Foucault pendulums

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):

Cool, an animated picture.. 

Yeah, it's weak tea compared to that huge working pendulum you set up, but it illustrates the two effects that were mentioned, nicely.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 04, 2014, 10:00:50 AM

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):

Cool, an animated picture.. 

You claimed your ms paint picture was proof.

Trolling really has gone way down on this site.

Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes?  We all make them.  In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.

If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying.  I know you understand what he is saying. 

Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes?  We all make them.  In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.

If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying.  I know you understand what he is saying.

When bragging about your accolades, be grammatically correct while doing it. If you want credibility, it starts with proper communication skills.

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

Myself and my Engineer friends used to joke that Engineers are great at putting stuff together, as long as it is not a coherent sentence.  Don't judge people on their grammar.  Judge them on the content of what they are saying. 

I think people make every effort to understand him, but it really isn't always clear what the content of what he's saying is.

As for your friends, there's an adage: A scientist must write. Your ideas and results are no use to the world if they're stuck in your head.

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

Myself and my Engineer friends used to joke that Engineers are great at putting stuff together, as long as it is not a coherent sentence.  Don't judge people on their grammar.  Judge them on the content of what they are saying.

Engineers are known for bad grammar.

About 80% of my company holds a PhD, grammar is very important to them, as it should be to anyone making a point while maintaining credibility.

I'm sorry you don't feel this way,  but that's how it is in the real world where people are on the cutting edge of technology and trying to get published and grants for research.

What jroa is trying to say is that this is not an essay or a college paper. This is a forum. 100% accuracy in syntax and grammar is not always nessecary to get the point across, you all know this. Stop playing dumb.

If you are expecting every post to be some sort of long beautifully written essay then you're going to be disappointed.

Many things contribute to mistakes in spelling and grammar. I have dyslexia myself, so I can relate. Regardless, it has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials. Get off your high horse.

Most of your theories and arguments are ridiculous enough as it is that two or three words is enough to refute them anyways.

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 03:54:04 AM

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.

Quite right, my bad... 

Why are you people picking on charles for a few grammar mistakes?  We all make them.  In fact, I have heard it said that very intelligent people make more grammar mistakes, on average, than most people.

If you are going to attack him, do it on what he is saying.  I know you understand what he is saying.

It gets frustrating trying to figure out what the hell he is saying only to discover it's yet another terrible argument. Or the same terrible argument. When he's unintentionally funny it's hard not to say something. I mean it's getting so I suspect his moron shtick is just an act. Notice how sceptimatic has been quiet lately whil charles is partying on, hmmm?

  Judge them on the content of what they are saying.

We do that too.

If you are expecting every post to be some sort of long beautifully written essay then you're going to be disappointed.

I don't think coherence is too much to ask for.

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

Quote from: inquisitive on June 04, 2014, 04:25:09 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on June 04, 2014, 03:54:04 AM

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.

Quite right, my bad... 

The swing period wouldn't be different, but the total swing time would be, and that's what is important here. A total swing time long enough to see a change in the rotation.

Quote from: jroa on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really  know  In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.

I'll have to tell my friends that they're writing their papers wrong.

Of course, it does happen that credit gets shared unfairly, or that the better writer in the group (or the best writer that someone in the group knows!) gets landed with the bulk of the copy editing, if not all the writing itself. These people are just people.

But the fact remains, if you can't convey your ideas to someone else, they're pretty useless. Who hasn't worked with someone inarticulate? Where after a whole bunch of work's been done they say "No no no, that's not what I meant!" to an audience of stunned faces all silently saying "Well, it's exactly what we all heard you say  "

I'll have to tell my friends that they're writing their papers wrong.

Of course, it does happen that credit gets shared unfairly, or that the better writer in the group (or the best writer that someone in the group knows!) gets landed with the bulk of the copy editing, if not all the writing itself. These people are just people.

But the fact remains, if you can't convey your ideas to someone else, they're pretty useless. Who hasn't worked with someone inarticulate? Where after a whole bunch of work's been done they say "No no no, that's not what I meant!" to an audience of stunned faces all silently saying "Well, it's exactly what we all heard you say  "

Personally it can be written in double Dutch for all I care. If its comprehended . comprehension is of course the paramount  purpose of communication. Now you all seemed to have comprehend a pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight trajectory on earth. Yes or No ?         

Couldn't have asked for a better case in point

In what specific way is it not straight? Pendulums swing in an arc, is that what you mean?

Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being  the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.         

Personally it can be written in double Dutch for all I care. If its comprehended . comprehension is of course the paramount  purpose of communication. Now you all seemed to have comprehend a pendulum does not swing back & forth in a straight trajectory on earth. Yes or No ?       

I doubt anything ever moves perfectly straight, not sure what your point is.

