Foucault pendulums

  • 826 Replies
  • 140700 Views
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #480 on: June 07, 2014, 03:19:39 AM »
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.
The two vertical points.Pivot point. lowest point of gravity. If the pendulum is hanging still, its a PLUM BOB &  maintaining fixed points of vertical.
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.
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't…:

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #481 on: June 07, 2014, 11:03:53 AM »
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 .     

Forgive me if i don't believe you've ever authored a scientific paper, had it peer reviewed, published, or even know the fist thing about protein inhibitors.

Way to stay classy with the name calling though, it really drives the point home.  ::)

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #482 on: June 07, 2014, 11:07:33 AM »
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?
Read the FAQS.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #483 on: June 07, 2014, 12:06:33 PM »
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.

The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy.  Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy.  This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.

And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing.  The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #484 on: June 07, 2014, 01:55:03 PM »
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?

M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.

Now I work in biotechnology.

P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 01:56:52 PM by evildylan »

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #485 on: June 07, 2014, 05:07:36 PM »
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.

The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy.  Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy.  This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.

And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing.  The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite  direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?   
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 05:38:47 PM 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't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #486 on: June 07, 2014, 05:55:59 PM »
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 .     

So you're a welder, metallurgist and a veterinarian?  ;D

You must be a busy guy, does this explain why you never learned to write? Or are you simply bluffing?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #487 on: June 07, 2014, 06:02:16 PM »
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.

The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy.  Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy.  This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.

And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing.  The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite  direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?

Clearly, physics was not a big part of your substantial education.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #488 on: June 07, 2014, 06:04:36 PM »
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?

M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.

Now I work in biotechnology.

P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway  tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 06:12:06 PM 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't…:

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #489 on: June 07, 2014, 06:11:09 PM »
The fall of gravity is the energy producing the momentum. Every swing is an action of giving momentum & overpowering that momentum given, resulting in a reversal of centripetal force with in its arc of swing. The change in direction of centripetal force, causes the bob to drift off line of trajectory. Each reversal of centripetal force creates a new trajectory path.

The bob exhibits two distinct states of energy.  Whilst its in motion, it possesses kinetic energy.  This is transformed into potential energy when the bob is stationary at the highest point of its swing arc.

And any centripetal force is always orthogonal (at a right angle) to the velocity (rate of change of position) of the bob, and towards the fixed point of curvature of the bob's arc of swing.  The centripetal force never "reverses" or "changes direction" relative to the bob.
Are you saying if you tided a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created ? How does the bob travel in the opposite  direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?

Clearly, physics was not a big part of your substantial education.
You mean ,Clearly physics was not a big part of your substantial education, otherwise you would have a better understanding of kinetic energy & gravity.
 http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 06:13:06 PM 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't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #490 on: June 07, 2014, 06:30:17 PM »
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #491 on: June 07, 2014, 06:35:38 PM »
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?

M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.

Now I work in biotechnology.

P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway  tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~

Typical reaction of the ignorant, uneducated and stupid. Who are you to presume anything about evildylan's background because he has a higher education than you. It must be higher than yours, why else would you react like a big flopping raw nerve? And anyway, how would the way he came about his education have any bearing on the argument he's making? Nice attpt at derailing, you little weasel.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #492 on: June 07, 2014, 06:49:07 PM »
Everyone, I know that discussions can get a little heated, but let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum.  Thanks. 

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #493 on: June 07, 2014, 08:07:49 PM »
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole  kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell  to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?     
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 08:11:13 PM 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't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #494 on: June 07, 2014, 09:00:23 PM »
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole  kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell  to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?   

Anybody have any idea what he's asking here?
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 #495 on: June 07, 2014, 09:34:30 PM »
Interesting, but how does this relate to Foucault pendulums?
It demonstrates that the whole  kinetic energy of the mass had to reach complete equilibria. Before its entire mass fell  to gravity. Which part of your Bob is reaching equilibria first ?   

Anybody have any idea what he's asking here?

I happen to know an FBI codebreaker who might be able to help you.
Read the FAQS.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #496 on: June 07, 2014, 11:52:00 PM »
evildylan, if you're so much better why don't you post your credentials?

M.S. in molecular biology, undergrad study major biology with a chem minor.

Now I work in biotechnology.

P.s. I never claimed to be better, I just find his statements incredibly convenient. He always claims to have a degree in everything being discussed.
Some people grew up on the other side of the railway  tracks & didn't have wealthy parents to financially supported them as well as pay for their tuition.They had to work other jobs to obtain the funds. Made sacrifices in living standards.Studied in Hours when they should of been sleeping. You elitist self righteous people turns my stomach.~~~~~~~

You know absolutely nothing of my parents wealth, I got into and through college with work harder than you've ever imagined. When my scholarships couldn't pay, I worked full time and went to school, when that wasn't enough I took student loans, to which I still owe.

Please tell me more about how self righteous I am you presumptuous little prick.

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #497 on: June 08, 2014, 12:49:46 AM »
Alright, boys.

There's no need to get testy in a public forum. We can argue about what schools we went to and what degrees we have all day, but it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
Read the FAQS.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #498 on: June 08, 2014, 01:22:10 AM »
Alright, boys.

There's no need to get testy in a public forum. We can argue about what schools we went to and what degrees we have all day, but it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.
However you have no proof.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #499 on: June 08, 2014, 01:44:20 AM »
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.

Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Vauxhall

  • 5914
  • dark matter does not exist
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #500 on: June 08, 2014, 09:13:17 AM »
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.

Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.

Have you ever seen The Wizard of Oz?
Read the FAQS.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #501 on: June 08, 2014, 09:30:22 AM »
...it doesn't change the fact that Foucault pendulums don't operate without some sort of technological assistance; be it motors or magnets, it could even be someone at the top of the pendulim manipulating it manually. GE probably funds the whole operation.

Someone hasn't been paying attention. The pendulum at the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales has no drive to keep it swinging, and must be hand-started if you want to see it in action. Visitors are encouraged to do this themselves, and yet, with no mechanical control whatsoever, and with random people hand-starting it, this pendulum still precesses at a rate of about 9°/hr. Note: because of it's mass, it will continue to swing for several hours once started.

Have you ever seen The Wizard of Oz?

Have you ever seen that movie where this guy shows you how to do an experiment yourself and then you realize that you're a free citizen and that you only live a few block away from Home Depot where you can buy the materials needed for the experiment and you perform the experiment yourself and then you do and then you realize you are wrong about everything?

You should see it.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #502 on: June 08, 2014, 01:32:48 PM »
Are you saying if you tied a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created?
Nope.  If you think I did please let me know where, and I'll endeavour to clarify it.

Quote
How does the bob travel in the opposite  direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Any/all centripetal force(s) are acting along the suspension string between the bob and its pivot point.  The vectors of this centripetal force are acting horizontally and vertically relative to a tangent drawn at the earth's surface immediately below the pivot point.



*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #503 on: June 08, 2014, 01:50:46 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm

Interesting video.  What the guy neglected to explain was that Slinkys, which are basically a spring, are designed with a (longitudinal) restoring force that equals the acceleration due to gravity, and which is why they sit fully compressed on the floor at rest.  If you were to make Slinkys with a thicker gauge of wire for example, the experiment (stationary bottom end) wouldn't work.

This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum however.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #504 on: June 08, 2014, 10:04:33 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3480353.htm

Interesting video.  What the guy neglected to explain was that Slinkys, which are basically a spring, are designed with a (longitudinal) restoring force that equals the acceleration due to gravity, and which is why they sit fully compressed on the floor at rest.  If you were to make Slinkys with a thicker gauge of wire for example, the experiment (stationary bottom end) wouldn't work.

This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the Foucault pendulum however.
You mean make it ridged so it stores no kinetic energy. What would we call that slinky a house brick. ::)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 10:36:29 PM 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't…:

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #505 on: June 08, 2014, 10:26:40 PM »
Are you saying if you tied a weighted object to a string & swung it vertically there is no centripetal force created?
Nope.  If you think I did please let me know where, and I'll endeavour to clarify it.

Quote
How does the bob travel in the opposite  direction, if its centripetal force its created doesn't cease & change direction?
Any/all centripetal force(s) are acting along the suspension string between the bob and its pivot point.  The vectors of this centripetal force are acting horizontally and vertically relative to a tangent drawn at the earth's surface immediately below the pivot point.
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum  torque. It minuscule but its still there.  ;)   
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't…:

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #506 on: June 09, 2014, 02:33:54 AM »
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.

I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque".  Could you please explain it?  As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.


 

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #507 on: June 09, 2014, 04:54:47 AM »
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.

I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque".  Could you please explain it?  As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced  by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .     
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 05:02:35 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't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #508 on: June 09, 2014, 06:05:22 AM »
You have conveniently negated the angular momentum torque. It minuscule but its still there.

I'm not familiar with the term "angular momentum torque".  Could you please explain it?  As far as I knew, angular momentum produced no torque at all, as the momentum is 100% conserved within the closed system of the bob and its suspension string.
The torque is developed by the building & realising of tension in the suspension cable. Caused by gravitational resistance to the centripetal momentum. A resonating wave is produced  by the change in torque & tension on the suspension cable every swing .     

I know what all the words mean, but this doesn't make sense. It's kind of like listening to Deepak Chopra talkin about quantum mechanics and spirituality. In other words, bullshit.

I'm still willing to play though. Please, can you make a diagram showing all this?

I also recommend you try this with a real pendulum of some kind. I used a plumb bob on a string. No precession, no matter if I twist the string, move it up and down, side to side, etc.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #509 on: June 09, 2014, 06:43:19 AM »
We seem to have differing opinions on the FE side. If I understand correctly, Vauxhall says Foucault pendulums don't precess without some mechanical or magnetic trickery. He's given several opinions on how this might be done, but so far has not demonstrated that it can be done, nor has he demonstrated that it has in fact done in any case of a Foucault pendulum experiment.

Charles on the other hand, supported the fakery idea at first, also without providing any conclusive evidence, but then switched to the idea that the pendulum will actually precess as expected not due to Earth's rotation, but will in fact precess on a non-rotating Earth due to some combination of gravitational force, tension in the wire and instabilty of the point of suspension. After several attempts he has not made clear how this works.

On the RE side, the equation t=24hr/sin(L), where t is the period of precession, 24hr is the period of Earth's rotation, and L is the latitude where the pendulum is located, to predict how the pendulum will precess. Several examples of this actually working, including video demonstrations, experiment write ups, and publicly available Foucault pendulums have been given. Many of the examples were of apparently unmodified and unassisted pendulums. Where magnetically assisted pendulums were referenced, some detail of the magnetic sucker mechanism was given, including detail explaining how every effort is made not to alter the trajectory of the bob other than to accelerate it slightly in the direction it is already travelling to compensate for loss of momentum due to friction.

Now, after 26 pages of debate, I think it's clear that the FE side has given nothing substantial on the Foucault pendulum, citing only vague conspiracy theories, and confused sounding physical explanations that don't account for real world observations. Furthermore Vauxhall has been dishonest, by his own admission, regarding his alleged experiments. The RE side has clearly shown, by simple theoretical explanation and by reference to several verifiable experiments that Foucault pendulums do in fact precess due to rotation of the Earth.

Unless anyone has anything further to add, how do you all feel about putting this one to a vote and declaring a winner in this debate?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?