Foucault pendulum : My point of view

  • 109 Replies
  • 15891 Views
*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2016, 06:09:00 AM »


i think that goes in the same direction as what i think would happen if i put a pendulum inside a rotating confined space

Jeff
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2016, 12:31:06 PM »


i think that goes in the same direction as what i think would happen if i put a pendulum inside a rotating confined space

Jeff

So why don't you test your hypothesis? Set up a pendulum in an enclosed space that you can slowly rotate, and see what happens.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2016, 12:51:50 PM »
ha it's not possible that the pendulum shows 360°+ rotation in one day, because the way "gravity" pulls the stone/iron to the center of the oscillation, the rotational force is attenuated while it is turning. So with 1° rotation of the earth, there can't be 1° rotation on the pendulum and cerntainly not MORE than 360°

Jeff
No. There is no rotational force, at least not at the south pole.

It swings while Earth moves underneath it.

Why would this cause it to turn at a different rate?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2016, 01:26:46 PM »


i think that goes in the same direction as what i think would happen if i put a pendulum inside a rotating confined space

Jeff

I already provided a link to a pendulum in a plane.

The reason the balloon is moving like this is because the air around it is heavier.
It isn't the balloon moving forwards when you accelerate. It is all the air in the car moving backwards, forcing the low mass balloon out of the way.
The same applies to all the other situations.

Also, it doesn't have the mass required to prevent air resistance being an issue.
A pendulum does.

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2016, 04:55:55 AM »


i think that goes in the same direction as what i think would happen if i put a pendulum inside a rotating confined space

Jeff

So why don't you test your hypothesis? Set up a pendulum in an enclosed space that you can slowly rotate, and see what happens.
will do. I just need to find a train and a huge arm to pick it up and rotate it very slowly. Foucault's pendulum needs to be a certain height, otherwise it doesn't work (i've read that somewhere  but i don't fully understand why, theorically it should work at any size right?)

Jeff
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2016, 04:58:17 AM »


Why would this cause it to turn at a different rate?
because at any time t, there is the force of gravity that counter the rotational force, thus making it weaker : if you apply a force in one direction (the rotation) and you have another force 90° from the first force, the rotation will be attenuated, simple as that

so i think they fraudulently declared a full circle to make it look legit, but it is so wrong...
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2016, 05:23:45 AM »
It appears that inertia does not apply to helium balloons. 

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2016, 10:20:06 AM »
You don't need a train, 1on0ne. A shed on a base that can rotate would work just fine, and wouldn't be too hard to set up.

These are under $100 at Wally World:


*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2016, 01:00:27 PM »
will do. I just need to find a train and a huge arm to pick it up and rotate it very slowly. Foucault's pendulum needs to be a certain height, otherwise it doesn't work (i've read that somewhere  but i don't fully understand why, theorically it should work at any size right?)

Jeff
It would work at basically any size.

If you have it too short you may have issues with the string mounting wanting to twist it or the like.
The big issue is the period can be quite short with a tiny one, and the momentum is much lower. This will result in it dying (i.e. slowing down and stopping) much sooner, and thus may also result it it not accurately showing the angle.
An easy way to see that is to just get a weight on a string. Start it swinging while holding the string close to the ball, see how long it takes to die. Then do it again holding much further away.

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2016, 01:03:28 AM »
Why would this cause it to turn at a different rate?
because at any time t, there is the force of gravity that counter the rotational force, thus making it weaker : if you apply a force in one direction (the rotation) and you have another force 90° from the first force, the rotation will be attenuated, simple as that

As JackBlack said in the part of his post that you didn't quote, for a pendulum at the south pole there's no rotational force on it.

The point is that the pendulum doesn't turn, while the earth does.

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2016, 02:10:34 AM »
Why would this cause it to turn at a different rate?
because at any time t, there is the force of gravity that counter the rotational force, thus making it weaker : if you apply a force in one direction (the rotation) and you have another force 90° from the first force, the rotation will be attenuated, simple as that

As JackBlack said in the part of his post that you didn't quote, for a pendulum at the south pole there's no rotational force on it.

The point is that the pendulum doesn't turn, while the earth does.

oh yes i totally forgot that point ! i myself said that earlier, sorry for beeing such an idiot...
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2016, 11:49:17 AM »
Okay lets suppose i found a way to suppress gravity

We put the pendulum inside a shed or whatever and we pull the ball in the position of launching it, except the pendulum will not oscillate due to the lack gravity obviously


We rotate the shed slowly
Will :
1) everything That is inside the shed will rotate?
2) or the pendulum will keep its original position thus showing a different angle from the start?

