Foucault pendulums

I don't care about why the pendulum turns right now. Just show us that it doesn't turn at a different rate at different latitudes and your golden.

I have to ask why exactly poor old Charles has been crapping on about the alleged effects of "torque" on a pendulum for nearly 40 pages?

Listen up Charles:  You CANNOT produce torque (something that causes or tends to cause torsion or rotation) in a body with a piece of string.  End of story.  Please go away.

Of a rotating ANYTHING Earth, moron. The shape of Earth has nothing to do with the fact that a pendulum would change its plane of oscillation. The only part affected by the shape of Earth is if the rate of change is constant(it would be on a flat Earth), or if it is a function of some variable. By the way you still haven't said anything about what has to be this "perfect sphere" of yours.

I can see the last 22 years of the agenda has worked in dumbing you people down. if you cant produce a perfect sphere on earth . Then you can't produce a perfectly balanced bob. So it will have a lean on it moron. So its not going to swing back & forth in a exact line of trajectory.     

I have to ask why exactly poor old Charles has been crapping on about the alleged effects of "torque" on a pendulum for nearly 40 pages?

Listen up Charles:  You CANNOT produce torque (something that causes or tends to cause torsion or rotation) in a body with a piece of string.  End of story.  Please go away.

I'm not going any where ya Agenda low life.

I can see the last 22 years of the agenda has worked in dumbing you people down. if you cant produce a perfect sphere on earth . Then you can't produce a perfectly balanced bob. So it will have a lean on it moron. So its not going to swing back & forth in a exact line of trajectory.   

And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?

And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?

Apparently poor old Charles seems to think that a plumb bob has to be symmetrical around its long axis.  Which of course it doesn't.  You could make a pendulum out of a house brick if you wanted to.  He also seems to think sphericity is somehow related to the Foucault pendulum's method of action;  which it's clearly not (other than the earth's shape of course).

And he can't post a sketch or photo of a "leaning" plumb bob because there is no such thing.  In fact throughout all this blather of his, Charles has been reluctant to illustrate his claims with any diagrams or photos.  And the reason for this is more than obvious LOL.

So... your diagram of the leaning plumb bob please Charles?

You claim a pendulum swings back & forth in a parallel line & produces no torque.

No, that isn't what's being claimed.  We're claiming that a pendulum swings back and forth in its own line.  Parallel lines mean there there is an offset between one swing and the next.  We are not making this claim, you are.

using this claim you proclaim its sequenced rotation is the resultant  of a rotating spherical earth. The fact is a pendulum does produce torque & in doing so would produce its own rotational action . Negating the necessity for a rotating earth.         

And you have yet to prove that any torque generated by the pendulum would affect its precession.

Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.

I think this is the law that's in action here...

What idea. You claim a pendulum swings back & forth in a parallel line & produces no torque. using this claim you proclaim its sequenced rotation is the resultant  of a rotating spherical earth. The fact is a pendulum does produce torque & in doing so would produce its own rotational action . Negating the necessity for a rotating earth.         

Even if this were true (which it isn't, but let's suppose for a moment that it is so we can move on), then the rate at which the pendulum precesses would depend on the torque produced at the attachment point, which is not the case. Also you still have to deal with the fact that you would expect a steady rate of precession depending on latitude simply due to basic conservation of momentum.

Quote from: Macpie on July 11, 2014, 07:16:40 AM

And here comes another "you moron":
Any bob balances itself, regardless of its shape, mass and composition. ANY object can rest balanced. Why shouldn't it? That is why stuff doesn't wobble endlessly if placed down or hanged. If you created something which would endlessly roll when placed down, without stopping, describe it and wait for your Nobel prize. By the way, what do you mean by "lean on it"? Care to post a sketch or photo?

Apparently poor old Charles seems to think that a plumb bob has to be symmetrical around its long axis.  Which of course it doesn't.  You could make a pendulum out of a house brick if you wanted to.  He also seems to think sphericity is somehow related to the Foucault pendulum's method of action;  which it's clearly not (other than the earth's shape of course).

And he can't post a sketch or photo of a "leaning" plumb bob because there is no such thing.  In fact throughout all this blather of his, Charles has been reluctant to illustrate his claims with any diagrams or photos.  And the reason for this is more than obvious LOL.

So... your diagram of the leaning plumb bob please Charles?

That's a really good point, and gives me a simple idea for an experiment. Make 2 pendulums, one with the roundest, most perfectly balanced bob available, the other with a brick or something with a non-spherical shape. Then run them both and see whether there's any difference in the rate of precession. I'm betting on no significant difference. There you go charles, perfect test for your bob-balance hypothesis. Get to it.

What's made it so difficult—impossible?—to debate the Foucault pendulum with Charles is his almost total lack of knowledge regarding physics, mechanics, geometry and trigonometry, Newtonian laws, and geophysics.

To successfully debate something like this requires at least a basic understanding of the science that governs it.  Charles obviously doesn't have this, so any meaningful debate is ultimately a waste of our time.  And what further compounds the issue with people like poor old Charles is their stubborn, head-in-the-sand refusal to even contemplate the alternatives to their bizarre personal theories, regardless of how ludicrous they are.  This also explains why conspiracy theorist seem to thrive;  empirical evidence isn't high on their list of priorities—if it is at all.

The mechanics of the pendulum is obvious even to kids in any high-school science class, so one can only imagine that Charles missed out on this education for some reason or other.

Sad really.

What's made it so difficult—impossible?—to debate the Foucault pendulum with Charles is his almost total lack of knowledge regarding physics, mechanics, geometry and trigonometry, Newtonian laws, and geophysics.

