Foucault pendulums

  • 826 Replies
  • 69651 Views
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #600 on: June 23, 2014, 06:24:37 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.  ;D

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.
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.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy.  There would never be a boring moment.

 
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:26:23 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…:

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #601 on: June 23, 2014, 06:30:02 PM »
I think you mean definitely rather than defiantly.  You are also incorrect: water forms a concave meniscus.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 06:37:50 PM by Rama Set »
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #602 on: June 23, 2014, 06:32:09 PM »
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?

Quote
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know?  Did you measure it? 

Quote
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
 
Quote
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?

Quote
Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .
I'm still waiting to hear your method of measuring to determine how flat the water is.

Also, is a rectangular pot of water suitable for these measurements or not?  Yes or no.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #603 on: June 23, 2014, 06:37:35 PM »
I think you mean definitely rather than defiantly.  You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly  ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.   
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…:

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #604 on: June 23, 2014, 06:39:16 PM »
I think you mean definitely rather than defiantly.  You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly  ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.

I meant concave and edited my post. You meant definitely, trust me.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #605 on: June 23, 2014, 07:02:44 PM »
The rectangle container should display two notable differing curvatures.
Why?

Quote
But it doesn't due to hydraulic nature of water.
How do you know?  Did you measure it? 

Quote
which contradicts your curvature claims.
Who said the curvature could be determined in a pot of water?
 
Quote
If you would like to present your theory on how the two can possible coexist.
The two what?

Quote
Then I would be more then happy to hear your analogy .
I'm still waiting to hear your method of measuring to determine how flat the water is.

Also, is a rectangular pot of water suitable for these measurements or not?  Yes or no.
Well there are a few methods that tend to form my opinion on the subject. One is mix cement or plaster in water, place it in a levelled  rectangular container & left to set. The other would be contemplating the location an air bubble presents in a spirit level at level. non are conclusive. but I find them more of a guide then the theoretical rantings of the hysterical spherical inquisition.           
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 #606 on: June 23, 2014, 07:14:16 PM »
I think you mean definitely rather than defiantly.  You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus.
No defiantly  ;D You are also incorrect: water forms a convex meniscus. Really. Well that picture must be an optical illuuuuuuuuuuusion.

I meant concave and edited my post. You meant definitely, trust me.
OK & I will take your advice on the definitely.  ;)
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…:

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #607 on: June 23, 2014, 07:29:19 PM »
Probably best, I'm not sure one can be female defiantly.

Just to be clear, are we measuring a 40,000km curve by eye with a spirit level and/or plaster in our kitchens? When we're finished with that we should get working on cold fusion by waving fridge magnets around a party balloon, and who knows what next!
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #608 on: June 23, 2014, 07:58:21 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.  ;D

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.
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.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy.  There would never be a boring moment.

 

You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant.  ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #609 on: June 23, 2014, 08:03:44 PM »
Well there are a few methods that tend to form my opinion on the subject. One is mix cement or plaster in water, place it in a levelled  rectangular container & left to set.
And what should one use to detect any curvature or lack thereof?
Quote
The other would be contemplating the location an air bubble presents in a spirit level at level. non are conclusive.
The bubble is in the middle if it's level.  Let us know if you figure out more after contemplating that.
Quote
but I find them more of a guide then the theoretical rantings of the hysterical spherical inquisition.
Speaking of theoretical, do you think the plaster or air bubble method is going to prove anything, or do you know they will?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 08:30:33 AM by 29silhouette »

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #610 on: June 23, 2014, 08:31:39 PM »
Probably best, I'm not sure one can be female defiantly.

Just to be clear, are we measuring a 40,000km curve by eye with a spirit level and/or plaster in our kitchens? When we're finished with that we should get working on cold fusion by waving fridge magnets around a party balloon, and who knows what next!
I made a prototype repealing engine using ceramic magnets in the 1980's it worked outstandingly. The only problem with it .Corporations control the supply of energy & profit. It cost me my job It could of cost me a lot more.      " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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 #611 on: June 23, 2014, 08:45:42 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.  ;D

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.
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.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy.  There would never be a boring moment.

 

You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant.  ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?
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 #612 on: June 23, 2014, 10:06:33 PM »

I can see now that I've possibly wasted my time trying to explain to Charles that standing water doesn't always have a flat/or horizontal surface.

The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container Charles; it can be circular, like my diagrams and photo, or it can be square, rectangular, triangular, or any other shape you fancy.  The only other influence can be the density of the liquid within.  It also doesn't matter whether or not the container is tilted.
 
 

Water = concave meniscus.    Mercury = convex meniscus


?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #613 on: June 23, 2014, 10:54:55 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.  ;D

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.
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.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy.  There would never be a boring moment.

 

You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant.  ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?

Welp charles just crossed the line from amusing buffoon to possibly sadistic creep in record time.

