Foucault pendulums

  • 826 Replies
  • 219792 Views
?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #750 on: July 14, 2014, 02:05:45 AM »
Charlie, have you ever seen anything that when hanging freely at rest on a piece of string, not affected by outside forces other than gravity and string tension(so no blowing on it, no playing with magnets etc.), would NOT point straight down?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 02:42:29 AM by Macpie »

?

guv

  • 1132
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #751 on: July 14, 2014, 02:39:13 AM »
Playing with it has a lot to do with this debate. It is getting MASSive.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #752 on: July 14, 2014, 02:45:21 AM »
Charlie, have you ever seen anything that when hanging freely at rest on a piece of string, not affected by forces other than gravity and string tension(so no blowing on it, no playing with magnets etc.), would NOT point straight down?
If you take a rod made of steel & suspend it vertically. it will hang vertically in line. from point A to point B. Now take that same rod & put a bend in it. Will it maintain its A & B location . No it wont. it will hang according to its weight of mass distribution to gravity . Know lets take a string & bob. Will it hang from point  A  to point B. No it wont. Because it has  A B & C Points in its configuration . A being string attachment B being point of connection to bob.C being end of bob. It will hang in accordance to its weight of mass distribution & Not in true vertical line from point A to C.       
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 02:47:07 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…:

?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #753 on: July 14, 2014, 02:59:07 AM »
We are not talking about C as the "end of" bob or bent bar. We are talking about C being the center of mass of the bob or bent bar. It can be either located experimentally(if the object was hanging freely - tied/glued to a string, not like welded to a hinge - C would be directly below the point where the thread is fixed to a ceiling, regardless where on the hanging object itself the thread is tied/glued, when the system was hanging peacefully) or calculated - the second option is much easier if the object is of uniform density and reasonable shape, like a steel orb or a glass. These three points - A, the upper attachment point of the string(to the ceiling), B - the bottom attachment point of the string(to the thing hanging) and C - the hanging object's center of mass, naturally align into one vertical line. The B can actually lie somewhere a bit to the side, if the lower attachment point doesn't rotate freely, but A and C will be in an exact vertical line either way.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 03:01:52 AM by Macpie »

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #754 on: July 14, 2014, 03:56:04 AM »
We are not talking about C as the "end of" bob or bent bar. We are talking about C being the center of mass of the bob or bent bar. It can be either located experimentally(if the object was hanging freely - tied/glued to a string, not like welded to a hinge - C would be directly below the point where the thread is fixed to a ceiling, regardless where on the hanging object itself the thread is tied/glued, when the system was hanging peacefully) or calculated - the second option is much easier if the object is of uniform density and reasonable shape, like a steel orb or a glass. These three points - A, the upper attachment point of the string(to the ceiling), B - the bottom attachment point of the string(to the thing hanging) and C - the hanging object's center of mass, naturally align into one vertical line. The B can actually lie somewhere a bit to the side, if the lower attachment point doesn't rotate freely, but A and C will be in an exact vertical line either way.
So B can lie somewhere a bit to the side. But B fluctuates in tension. So there has to be oscillation being produced.     
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 04:01:51 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…:

?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #755 on: July 14, 2014, 04:05:38 AM »
You mean fluctuates due to tension? In a way it does, but at a diminishing rate and strength, due to all ways to loose energy in our imperfect world. As through friction inside the string itself, and with the air around it. This is why a once set in motion pendulum doesn't swing forever, but comes to rest after a while. Nevertheless, the "resting" position is constant for a given setup - a specific bob, tied to a specific thread in the same manner - will always have the same resting position. That is unless there are several stable positions possible. But even then, it assumes one of them, it doesn't jump between any of them randomly.

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #756 on: July 14, 2014, 04:33:03 AM »
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.

Do you know what produce evidence means?  The pendulum has been shown to vary precisely with latitude. Can you demonstrate this exact precision in a simple imbalance or are you going to continue to just talk?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #757 on: July 14, 2014, 05:27:22 AM »
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.

Do you know what produce evidence means?  The pendulum has been shown to vary precisely with latitude. Can you demonstrate this exact precision in a simple imbalance or are you going to continue to just talk?
There are numerous faults in your mathematical calculation. You negate anything that exists that challenger's your dogmatic proclaim. You ignore Isoclinal folds !!!!!!!. & crap on about latitude & the equator like they are not made Up configuration of a map projection of a spherical earth that isn't. Do you know what produce evidence means?Do you know what manipulating result means?     
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 05:29:47 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…:

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #758 on: July 14, 2014, 05:33:54 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #759 on: July 14, 2014, 06:12:58 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
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…:

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45156
  • +97/-136
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #760 on: July 14, 2014, 06:49:32 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Charles, are you saying that there is absolutely no margin for error in pendulum experiments?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Macpie

  • 245
  • +0/-0
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #761 on: July 14, 2014, 06:58:40 AM »
Man, get real. You are pointing out how someone got within like 5% of the expected result by watching a ball of concrete, I think, for a few minutes, claiming that the method is bullsh*t as it is not reliable(in fat it is; it is simply difficult to measure the angles precisely after such a short time - it's just a slight data gathering error). While at the same time you propose some not-yet-seen or mathematically/physically described magical behaviour of stuff, like torque being transmitted through a simple soft string, no point of lowest potential existing for a hanging object, or that some random variations would always produce the same effect, regardless of the kind of string, weight or time it was swinging...

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #762 on: July 14, 2014, 07:05:32 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #763 on: July 14, 2014, 07:18:23 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where. 
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #764 on: July 14, 2014, 07:25:17 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.

