Foucault pendulums

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.

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.   

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.

It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles.  Well, sorry, but you're not.

Totally different set of mechanics involved.  Major one?  You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force.  This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).

There is torque on whatever the bob is attached to. Torque is defined as Moment of Inertia multiplied by angular acceleration.  The bob has Moment of Inertia of mass times length squared, and the acceleration is to be found. This gives mglsinx=-(ml^2)*(angular acceleration), which using the small angle approximation yields the result for time period being proportional to the square root of length

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 12:11:06 AM

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.

It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles.  Well, sorry, but you're not.

Totally different set of mechanics involved.  Major one?  You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force.  This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).

The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The  foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.     

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 01, 2014, 01:52:16 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 12:11:06 AM

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.

It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles.  Well, sorry, but you're not.

Totally different set of mechanics involved.  Major one?  You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force.  This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).

The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The  foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.   

Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 07:27:57 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 01, 2014, 01:52:16 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 12:11:06 AM

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.

It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles.  Well, sorry, but you're not.

Totally different set of mechanics involved.  Major one?  You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force.  This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).

The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The  foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.   

Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.

If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all  Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant.Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual  constant & that answer is NO it isn't .         

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 01, 2014, 11:39:35 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 07:27:57 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 01, 2014, 01:52:16 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 01, 2014, 12:11:06 AM

Well while your experimenting. find a drill press. hang a plumb bob in it, only have the string off centre in the chuck, swing your bob, then after a few swings slowly turn the chuck. So the starting point the bob was original hung at from the chuck is now changed. Then NOTE what happens to the swinging bob.

It would seem that you think you're replicating the spinning of the earth by slowly turning the chuck Charles.  Well, sorry, but you're not.

Totally different set of mechanics involved.  Major one?  You're introducing axial torque in the suspension string by applying an external force.  This does not occur with a Foucault pendulum, whose suspension point is fixed to the spinning earth, and does not turn independently from the earth (as your drill chuck does).

The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.The  foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting. To say they maintain a constant fixed position is false.   

Still waiting for you to produce some results with this setup that replicate a Foucault pendulum.

If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all  Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant.Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual  constant & that answer is NO it isn't .       

Nothing you've said about pendulums, the Earth, torque, or much anything else has made any sense at all. Maybe if you can show what you are talking about in an experiment it will become clear.

The mechanics are the same, simple because the earth expands & contracts constantly.

Nope.  Totally erroneous.

The  foundations the support frame & the pivot point are constantly shifting.

And nope again LOL.  The pivot point and its supporting structure are affixed rigidly to the surface of the earth.  There is NO differential movement between them.

Then there's not much point in continuing discussions...

Totally agree Charles.  Your near-total lack of any comprehension of the most basic of the principles of mechanics, geophysics and astrophysics means that the majority of us—including flat earthers—are wasting our time responding to you.  It's very difficult repeatedly posting cohesive responses to illogical proposals—such as you consistently make on these forums.

Sometimes, I'm tempted to dismiss your comments as those of a troll, but I generally give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you're sincere in your scientific beliefs—bizarre as they are.

What is a fixed constant?

What is a fixed constant?

That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments?  LOL.

If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all  Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant. Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual  constant & that answer is NO it isn't

The ONLY part I could figure out, and respond to, was the stuff I've bolded.   

Quote from: inquisitive on July 02, 2014, 01:44:33 AM

What is a fixed constant?

That's your only question about these meaningless, barely cohesive comments?  LOL.

Quote

If your that ignorant, that you refuse to except & comprehend the pivot point of all  Foucault pendulum centre starting points. Never remains at a fixed constant. Then there's not much point in continuing discussions. The only question to be debated, is one of whether the pivot point is at a continual  constant & that answer is NO it isn't

The ONLY part I could figure out, and respond to, was the stuff I've bolded.   

Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it.  Agenda Geoff 

Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it.  Agenda Geoff

I'm seriously thinking of downgrading my guess of Charles being a pimply-faced, 16-year-old high school student to a little 8-year-old grade school kid.

It's been some time since I've seen so many puerile insults directed at opponents in what's supposed to be a mature debate amongst educated adults.  Although, I do understand that the ad hominem attack is the last resort of the person who's been repeatedly backed into a corner with their fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning abilities.

Our poor young Charles seems to truly believe that any localised expansion or contraction of the earth causes some magical change in the laws of Newtonian physics LOL.  He also confuses linear expansion (EG rail tracks) with volume expansion (EG the earth) but this is often a trap for young players.   

So Charles... can you please explain what you think the coefficient of thermal expansion of the earth mass is?  And as you claim all sorts of academic qualifications, I expect a technically feasible answer using precise units;  [10^-6 m/(m K)]

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.   

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 02, 2014, 06:58:38 AM

Going to keep pretending you worked in laying railway lines. When there length are individually stamp on each line, because they expand & contract just as the earth does. I dont think you would know shit from clay if you fell face first in to it.  Agenda Geoff

I'm seriously thinking of downgrading my guess of Charles being a pimply-faced, 16-year-old high school student to a little 8-year-old grade school kid.

It's been some time since I've seen so many puerile insults directed at opponents in what's supposed to be a mature debate amongst educated adults.  Although, I do understand that the ad hominem attack is the last resort of the person who's been repeatedly backed into a corner with their fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning abilities.

Our poor young Charles seems to truly believe that any localised expansion or contraction of the earth causes some magical change in the laws of Newtonian physics LOL.  He also confuses linear expansion (EG rail tracks) with volume expansion (EG the earth) but this is often a trap for young players.   

So Charles... can you please explain what you think the coefficient of thermal expansion of the earth mass is?  And as you claim all sorts of academic qualifications, I expect a technically feasible answer using precise units;  [10^-6 m/(m K)]

Well which part of the earth, what soil type & composition ,what moisture content. level of water table. what atmospheric temperature & humidity that particular time of the day or night. What was that stupid question you asked Geoff. I tend to have short term memory with dumb ass questions asked.   

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

Quote from: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:43:47 AM

Quote from: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.

Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE 

Quote from: evildylan on July 03, 2014, 09:41:12 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:43:47 AM

Quote from: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.

Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE

All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.

a pivot point that stays at a continual constant.

Could you define "continual constant"? I assume it's some made-up variant of an inertial reference frame?

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

Oh dear... another totally incoherent comment from poor old Charles.  I can't believe that somebody living in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century can be so ignorant of even the most basic principles of Newtonian physics.

Maybe Charles thinks that if he buries us under a tsunami of meaningless bullshit, he'll "win" the argument and we'll just go away.

No such luck Charles.  Sorry.

Please, let's try to reduce the ad hominum attacks.  Keep these debates civil.  Thanks. 

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 04:05:08 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 03, 2014, 09:41:12 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:43:47 AM

Quote from: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

 

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.

Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE

All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.

Sounds like a bad batch of wine. Sour grapes  . fancy being done like a dinner by someone with poor English & grammar skills. Oh the indignity of it all (smile*)

Quote from: Shmeggley on July 03, 2014, 05:22:14 PM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 04:05:08 PM

Quote from: evildylan on July 03, 2014, 09:41:12 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 06:43:47 AM

Quote from: guv on July 03, 2014, 02:52:51 AM

    A 500 mtr concrete bridge will expand about 5 or 10 mm on a hot day, does that help Charley boy.

If it moves it moves. Smaller then the smallest Bee's dick will do. It means the line & bob  has moved off its pivot point, stating point of centre.

 

you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Just give up. you've lost and there's no hope.

Actually I do & you can't provide a pivot point that stays at a continual constant. CHECKMATE

All you've done is gnaw on the pieces and shit all over the board "mate". Playing chess with pigeons can be entertaining for a while, but it's foolish to think either side can actually win.

Sounds like a bad batch of wine. Sour grapes  . fancy being done like a dinner by someone with poor English & grammar skills. Oh the indignity of it all (smile*)

Note how the pigeon debater struts across the board with confidence, as though claiming victory amidst the pieces he has soiled.

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 03, 2014, 04:05:08 PM

a pivot point that stays at a continual constant.

Could you define "continual constant"? I assume it's some made-up variant of an inertial reference frame?

entirely  no movement what so ever.  I will alphabet it so you get the grasp. pivot point & attainment of string (A) stationary Bob & location to floor (B) supporting structure holding up  pivot (C) foundation supporting structure rests on (D)earth surface foundation rests on (E) If earth surface is never in a fit state, no movement what so ever. Which that state is imposable to achieve. Pivot point is subjected to the same, never in a fit position. (A) & (B) there for dont maintain their initial line while pendulum is swinging. & if you wish to argue there is no toque being developed in the string I suggest you  mount a bearing horizontally,then attach the line to its outer diameter. Swing the pendulum & then watch the bearing rotate back & forth.                   

Charles, are you saying that slight, random movements of the pendulum's anchor point and supporting structure are what cause the plane of the pendulum's swing to precess at a steady rate which varies depending on latitude?

Right, so to sum up: things wobble.

Did I "Get the grasp" ?

So. This random, noisy wobbling that we aren't accounting for - why does it always produce a nice smooth effect that only varies by our latitude on a sphere?

Charles obviously doesn't understand that whatever "movement" in the theoretically rigid mounting point of the pendulum's supporting string there could be—and which would be measured by a micron or two—there'd be absolutely no observable and/or measurable effect on the pendulum's arc of swing relative to the earth.

He seems to think that the pendulum's point of suspension is gyrating wildly all over the place relative to the earth—which of course it isn't.  One of the major constraints of any Foucault pendulum experiment is that its point of suspension is fixed rigidly to the supporting structure, which in turn is affixed rigidly to the surface of the earth.

He's unaware that he's attempting to mount an argument that denies the veracity of an experiment that was first demonstrated more than 150 years ago, and has not once been shown to be flawed since that time.

I challenge Charles to cite one single accredited scientific paper that proposes that the Foucault pendulum mechanism is faulty in any way.  I need the name of the researcher, the date of his/her experiment, and the name of the paper publishing his/her results.

Further, if Charles is unable to provide this simple piece of evidence supporting his own claims, then I can only suggest that he's woefully and/or willfully ignorant of the actual mechanism and means of action of the pendulum—in which case he should probably cease and desist from commenting further about it.

Right, so to sum up: things wobble.

Did I "Get the grasp" ?

So. This random, noisy wobbling that we aren't accounting for - why does it always produce a nice smooth effect that only varies by our latitude on a sphere?

Latitude is an agreed upon made up equator coordinate set at 0 degrees.  What coordinates are you claiming here? Are you working to USGS or UTM ?.     

You pick. At the same latitude, no matter the system used, the Foucault pendulum precesses at the same rate.