Either case GE is f@cked, ill explain why later

Jeff



live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #42 on: December 08, 2016, 11:55:23 AM »
This will be good.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #43 on: December 08, 2016, 12:34:16 PM »
Okay lets suppose i found a way to suppress gravity

We put the pendulum inside a shed or whatever and we pull the ball in the position of launching it, except the pendulum will not oscillate due to the lack gravity obviously


We rotate the shed slowly
Will :
1) everything That is inside the shed will rotate?
2) or the pendulum will keep its original position thus showing a different angle from the start?

Either case GE is f@cked, ill explain why later

Jeff

If you remove gravity, the pendulum wont exist, at least not as a pendulum.
What would be causing it to oscillate?

I know why you think either way GE is fucked.
If everything inside the shed rotates, then the pendulum should rotate as well.
If it stays still, then why would anything rotate on Earth.

Again, this has to do with the atmosphere rotating with us, and objects already having momentum from Earth's rotation, but remember, we have gravity to stop us flying off.
In the case you gave, the ball stays put. It has no initial momentum from the rotation of the shed, and thus the air would need to force it to rotate.
If you had it rotating with the shed and then released it, it would hit the wall of the shed as there is nothing to hold it in place (or the roof if it is attached to a string that wont let it hit the wall.

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2016, 03:29:40 PM »
Okay lets suppose i found a way to suppress gravity

We put the pendulum inside a shed or whatever and we pull the ball in the position of launching it, except the pendulum will not oscillate due to the lack gravity obviously


We rotate the shed slowly
Will :
1) everything That is inside the shed will rotate?
2) or the pendulum will keep its original position thus showing a different angle from the start?

Either case GE is f@cked, ill explain why later

Jeff

I think you need a better understanding of the Foucault pendulum - try here.

Regarding your 'experiment' - without gravity there would be no pendulum and so nothing to resist a turning force. So the experiment is about a turning shed. What is that going to show?

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2016, 08:09:58 PM »
Either case GE is f@cked, ill explain why later
Explain why NOW.  This is the very definition of a "put up or shut up" situation.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2016, 08:15:22 PM »
Okay lets suppose i found a way to suppress gravity

I would suppose you would win a nobel prize and also put me out of a job.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #47 on: December 10, 2016, 05:54:44 AM »
Sorry for the well waited response.

Here it is :

With or without gravity, what is inside a train is not affected by the movements the train does (except accelerations/deccelerations, of course)
Every movement we will talk here has to be *slow* (you can take the train and shake it in every direction but it won't prove anything).

Let's suppose we have a penduluim inside a wagon.
When we rotate the wagon, or slide it, the result will be the same : all molecules inside will move with the wagon. As well as when you are inside a train, every movement of the train is translated to you, and to every molecule in the train. If not you would be throwed on the back wall when there is  a higher speed. Rotating the train is the same as putting the pendulum inside a building and the earth is rotating the building. So rotating the wagon creates a rotational force that affects everything inside the wagon. You need to understand that before we continue.

we can see it that way:



it is the same with gravity or not, that force is always present

We all know that gravity is what oscillates the pendulum : the ball is attracted to the ground and the momentum brings the ball on the other side, etc, until there is no momentum at all, and the penudulm then stands perfectly still and vertical.

Claims are made that, at the north pole, the rotation should be a perfect 360° (and it should be if the pendulum is indeed immobile, and the earth turns under), but they don't take into account the rotational force.

At each time t, there are two forces : gravity (g->) and the rotational force (r->), and they both affect the pendulum
the resulting force r-> + g-> is no equal to g->. Even when it's not "gravity-less", the ball is affected by the rotation as we saw earlier.

The rotational force affects the extremity of the pendulum (the ball) much more when the ball is at its change of direction : during that time, the ball is almost gravity-less, so we are in the previous phase where we can account that there is no gravity for some time, and that the gravitational force don't counter the rotational force. So at this moment the rotational force is the only force that exist. Because the pendulum is slower at these extremities, forces applied at that moment have greater effect than at the vertical for instance.

so the conclusion is : there is no way the pendulum would make a 360° rotation on the north pole, it would be way WAY less than that due to the always forgotten rotational force.

Jeff
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #48 on: December 10, 2016, 05:57:26 AM »
Are you really suggesting that transitioning from no rotation to a slow rotation requires no acceleration?

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #49 on: December 10, 2016, 06:21:38 AM »
A few days ago, in this thread, I posted this:
As JackBlack said in the part of his post that you didn't quote, for a pendulum at the south pole there's no rotational force on it.

