trap of contract obligations & commerce manipulated out come.     
                     

To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.     

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 03, 2014, 07:01:06 AM

Quote from: QuQu on June 02, 2014, 11:23:02 PM

This thing "charles bloomington" is like scepti number 2: extremely ignorant and stupid.

I can only assume—judging by his comments' lack of scientific credibility—that Charles is simply a troll.  I agree that his opinions about science in general, and his knowledge of geophysics closely mirror sceptimatic's and which is why I'm still inclined to see one of them as an alt of the other.

They both show an almost complete lack of understanding of even the basic grade-school tenets of science.  They're both confounded by gravity, mass, kinetics, geophysics, electromagnetism, astronomy, optical theory, fluid mechanics etc.

And they both deny absolutely nearly every scientific theory that's been developed—and proven—by scientists the world over for the past 200 years at least.  Their only problem is that they can't produce any empirical evidence to support these denials.

They both rely solely on personal opinions.  And we all know what they say about opinions LOL.

I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields. Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application  & I'm afraid allot of the  theory just doesn't stack up. Yet they keep teaching the flawed theory . Why? corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated. That their life is one of trading as a corporate entity & subject to all kinds of contractual obligations. That puts them in a precarious position to except the lies of the market place, its obligations & burden.
Once you step back & view the big picture. You have an opportunity not to fall in to the laid trap of contract obligations & commerce manipulated out come.     
                   

Yet the theory of the round earth does stack up without calling people stupid. Personal abuse shows no ability to discuss.

Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob  passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.                         

To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.     

If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.

Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob  passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.

My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 09:36:45 PM

To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.     

If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 11:12:24 PM

Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob  passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.

My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something!

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 01:21:40 AM

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something!

Try setting  up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result 

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 01:49:47 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 01:21:40 AM

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something!

Try setting  up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result 

Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 02:18:37 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 01:49:47 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 04, 2014, 01:21:40 AM

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Do the maths yourself (properly, I mean, not just making ignorant guesses), you might learn something!

Try setting  up two pendulums with bobs of differing weight & simultaneously set them in motion.
Then assess the result 

Their period of swing would be different, but if all else were equal, they would precess at the same rate. What's your point?

t = 2 pi sqr (l/g).  Weight does not affect period.

I actually have numinous qualification in a broad range of fields.

One of your numerous qualifications is obviously not connected with the English language LOL.

Which has giving me the opportunity to apply the theory in to practical application...

I'm guessing one of your characteristics is delusions of grandeur.  People who repeatedly brag about their alleged academic credentials usually don't possess them—other than in their own minds.

Corporate dominance of market place. The stupid people are the persons that have know idea they have been incorporated.

Ahhh... the good-ol'-never-fails "conspiracy theory" rears its ugly head again.  Well done Charles!

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Once again I have to note your use of crude insults in order to "reinforce" your claims about the pendulum.  Well done;  ad hominem attacks are invariably most helpful to someone's argument.  Not.

It's more than obvious that, despite your claims to the contrary Charles, you have very little idea of the mechanics and/or geophysical theorems behind the action of the Foucault pendulum.  The arc the pendulum describes is absolutely coplanar;  no deviation from a single plane.  This is because there are zero externally applied horizontal forces acting perpendicular to the plane of the bob's swing arc.

The only external forces acting on the bob are parallel to its swing arc.  One is gravity (pulling down), and the other is the suspension string (pulling up).  There are also two types of applied energy at work here;  one is kinetic energy, and the other is potential energy.  Whilst in motion, the bob possesses kinetic energy.  When the bob reaches its point of maximum swing, and is stationary, it then possesses potential energy, which is then transformed—by gravity—into kinetic energy.  In a vacuum, this conversion would be 100% effective, and the pendulum would—theoretically—swing for an infinite period.  In the real world of course, the frictional forces of the air gradually depletes this energy, and the pendulum stops.

My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

This is exactly my line of thinking. Numinous degrees? So you're a spiritual man? You've got degrees in religion?

He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.

He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.

Yep; Charles is one of my fellow countrymen.  And surprisingly—although we all live hanging upside down—we've learned to speak normal English.  Well, some of us have LOL.
 

Quote from: evildylan on June 04, 2014, 07:26:25 AM

He's from Australia, I believe, so his native language is likely English.

Yep; Charles is one of my fellow countrymen.  And surprisingly—although we all live hanging upside down—we've learned to speak normal English.  Well, some of us have LOL.

I didn't intend to belittle Australians in general, or their use of the English language. I just didn't want to assume that one who lives in the region speaks perfect English, I didn't know if Aboriginal language was still a primary language for some.

Iirc, Charles is a native Glaswegian living in Australia. So any failure to learn English was probably Scotland's fault rather than Australia's.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 12:48:58 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 09:36:45 PM

To date you haven't tended the method used to prolong the pendulums swing & seem to be avoiding its forth coming. a slight nudge doesn't cut it. Method used please.     

If you could be bothered to comprehend any of what has been posted prior, or to go and look it up yourself, you would know that the pendulums which have a mechanism to sustain their swing use a simple electromagnet at the pivot, which gives a small vertical tug each time the pendulum reaches the lowest point of its swing. This is sufficient to maintain the pendulums swing, and does not influence it's precession.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 03, 2014, 11:12:24 PM

Gravity accelerates falling objects at a constant rate (on Earth, it's 9.8 m/s/s) lets leave out the air resistance & concentrate on the energy required to stop a pendulum if we wanted to stop it at its lowest point of fall. Then the energy required to stop it at its full swing of travel & reverse that travel so it travels back in the opposite direction. Now lets apply inertia, support base & configuration of bob mass, direction of momentum to fall of 9.8 m/s/s. conclusion. Inertia is not constant during a full swing.Once the bob  passes the lowest gravitational fall point, there is undue force. Conclusion. pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory.

My conclusion after reading that is that you have no idea why the pendulums rotate. Also, either English is not your native language, or you are nowhere near as smart as you pretend to be.

So, when are you going to replicate the 160 year old tech that could cause a lead bob to precess as it swings? Given that it must have existed in Foucault's time, it should be easy enough to put together, and cost next to nothing too.

Do the maths & stop bitching on like an F-in sook  A pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight line trajectory. So its going to slightly progress rotational every back & forth swing.     

Technically the trajectory of a pendulum is an ellipse. However a straight line is also a special case of an ellipse. In practise, Foucault pendulums would probably never swing perfectly true, but everything is done to minimize the sideways motion, so for all practical purposes, it moves in a straight line. Keep in mind, it's the major axis of the ellipse that precesses, so even if there is some sideways motion, it still works.

EDIT: I suppose if you want to get even more technical, the path is never straight even if you eliminate the sideways motion. Since the Earth does rotate by some small amount during every swing, the path will always be slightly curved. So charles is right in a way, but not for the reason he thinks.

Indeed, neat little animation of both those effects, from wiki, the blue ellipse showing the "pure" path of the bob (an ellipse) and the green line (the ground trace of the bob) showing the precession during the swing (exaggerated):