1.4% precision for a simple homemade Foucault pendulum that ran for what, an hour? Let's see you do any better, and cheap talk doesn't count. 
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #765 on: July 14, 2014, 07:39:17 AM »
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees.  I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #766 on: July 14, 2014, 07:50:42 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.

167 km is 1.4%. That is pretty accurate. It's also homemade and as Rama mentioned, he didn't use a stellar day which makes it 1.2%.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45156
  • +97/-136
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #767 on: July 14, 2014, 11:00:36 AM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

You've managed to debunk yourself. Good job.
167 Km off. Just what this world needs anther confirmed imbecile. Remind me never to ask you for directions. I could end up any where.

167 km is 1.4%. That is pretty accurate. It's also homemade and as Rama mentioned, he didn't use a stellar day which makes it 1.2%.
Apparently Charles wants it to be accurate to withing 167 meters instead of kilometers.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Krikas

  • 56
  • +0/-0
  • What is this place?
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #768 on: July 14, 2014, 02:11:53 PM »
Ok, so I guess you don't know what it means.
Well here's the evidence. 167 km off  as per demonstrated & A great  Bullshit statement in the clip to go with it . Imagine how more accurate it would be if we ran the pendulum for many more hours straight.  ::) Imagine he got that part 100% right. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That guy really does look like he worships Satan, no wonder you didn't believe him. I also commend you guys for keeping me entertained on a 5 hour layover the other day while reading this, keep up the good work.
Quote from: jroa
...as if you have some kind of supernatural ability to measure distance with your eyes.
Quote from: Pongo
THE WALLS OF FLAT-EARTH THEORY ARE CRUMBING AROUND ME!!!!!

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #769 on: July 14, 2014, 04:16:16 PM »
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees.  I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle.  ::) 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 04:18:56 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #770 on: July 14, 2014, 04:20:30 PM »
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees.  I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle.  ::)

Where did you get the idea that people would be relying on a homemade Foucault pendulum for navigation? ???

Do you have any sense of what the term "proof of concept" means?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #771 on: July 14, 2014, 04:54:02 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.   
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

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #772 on: July 14, 2014, 04:56:06 PM »
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees.  I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle.  ::)

Not sure why the mods continue to let you go on in this crass fashion but it's not my call. Are you familiar with the ideas of accuracy, and experimental uncertainty?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #773 on: July 14, 2014, 05:11:46 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #774 on: July 14, 2014, 05:17:52 PM »
I reran his calculations using two decimal places and using the definition of a stellar day rather than exactly 24hours and he was only off by 1.2 degrees.  I think that is a more accurate calculation, or should it be a solar day that is used?
1.2 degrees well why didn't you say so in the first place, that makes all the difference. Instead ending up at shit creek. I would end up at bum phark no where. I'v always said if my aunty only had balls, she could be my uncle.  ::)

Not sure why the mods continue to let you go on in this crass fashion but it's not my call. Are you familiar with the ideas of accuracy, and experimental uncertainty?
Um Um because I'm a likeable guy ? Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. not admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe Or am I missing something here. 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 05:28:17 PM by charles bloomington »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don't…:

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #775 on: July 14, 2014, 05:27:39 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.   
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

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #776 on: July 14, 2014, 05:50:33 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

So you don't understand then.  Moving on.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #777 on: July 14, 2014, 06:11:50 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.

Was it the % sign? Goodness knows those are confusing. Maybe the +/-? I mean how can something be both plus and minus, amirite?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • +0/-0
  • Around the world.
Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #778 on: July 14, 2014, 06:13:09 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?

Pretty much exactly what I wanted to say. Also, despite all this it was fairly accurate. The idea here to suggest a way to figure out where you are in the world in a room with no windows. 173 km is about the average size of an american state. If you could use this method, whilst only doing the experiment long enough for it to turn about 6° and still at least determine what country you are in then that's not bad at all.

Re: Foucault pendulums
« Reply #779 on: July 14, 2014, 06:25:30 PM »
Could you please explain the statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. How ? was it going to progress at a different rate, at some point in its rotational progression.

So you don't understand then.  Moving on.

Look at the lines left by that pendulum - not the sharpest or straightest lines you could make for sure. So when you go to measure it, there's bound to be some error in the measurement (there's also a limit in your measurement tools. Your protractor from your school geometry set is only good to about +/- 0.5 degrees)  Let's say the best you can do in this case is about +/- 0.5 degrees. The total uncertainty is then 1 degree. (I don't know exactly what numbers, this is just an example to show how it works). Say the angle measured is 10 degrees. 1/10 = 10%, so for 10 degrees there's a 10% uncertainty in your measurement. Now suppose you let the pendulum go twice as long, and the angle is 20 degrees. There's still a 1 degree uncertainty, but now you're within 5% of the true number. So the longer you let the pendulum go, the more precise you can be with your measurement. Make sense?
What type of funky tobaccey you smoking. Because I'd love to be chuffing down on some of that gear.
Well I'm  terribly sorry, but being politically correct is not in my ojeador. Weakling ,why thank you  flattery. I will cherish the moment. Now could you please answer the question. Shmeggley doesn't seem to understand  protractors are a 90 degree evenly distributed segmented +- calibration .   
Now the question again is. Is that statement made in that clip. If the pendulum was run for several hours longer it would be been more accurate. Admittance that a Foucault pendulum doesn't progress in the timed manner of progressed rotation. As you are misleading people to believe. 
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…: