Foucault pendulums

LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics. The swinging bob develops momentum ,which intern produces torque at the pivot point. That's not theory that's a fact.
What the RE brains trust cant seem to grasp ether . Is their very own  bullshit of the world rotating makes it even more ludicrous.That the starting point of the pivots perpendicular, to the  ground is being exactingly  maintained the whole time ,the pendulum is swinging. 
Like all great magic tricks, you have to convince the audience to believe something to be true when it isn't.
The key to the Foucault pendulum trick. Is to have the audience believe a pendulum will  swings back & forth & not rotate,  if it were not for the earth rotating. a pendulum will rotate regardless. It has to do with torque developed & How far off the pivot point,starting point shifts off perpendicular,when the bob is in motion.                     

In the ten days you spent away from this thread, could you not have maybe studied or learned even the basics about what you're talking about?

Or did you just forget in that time away that applying a torque does not affect the direction of the pendulum swing? Foucault tested this by setting up a small pendulum in a turning drill press. I tested this myself. You could easily check it yourself. Torque the pivot point however you want charles, you will not cause the pendulum to precess. I dare you to try this yourself and prove me wrong, you buffoon.

LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics.

From this comment Charles, it's more than obvious you don't understand why I posted the image of the frictionless magnetic bearing. The support string of the pendulum is fixed within the inner magnet along the "Z" axis.






It's to demonstrate to you that there is NO torque induced into the string supporting the bob.  (I'll even hazard a guess that you have no idea how torque works; what produces it, or what its effects are.)

You claim that "momentum produces torque".  Which is of course absurd.  Momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object—which the bob possesses.  Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis.  The bob does NOT rotate about its axis.

I really can't believe that you have such a poor comprehension of even the basics of high-school physics.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 12:52:07 AM

LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics.

From this comment Charles, it's more than obvious you don't understand why I posted the image of the frictionless magnetic bearing. The support string of the pendulum is fixed within the inner magnet along the "Z" axis.

It's to demonstrate to you that there is NO torque induced into the string supporting the bob.  (I'll even hazard a guess that you have no idea how torque works; what produces it, or what its effects are.)

You claim that "momentum produces torque".  Which is of course absurd.  Momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object—which the bob possesses.  Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis.  The bob does NOT rotate about its axis.

I really can't believe that you have such a poor comprehension of even the basics of high-school physics.

You create an axis the moment you fix your bob line to the pivot point. pivot point , gravity, stationary bob correspondence to ground. That's a nice picture Geoff, but can you tell me how your managing to keep it exact. when any frame & the footings its fix to can't maintain an exact state.
And now a word from our sponsors. Does your world seem to be in a spin, are you tide of always feeling like your stuck on a merry go round that's going no where . Well try Dr logics all new  formula for improved IQ & stop the world of bullshit & spin in its tracts.       

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 12:52:07 AM

LOL you haven't blown anything out of the water other then demonstrating your lack of understanding of physics. The swinging bob develops momentum ,which intern produces torque at the pivot point. That's not theory that's a fact.
What the RE brains trust cant seem to grasp ether . Is their very own  bullshit of the world rotating makes it even more ludicrous.That the starting point of the pivots perpendicular, to the  ground is being exactingly  maintained the whole time ,the pendulum is swinging. 
Like all great magic tricks, you have to convince the audience to believe something to be true when it isn't.
The key to the Foucault pendulum trick. Is to have the audience believe a pendulum will  swings back & forth & not rotate,  if it were not for the earth rotating. a pendulum will rotate regardless. It has to do with torque developed & How far off the pivot point,starting point shifts off perpendicular,when the bob is in motion.                     

In the ten days you spent away from this thread, could you not have maybe studied or learned even the basics about what you're talking about?

Or did you just forget in that time away that applying a torque does not affect the direction of the pendulum swing? Foucault tested this by setting up a small pendulum in a turning drill press. I tested this myself. You could easily check it yourself. Torque the pivot point however you want charles, you will not cause the pendulum to precess. I dare you to try this yourself and prove me wrong, you buffoon.

buffoon lol Well this buffoon would like you to suspend a plum bob. Note its location ,then move its suspension point by 1,000,000th of a thou., Will the plum bob location remain the same. of course it wont. What will occur to a swinging  bob when its suspended pivot point shifts as little as 1,000,000th of a thou.? It will change line of trajectory of course. Some people in this world just dont have any inclination  of reality.             

Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.

Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.

Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.

Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.

Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.     

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 04:30:38 AM

Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.

Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.

Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.   

Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?

You create an axis the moment you fix your bob line to the pivot point.

Uh... nope.  You don't "create" an axis LOL.  It's simply there all the time.  Duh.