As for the pendulum, as was stated before it moves in a slightly curved path due to the rotation of the Earth, for one thing. In practise it's not really possible to start with zero sideways motion either. Nevertheless, it can be done with enough precision to clearly show the effect of Earth's rotation.

Step two of our case study:

Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being  the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.

What?

I think you're saying that Foucault's pendulums just work whether the earth is rotating or not. But seriously, that's just from that last part. The first 2/3rds I'm mystified by. Is that what you're saying? Does anyone know?

I'm stumped. Maybe he's saying at the high point of each swing, the pendulum shifts somehow? Really it's incomprehensible. I fear charles just doesn't understand any of the terminology well enough to make it clear what he means.

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 05, 2014, 08:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really  know  In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.

This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.

My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.

Its simple to understand. You have a suspension  pivot point vertical to the lowest point of gravity. you have an arc of swing. You develop a momentum once the pendulum commences swing. You have a change in accelerated velocity. each time the  pendulum passes the lowest point of gravity. Due to gravitational fall over powering momentum on each swing of the pendulum. Theses continual changes in velocity & reversed direction in momentum, is what causes the pendulum to progress in a rotation.               

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 04:53:43 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 05, 2014, 08:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really  know  In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.

This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.

My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.

Now you really have gone  to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with  protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.

I'm sorry that you didn't get your name in Nature for being a lab technician or whatever, but it is the case that everyone involved in the actual research is (typically) credited. Even if someone gets more credit than they deserve or rides the coattails of someone more involved or whatever.

Our case study continues:

Due to gravitational fall over powering momentum on each swing of the pendulum. Theses continual changes in velocity & reversed direction in momentum, is what causes the pendulum to progress in a rotation.

Are you saying that all pendulums precess, no matter what?

Quote from: evildylan on June 05, 2014, 08:51:42 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 04:53:43 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 05, 2014, 08:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really  know  In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.

This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.

My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.

Now you really have gone  to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with  protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.

Didn't you already claim to be a metallurgist?

Now you're writing papers on protein inhibitors?

Yes, I'm calling you a liar. 

Now if that's the case & we know it to be true. Then there is a brief shift in the trajectory momentum on every swinging. If we apply that to one of the maintained fixed point's of vertical. That being  the point of the pendulums pivot. That being the case then the pendulum own momentum will cause it to slowly progress in a rotational motion.       

Is it just me, or does none of this make any sense at all?

A "brief shift"?  Of what?  Caused by?

The "the trajectory momentum"?  The trajectory is the path traced by a moving body.  Momentum is its tendency to keep moving.  What's the connection?

What is the "maintained fixed point's of vertical"?  Is this even English?  Is "point's" meant to be plural or possessive?

—It's become apparent that Charles has misled us or exaggerated his academic qualifications somewhat, as any thesis or dissertation written in this manner wouldn't even be considered by any university in the world.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 10:04:50 PM

Quote from: evildylan on June 05, 2014, 08:51:42 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 05, 2014, 04:53:43 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 05, 2014, 08:52:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on June 04, 2014, 03:05:13 PM

Grammatical correctness has nothing to do with intelligence or credentials.  You are simply looking for something to attack him with. 

The reason a few of us have made jokes about Charles's spelling is that it's really a shocker by anyone's standards jroa.

"Grammatical correctness"—the written word—has everything to do with intelligence.  Sloppy English = sloppy facts.

For a guy who's bragged about having all sorts of academic qualifications, it would seem that he's unable to utilise an auto spell-checker like 99% of the rest of us do.  For someone to claim any sort of intellectual credibility, they must of necessity not repeatedly make major blunders in their grammar.  The last two papers I read of Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Dawkins didn't contain one single grammatical error.

Which is because they double-check their work, and Charles doesn't.  Or can't?

The writing of the actual peer review papers presented , is a specialised field. It just goes to shows how little you really  know  In nearly all cases the person who actually made the discovery, never gets a mention or accolade. Other then some obscure reference of them being part of the team. Professor dick wanker who obtained the research funding takes the full credit.

This is completely and factually incorrect. Please lie about other things that might be obscure enough to where you won't be caught.

My company publishes hundreds of papers a year that are submitted for peer review and even the most insignificant person involved with the research gets mention. You have no clue what you're taking about, please stop assisting with the dumbing down of the world.

Now you really have gone  to far with the insults . Inferring me to be a liar.
I've been involved in hundreds of papers written. The last being a published study finding of trials with  protein blockers. Insignificant determined by who ? That's was the point shyt head.

Didn't you already claim to be a metallurgist?

Now you're writing papers on protein inhibitors?

Yes, I'm calling you a liar. 

I hold all category welding certificates including metallurgy. I also have a Bsc Bvsc & I really dont care what a shyt head of the likes of  you!!!, opinion is of me .