To successfully debate something like this requires at least a basic understanding of the science that governs it.  Charles obviously doesn't have this, so any meaningful debate is ultimately a waste of our time.  And what further compounds the issue with people like poor old Charles is their stubborn, head-in-the-sand refusal to even contemplate the alternatives to their bizarre personal theories, regardless of how ludicrous they are.  This also explains why conspiracy theorist seem to thrive;  empirical evidence isn't high on their list of priorities—if it is at all.

The mechanics of the pendulum is obvious even to kids in any high-school science class, so one can only imagine that Charles missed out on this education for some reason or other.

Sad really.

I will tell you what's sad. The crap you continuously dribble out.
Torque at the pivot point accounts for the rotation. Inertia regulates the timing of the rotation.       

How does Torque account for the rotation?

DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?

How does Torque account for the rotation?

DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?

He doesn't. We have been over almost 40 pages regarding this subjects. Our friend Charlie keeps sticking fingers in his ears whenever asked to provide any proof - which he easily could have done already. Instead, he opts for babbling about "torque, inertia and indoctrination". Maybe he will get fed up after a while.

Quote from: lolzomgz1337 on July 12, 2014, 02:57:53 PM

How does Torque account for the rotation?

DO you have any mathematical, provable, testable, repeatable proof to back that up?

He doesn't. We have been over almost 40 pages regarding this subjects. Our friend Charlie keeps sticking fingers in his ears whenever asked to provide any proof - which he easily could have done already. Instead, he opts for babbling about "torque, inertia and indoctrination". Maybe he will get fed up after a while.

Who the hell do you think you are. To think you can speak on my behalf. Did I appoint you as my advocate ? My spokes person. How dare you assume to speak on my behalf. You ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ tard
To date you have only resight like a parrot the missives of your doctrine. That doctrine being torque doesn't exists because I say so. You have not demonstrated it not to exist. Its forty pages of nothing more then your parroting . Torque can be deduced & calculated  by arc of circle intercept. Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.           

Show me how that shift in equilibrium is being negated & not transformed in to torque ?   

Torque can be deduced & calculated  by arc of circle intercept.

Then why don't you deduce and calculate it for us like we've asked you to?

Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.           

Huh? 

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 12, 2014, 05:30:59 PM

Bob lowest point of gravity & tension on line transfer of shift in equilibrium.
         

Huh? 

As best as I can make out, Charles is claiming that if the bob is not absolutely symmetrical about its long axis (as in an irregular lump of rock for example) then there's some sort of overturning moment (?) introduced into the suspension system.  Obviously though, any shape of bob works as a pendulum, as its individual and unique centre of gravity never varies, and the suspension system is absolutely flexible.

IF Charles's perfectly spherically-shaped bob was fixed rigidly to its means of suspension, but not along the vertical axis of its centre of gravity, and that means was a rigid rod, then one can then imagine there would be a few strange forces induced into the mechanically closed system.

I can't be bothered doing the maths, but Charles might care to clarify if this is at least similar to what he's getting at.

After 40 pages of his drivel I doubt you're going to get any further clarification. Charles doesn't understand how a pendulum works, what inertia is, what momentum is, what torque is, and he thinks you can use a rope as a lever. I suggested, I don't know how many pages ago, that we should call an end to this particular debate and put it to a vote based on the arguments in this thread, and I still think that. Not that that would settle anything for good, but while it's been a really entertaining thread, I really think this debate is over. Unfortunately I think the OP has fled the FES forums, probably finding a much better use for his time.

What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth  there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then  referencing it to the  bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.         

Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.

Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.

You mean Isoclinal location.

Quote from: Rama Set on July 13, 2014, 05:10:31 PM

Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.

You mean Isoclinal location.

Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.

What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth  there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then  referencing it to the  bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.         

Diagram please.

Here is a list of pendulums around the world just in case anyone here wants to actually go and do some science.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums

What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth  there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then  referencing it to the  bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.         

You clearly don't understand what equilibrium means. There is no "imbalance in equilibrium". Equilibrium is a state where forces are balanced.

if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel

Can you even explain what this means? Could you at least make a diagram as people have asked? I'm guessing not, since this is incoherent gobbledegook.

What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth  there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then  referencing it to the  bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.         

Even if what you say is true, can you show that this "imbalance" causes a predictable percession of the pendulum's swing that corresponds with the pendulum's latitude?

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 13, 2014, 04:54:35 PM

What I am saying is, every time the pendulum swings back & forth  there is an imbalance in equilibrium. if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel .Then  referencing it to the  bobs lowest point of gravity. It clearly demonstrates a measurable. equilibrium imbalance.         

You clearly don't understand what equilibrium means. There is no "imbalance in equilibrium". Equilibrium is a state where forces are balanced.

Quote

if you note arc of circle intercepts of the bobs arc travel

Can you even explain what this means? Could you at least make a diagram as people have asked? I'm guessing not, since this is incoherent gobbledegook.

intercept.means the distance the bob  travels in its circler arc till it heads back the other way.   

Still makes no sense to me, but anyway how does this all relate the rate of precession to its location on Earth?

Quote from: charles bloomington on July 13, 2014, 05:23:29 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on July 13, 2014, 05:10:31 PM

Now all you have to do us equate it with changes in latitude and you have some ground to stand on. Until then the objection is feeble.

You mean Isoclinal location.

Don't be pretentious. You know exactly what I meant and since you have never shown this equality we have absolutely no reason to believe a thing you say. On top of that you throw ad hominems out like microwave burrito wrappers. Basically, your position is in a shambles and you are trying to defend it like Dieppe.

Well at lest I know how to produce a microwave, magnetron manufacturer was my bread & butter for a few years . 
Do you actually know what a Isoclinal fold is?
If you cant demonstrate how the pendulums configuration negates the imbalance in equilibrium ,Then I'm afraid its your position that's is in a shambles.