The point is that the pendulum doesn't turn, while the earth does.

Which you (apparently) agreed with:
As JackBlack said in the part of his post that you didn't quote, for a pendulum at the south pole there's no rotational force on it.

The point is that the pendulum doesn't turn, while the earth does.
oh yes i totally forgot that point ! i myself said that earlier, sorry for beeing such an idiot...

Now you write this:
Claims are made that, at the north pole, the rotation should be a perfect 360° (and it should be if the pendulum is indeed immobile, and the earth turns under), but they don't take into account the rotational force.

At each time t, there are two forces : gravity (g->) and the rotational force (r->), and they both affect the pendulum
the resulting force r-> + g-> is no equal to g->. Even when it's not "gravity-less", the ball is affected by the rotation as we saw earlier.

The rotational force affects the extremity of the pendulum (the ball) much more when the ball is at its change of direction : during that time, the ball is almost gravity-less, so we are in the previous phase where we can account that there is no gravity for some time, and that the gravitational force don't counter the rotational force. So at this moment the rotational force is the only force that exist. Because the pendulum is slower at these extremities, forces applied at that moment have greater effect than at the vertical for instance.

so the conclusion is : there is no way the pendulum would make a 360° rotation on the north pole, it would be way WAY less than that due to the always forgotten rotational force.

So you seem to have changed your mind. This is allowed of course, except you're now incorrect. There's no rotational force on a pendulum at the north or south pole.

The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:



Edit: Video playback disabled on other sites, so replaced with link.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 06:28:45 AM by Copper Knickers »

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2016, 03:03:46 PM »
Let's suppose we have a penduluim inside a wagon.
When we rotate the wagon, or slide it, the result will be the same : all molecules inside will move with the wagon. As well as when you are inside a train, every movement of the train is translated to you, and to every molecule in the train. If not you would be throwed on the back wall when there is  a higher speed. Rotating the train is the same as putting the pendulum inside a building and the earth is rotating the building. So rotating the wagon creates a rotational force that affects everything inside the wagon. You need to understand that before we continue.
We do understand that. We also understand there isn't some magic force that causes everything to rotate.
If the train changes speed, you feel it. You do get thrown back onto a wall.
What stops that is what is connecting you to the train.
Typically that will be your feet or but and back.
This allows a significant transfer of force.
If something is in the air, it doesn't have that.
Instead it relies upon the air.
If the air was going to be strong enough to keep the pendulum rotating, then it wouldn't be able to oscillate.
It would just drop to vertical.

The air is not strong enough to keep the pendulum stationary, and instead allows it to swing back and forth. This means it isn't going to be able to impart enough energy/momentum to keep it moving with the container.

Also, it wouldn't be a rotational force, but I'll get to that later.

it is the same with gravity or not, that force is always present
As well as other forces, or instead you could generalise this "rotational force" to be one of air resistance.
This will be proportional to velocity and act in a direction opposite the velocity of the object (with this velocity being w.r.t the air).

We all know that gravity is what oscillates the pendulum : the ball is attracted to the ground and the momentum brings the ball on the other side, etc, until there is no momentum at all, and the penudulm then stands perfectly still and vertical.
And what stops it moving? The air resistance.
So do you notice how when the air has transferred enough momentum/energy to keep it stationary, it is stationary?

At each time t, there are two forces : gravity (g->) and the rotational force (r->), and they both affect the pendulum
the resulting force r-> + g-> is no equal to g->. Even when it's not "gravity-less", the ball is affected by the rotation as we saw earlier.
And this force r-> is tiny.
Like I said, it should be ar-> (air resistance).

The rotational force affects the extremity of the pendulum (the ball) much more when the ball is at its change of direction : during that time, the ball is almost gravity-less, so we are in the previous phase where we can account that there is no gravity for some time, and that the gravitational force don't counter the rotational force. So at this moment the rotational force is the only force that exist. Because the pendulum is slower at these extremities, forces applied at that moment have greater effect than at the vertical for instance.
No. The forces have the same effect regardless of where they are applied. The exception would be forces due to things like air resistance which are dependent on speed. In that case as the pendulum is the slowest here, the force will be least here.
The force from air resistance is greatest when the string is vertical and the pendulum is moving the fastest. This force acts to slow the pendulum down. If it doesn't do it here, what makes you think it is going to keep it rotating with Earth when it is so much smaller at the extremities.