Anyway... before you even try to measure the flatness of your plaster/water, you should calculate how round the water should be. I'm guessing it's way too little curvature to measure.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #614 on: June 23, 2014, 11:40:36 PM »

I can see now that I've possibly wasted my time trying to explain to Charles that standing water doesn't always have a flat/or horizontal surface.

The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container Charles; it can be circular, like my diagrams and photo, or it can be square, rectangular, triangular, or any other shape you fancy.  The only other influence can be the density of the liquid within.  It also doesn't matter whether or not the container is tilted.
 
 

Water = concave meniscus.    Mercury = convex meniscus
Did you fail chemistry ? Were talking about water. Not liquefied heavy metals & last time I viewed the ocean it wasn't mercury.
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container  Well I'm glade you so sure of your self. Kindly provide the two corresponding curvatures in a rectangular container.   
« Last Edit: June 24, 2014, 12:02:20 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…:

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #615 on: June 24, 2014, 12:00:53 AM »
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.  ;D

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.
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.
You defiantly have to be an American, defiantly have to be female & defiantly have to be single & I defiantly want to be your friend or enemy.  There would never be a boring moment.

 

You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant.  ::) Please show us your calculations of the expected curvature in your pan of water if the Earth is round vs if it is flat.
Well I haven't figured out yet how to get an exacting measurement. other then to say when the cement or plaster sets, it ends up concave.
You are defiantly (and definitely) ignorant. Nothing boring with an abusive relationship. Does this mean I can add you as a friend ? Do you like Horses? & animals in general?

Welp charles just crossed the line from amusing buffoon to possibly sadistic creep in record time.

Anyway... before you even try to measure the flatness of your plaster/water, you should calculate how round the water should be. I'm guessing it's way too little curvature to measure.
Possibly sadistic creep. I sincerely  apologise if I have offended you & have made you feel uncomfortable , It was not my intention. I was just trying to making light of the constant  personal insults directed at me & was foolish enough to attempt friendship . Your right I really must be an amusing buffoon.
I make no apology for preferring the company of animals then the company of humans.           
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…:

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #616 on: June 24, 2014, 03:12:41 AM »
 Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #617 on: June 24, 2014, 05:17:31 AM »
Be careful sitting down Charlie Boy. Is adrenalin really better than speed?.
More like you need to stop sampling your own product.
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 #618 on: June 24, 2014, 08:53:42 AM »
Charles, can you provide a liquid that does not result in a meniscus effect around the edge of the container? 

If so, can you determine the amount of curvature that would be present over a kitchenpan-sized segment of a 40,000km circumference?

If you answer yes to the first two, can you provide an accurate method of measuring this curvature that will determine if it's flat or not?

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #619 on: June 24, 2014, 09:31:30 AM »
Possibly sadistic creep. I sincerely  apologise if I have offended you & have made you feel uncomfortable , It was not my intention. I was just trying to making light of the constant  personal insults directed at me & was foolish enough to attempt friendship . Your right I really must be an amusing buffoon.
I make no apology for preferring the company of animals then the company of humans.         

Don't worry about it. I just wish I could figure out what the hell you are talking about most of the time. How are those calculations going?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #620 on: June 25, 2014, 12:15:28 AM »
Did you fail chemistry ? Were talking about water.
No Charles; sorry.  Chemistry was one of my matriculation qualifications way back when.  (Too far back LOL.)

Quote
Not liquefied heavy metals & last time I viewed the ocean it wasn't mercury.
Unfortunately Charles, it's obviously you who failed chemistry 101.  Mercury is NOT a "liquified" metal.  At standard conditions for temperature and pressure it's a liquid, just like the metals gallium, caesium, and rubidium.

Quote
The curvature is not affected at all by the shape of the container. Well I'm glade you so sure of your self.
Kindly provide the two corresponding curvatures in a rectangular container.
Sorry Charles.  I've already posted enough images to support my claims.  I think it's only fair that you start posting a few of your own images in support of your claims.  I've noted a distinct lack of any sorts of diagrams or photos to support any of your claims in this, and other forums.

I'm getting bored with flat earthers such as yourself who repeatedly ask round earthers for diagrams and photos, but never provide any of their own.  So... can you please post a couple of images that illustrate your point about standing water being dead flat when contained within a tank?  Either photos or diagrams will be fine.  You've turned this "flat" water thing into such a major issue—apparently in an effort to prove that Rowbotham's experiment was valid—that it's about time you put your money (or your diagrams and photos) where your mouth is Charles.



Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #621 on: June 25, 2014, 01:47:55 AM »
Charles, can you provide a liquid that does not result in a meniscus effect around the edge of the container? 

If so, can you determine the amount of curvature that would be present over a kitchenpan-sized segment of a 40,000km circumference?