Pivot point, gravity, stationary bob correspondence [sic] to ground.

What?  Please write in technical terms that make some sense Charles.

That's a nice picture Geoff, but can you tell me how your [sic] managing to keep it exact.

I agree.  It's just a shame it's wasted on you Charles.  Please do some reading about frictionless magnetic bearings and induced torque—or the lack thereof.

And now a word from our sponsors. Does your world seem to be in a spin, are you tide of always feeling like your stuck on a merry go round that's going no where. Well try Dr logics all new  formula for improved IQ & stop the world of bullshit & spin in its tracts.

Maybe you should try Geoff's all-new, grade-school certified spell-checker.  Get it free with every web browser!

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:05:46 AM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 04:30:38 AM

Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.

Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.

Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.   

Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?

does it ? or is it a matter of a manipulation of the set up of the pendulum. 173 km out on that you tube clip is what you would  considered not  being any where near accurate. I bet I could of done a much better job at manipulation  the set up of that  pendulum.  Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch  out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging , Of course you wouldn't. Oh & I'd be burn the string, All good magic needs a good audience distraction from what's really going on.           

Quote from: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 05:51:48 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:05:46 AM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 04:30:38 AM

Can you change the direction of a long heavy bob's swing just by moving its pivot some imperceptible amount? Or even by a larger amount? Foucault noticing that you could not, in his workshop, was what caused him to create the pendulum experiment in the first place.

Of course, if you've shattered the laws of the conservation of angular momentum, you probably ought to demonstrate it experimentally and submit the findings to a few journals.

Of course you can, because your changing the location of its lowest point of gravity. Your attachment cable is a predetermined length. What is wrong with you people. Its so obvious, its down right ridiculous not to see the plum bob will move to the lowest point of gravity the cable will allow it to.   

Don't you think that the most relevant point about these pendulum's is that the rate of change in the direction of their swing changes depending on latitude?

does it ? or is it a matter of a manipulation of the set up of the pendulum. 173 km out on that you tube clip is what you would  considered being any where near accurate. I bet I could of done a much better job at manipulation  the set up of that  pendulum.  Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch  out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging , Of course you wouldn't. Oh & I'd be burn the string, All good magic needs a good audience distraction from what's really going on.         

Nice assertion. Please provide evidence for this claim that all of the world's pendulum's are deviously manipulated.

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch  out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...

Oh dear.  Poor old Charles seems to think that scientists only use their eyesight to measure things LOL.

Not so dear chap.  Scientists use stuff like lasers and the Doppler effect to measure the relative shift of bodies in space.

Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch  out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...

And yet you've implied in the past that a few square feet of water in a kitchen pan is enough to detect a rate of curvature on the surface of 8 inches per mile.

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
           

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 08:32:45 AM

Do you really think with your naked eye you would see 5 thou or even 16th of an inch  out of lineament when we start the pendulum off swinging...

And yet you've implied in the past that a few square feet of water in a kitchen pan is enough to detect a rate of curvature on the surface of 8 inches per mile.

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .         

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
         

I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.


You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:40:49 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
         

I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.


You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.

What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold  parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table .  if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.     

Quote from: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:01:59 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:40:49 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
         

I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.


You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.

What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold  parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table .  if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.     

So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 06:19:46 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:01:59 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:40:49 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
         

I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.


You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.

What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold  parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table .  if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.     

So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?

I have seen plenty of them in operation. That's the point I see the flawed  explanation of what is occurring continuously being propagated & all other possibilities of  reasoning of what's occurring being shunned. That's not true educated science. That's force feed controlling out come & political dictating .     

Quote from: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:38:50 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 06:19:46 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on June 22, 2014, 06:01:59 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:40:49 PM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by minute adjustments (or large adjustments) to the pivot. That's the root of the experiment and it's been run many times, if you can rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by imperceptible touches to the pivot (or even large touches) do it and post a video.

Have you ever used a plum bob ? If you have then you wouldn't make such a silly statement. The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.
         

I got an idea. Go to your local pendulum. Tell them you think it is a fraud and that you would like to inspect it. Release the pendulum and watch it yourself.


You keep talking about how it can be faked. Well good for possibilities. Now prove that it actually is.

What dont you seem to understand about the deception of the illusion. Lets take the example of the drill press. If we take a sold  parallel rod & place it in the drill press chuck, it will be perpendicular to the drill press table .  if we place a plum bob in the same chuck, it will not be hanging perpendicular to the drill press table, but perpendicular to how level the drill press is to its supporting floor surface & intern the floors supporting surface. Which is consonantly varying.     

So I take it you are not interested in seeing one?

I have seen plenty of them in operation. That's the point I see the flawed  explanation of what is occurring continuously being propagated & all other possibilities of  reasoning of what's occurring being shunned. That's not true educated science. That's force feed controlling out come & political dictating .     

Unless of course they are not being manipulated, which won't be found out until you inspect, which you conveniently refuse to do.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on June 22, 2014, 09:03:34 AM

If you move the pivot a little you move the arc of the pendulum a little. Or probably deform it into an ellipse or something. Either way, you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by [adjusting] the pivot.

If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.

...

Yes, the centre of the (now elliptical) path will be under the pivot's new position, obviously. But the bob will still be swinging the same direction...

you can't rotate the arc of a long heavy pendulum by [adjusting] the pivot.

If you think you can, post a video. Nice straight arcs back and forth, but rotating so first the bob is swinging forward-back then you work you magic on the pivot and it's swinging left-right.

The bob is attached by a string /cable to the pivot point. If you move the pivot point away from its starting  stationary perpendicular point. Then the bob not going to keep swinging back & forth in the same place it was when it was started in motion . its centre of swing is going to move to where its pivot point its hanging from, has been moved to.         

Nobody's disagreeing with that assertion Charles.  Of course if you displace the pendulum's pivot point you'll displace its swing arc.  The point is that during the Foucault pendulum experiment, the pivot point is NOT moved in any way, shape or form.

You seem to be setting up a straw man here?

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.

Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.

In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.


This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.

This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:




And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank.  How can you explain that?



 

You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:

Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?

Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:57:42 PM

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.

Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.

In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.

This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.

This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:

It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.

And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank.  How can you explain that?

Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to  tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot.     

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:10:22 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:57:42 PM

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.

Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.

In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.

This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.

This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:

It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.

And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank.  How can you explain that?

Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to  tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. 

No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth.

You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:

Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?

Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?

For someone who claims to be a master of the English lingo & me just being  a struggling present at it. someone to poke continual  fun at. Read carefully what is written & not be mislead by assumption. Newtons first law .Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. A tendency to .Not a definite to.
Stationary? The earth is expanding & contrasting continually. Is the earth rotating ? It has been suggested it is theoretically. Proved beyond doubt No.

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:10:22 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:57:42 PM

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.

Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.

In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.

This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.

This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:

It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.

And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank.  How can you explain that?

Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to  tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. 

No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth.

The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container.  

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 08:22:11 AM

You know, after 30 pages I've lost track of what Charles is trying to argue, not that it was ever clear to begin with. Please answer these two questions, if you would:

Charles, on a flat, stationary Earth, is a pendulum's arc supposed to precess at a slow, steady rate, or not?

Do you claim the Earth is flat and stationary?

For someone who claims to be a master of the English lingo & me just being  a struggling present at it. someone to poke continual  fun at. Read carefully what is written & not be mislead by assumption. Newtons first law .Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. A tendency to .Not a definite to.
Stationary? The earth is expanding & contrasting continually. Is the earth rotating ? It has been suggested it is theoretically. Proved beyond doubt No.

I'm seeing "I don't know" to the first question and "maybe" to the second. Is that right?

Also, Newton didn't mean that a body maybe sometimes goes in one direction unless acted on by a force.

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 23, 2014, 05:41:34 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 23, 2014, 05:09:57 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on June 23, 2014, 08:10:22 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on June 22, 2014, 05:57:42 PM

The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures. But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water. which contradicts your curvature claims. If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist. Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy.

Despite claiming the contrary, you obviously have very little understanding of hydraulics Charles.

In its free state, the surface of water is not necessarily flat as you claim.

This diagram shows what's called a "meniscus" and illustrates that water can form either of two profiles—dependent on the diameter of the containing vessel.

This is a photograph of a concave meniscus:

It's obvious that the surface of the water is curved, and not flat at any point.

And if you were to fill your large water tank from your earlier hypothetical experiments, you'd find a convex meniscus surrounding the entire perimeter of your tanks, which would mean the surface of the water is above the top edge of the tank.  How can you explain that?

Is that a rectangular tank ? NO!!!. So why present an example of a tube ? that provides a meniscus effect.If you were to  tilt the tube at a 45 degrees, the water will present as dead flat. By the way Geoff how does that help your claim the earth is spherical , displaying a photo of water surface presenting its self as concave. Can some one get Geoff a band aid I think he just shot him self in the foot. 

No charlie, he's showing why you can't use a little container of water to show anything about the curvature of the Earth. The meniscus is caused by surface tension, not the shape of the Earth.

The meniscus is caused by surface tensionHence the rectangular container.

Shape of the container is irrelevant.