If you answer yes to the first two, can you provide an accurate method of measuring this curvature that will determine if it's flat or not?
Your missing the point. flat is middle ground. How can you have a concave & a convex result . If a curvature is what is claimed to exist. Its not probable. Probable is middle ground. ( Flat )     
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…:

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #622 on: June 25, 2014, 02:36:48 AM »
Charles, two questions:

1. How large would your rectangular pan for measuring curvature be?

and, back on topic,

2. Have you ever succeeded in making a pendulum's plane of swing rotate in a direction and at a rate of your choosing without actually touching the bob?
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."

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #623 on: June 25, 2014, 04:48:07 AM »
Charles, two questions:

1. How large would your rectangular pan for measuring curvature be?

and, back on topic,

2. Have you ever succeeded in making a pendulum's plane of swing rotate in a direction and at a rate of your choosing without actually touching the bob?
Any size you like, I'm beyond caring any more  & yes I have,its dependent on amount of  toque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first  point of swing . But use win, because I haven't the stamina left in me to battle on. I hoped when I joined this forum I'd make a friend or two along the way. wishful thinking is always guaranteed to fail. You can trust me on that one.
My advice Scintific Method , experiment for your self & draw your own conclusions from them.
Ahi nos vemos, Vaya con Dios   
 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
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 #624 on: June 25, 2014, 05:57:25 AM »
...its dependent on amount of  torque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first  point of swing.

You just refuse to acknowledge simple physics don't you Charles?  The dynamics of the Foucault pendulum has nothing to do with torque (which is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance vector and the force vector, and which tends to produce rotation).  In the case of the swinging bob, there is NO lever arm, therefore no induced torque in the bob.

And there is NO "rotation" at the first point of swing.  There is no externally applied perpendicular force to produce any horizontal vector.

I've never come across someone so willfully ignorant of simple mechanics as you Charles.  You seem to seriously think you know it all, when in fact your grasp of even the most basic of the principles of mechanics is that of a grade-school kid.

I can only suggest that you read through THIS SITE posted by the University of New South Wales.  Hopefully it'll explain a lot of the stuff you seem hopelessly confused with—and which no number of explanatory responses from us is going to help you with.


Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #625 on: June 27, 2014, 09:08:30 PM »
...its dependent on amount of  torque being developed at the pivot point & direction of rotation on first  point of swing.

You just refuse to acknowledge simple physics don't you Charles?  The dynamics of the Foucault pendulum has nothing to do with torque (which is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance vector and the force vector, and which tends to produce rotation).  In the case of the swinging bob, there is NO lever arm, therefore no induced torque in the bob.

And there is NO "rotation" at the first point of swing.  There is no externally applied perpendicular force to produce any horizontal vector.

I've never come across someone so willfully ignorant of simple mechanics as you Charles.  You seem to seriously think you know it all, when in fact your grasp of even the most basic of the principles of mechanics is that of a grade-school kid.

I can only suggest that you read through THIS SITE posted by the University of New South Wales.  Hopefully it'll explain a lot of the stuff you seem hopelessly confused with—and which no number of explanatory responses from us is going to help you with.
For there not to be any developed torque.There would have to be no tension or change in tension occurring on the cable or string supporting the bob, during its motion of swing. The fact we know there is tension on the cable & that tension does change during the bobs motion of swing. Then a torque exists. You & your academic grant grabbers can pretend all uses  like a torque doesn't exist,  to suit your false position. But it does, It's not possible not to exist.   
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 09:11:18 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…:

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #626 on: June 27, 2014, 11:15:42 PM »
You & your academic grant grabbers can pretend all uses like a torque doesn't exist,  to suit your false position. But it does, It's not possible not to exist.

I really think you may as well give up posting on these forums Charles.  It's more than obvious you have not the faintest knowledge of mechanics or geophysics... or anything much at all it would seem from the sheer inanity of your comments.

I doubt that you even understand what "torque" is—although you repeatedly use it to justify your entire hare-brained ideas about the Foucault pendulum.

Poor old Michel must be rolling in his grave listening to you totally misrepresent his ground-breaking research.




*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #627 on: June 28, 2014, 03:20:09 AM »
Torque in the line will only rotate the bob, not rotate the arc it's swinging in.

I just tried it, if you get some string and a mug you can save yourself a lot of typing.
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

?

QuQu

  • 231
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #628 on: June 28, 2014, 12:03:43 PM »
Torque in the line will only rotate the bob, not rotate the arc it's swinging in.

I just tried it, if you get some string and a mug you can save yourself a lot of typing.

It can't, it has no idea what a string and a mug is. So it will continue typing by pressing random keys hoping this will generate something meaningful.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #629 on: June 28, 2014, 12:11:42 PM »
Still waiting for charlie brown to produce his video where he causes a pendulum to precess by manipulating it. You know, since it's so easy and obvious how it works.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?