And again, this isn't a rotational force. It is a linear force. Lets ignore the air resistance component due to its swinging for now (even though that alone shows that this force isn't going to significantly effect it)
So, at the pole, it is at the peak of its swing, and it is forced to the right in your diagram.
It was being pushed to the right from when it moved from vertical to this side. It keeps getting pushed right until it goes back to vertical. The force is also proportional to how far away it is from the centre of rotation.
Now the air is moving the opposite direction, and it is forced left.
This acts to counter the force which was forcing it right.

This means the force on one side counters the force on the other.

This means in total, there is no force trying to make it rotate.

so the conclusion is : there is no way the pendulum would make a 360° rotation on the north pole, it would be way WAY less than that due to the always forgotten rotational force.
Nope. The conclusion is there is no "rotational force".
You just have the force of the air resistance, which is negligible, or else the pendulum would just sit vertically not swinging. This means that if it was going to cause a rotation of the pendulum, it would be insignificant and thus you would likely observe the 360 degree rotation.
But more importantly, it isn't a rotational force. It is a linear force where the 2 sides cancel each other out.

Also, if you wish to assert it would be WAY less, then do the math and show just how much less, because right now, you are like those that say we couldn't be spinning because we would fly off, ignoring that the force of gravity is roughly 300 times stronger, meaning we would still fall to Earth, or for a less "controversial" idea, you couldn't possibly put your foot on the accelerator to speed up a car because you would travel way too fast instantly due to that acceleration which would kill you.

So to conclude, you would expect it to make an apparent 360 degree rotation, as there is no rotational force, and even if there was, it would be insignificant.

*

Triangles

  • 63
  • Forgot my old account, but i'm back.
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2016, 03:20:29 PM »
if what Foucault said is true, then if I jump next to the pendulum, the earth rotated a tiny bit under me while I was in the air?

that's nonsense, that would mean a helicopter could hover at the same place for 1 hour and land 1600km farther!

on a rotating earth, with the atmosphere 'stuck' to the earth rotation, the pendulum should NOT rotate at all!

the fact it is rotating disprove earth's rotation at all!

the pendulum's rotation is something else, maybe because the firmament and stars are rotating also, but not the same strength obviously?



Jeff

This is a weirdly on-point video to have been posted today.
Quote from:  rabinoz
::) Sandokhanian Science  ::).
Ah yes, I majored in this.

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2016, 02:19:29 AM »
This is a weirdly on-point video to have been posted today.


Another gem from Vsauce. I'd not come across the Eötvös effect before. Makes sense if you think about it though. I dare say another victory for RE!!

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2016, 01:54:17 AM »
Are you really suggesting that transitioning from no rotation to a slow rotation requires no acceleration?
of course there is an acceleration but it is not strong enough to be taken into consideration, but i'm not saying there is not of course
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2016, 02:02:40 AM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 02:18:27 AM by 1on0ne »
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2016, 04:44:27 AM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff
If the train is travelling in a straight line at a constant speed, then yes, "everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon" but
if the train is turning a corner while "you launch your sandwich up in a moving train" the sandwich will keep travelling straight ahead,
but while the train is turning the curve, the sandwich will still keep travelling straight while you move to one side, so it might just hit you in the face. This is essentially the Coriolis effect.

The video in Copper Knickers' post demonstrates it pretty well:



*

1on0ne

  • 156
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2016, 09:23:53 AM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff
If the train is travelling in a straight line at a constant speed, then yes, "everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon" but
if the train is turning a corner while "you launch your sandwich up in a moving train" the sandwich will keep travelling straight ahead,
but while the train is turning the curve, the sandwich will still keep travelling straight while you move to one side, so it might just hit you in the face. This is essentially the Coriolis effect.

The video in Copper Knickers' post demonstrates it pretty well:


this is because it is a sudden acceleration. Does the earth suddently accelerate ? I warned guys about that earlier when i said that "you could shake the wagon in very direction that wouldn't prove anything." but you still did it, that's unbelievable... Do you have short-term memory of a gold fish? Plus it's not a train that turns, it a train that pivots on the same axis that the pendulum, you mix up everything there

I think at that point all that has to be said on the matter has been said. The proof has been brung, and the demonstration is finished.

If you can't understand that, then ask for a brain at Christmas because i think you just don't want to understand, or you are plain stupid.

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 12, 2016, 09:51:13 AM by 1on0ne »
live fearlessly, love endlessly

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2016, 09:53:03 AM »
I await your Nobel Prize.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2016, 10:09:00 AM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff
If the train is travelling in a straight line at a constant speed, then yes, "everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon" but
if the train is turning a corner while "you launch your sandwich up in a moving train" the sandwich will keep travelling straight ahead,
but while the train is turning the curve, the sandwich will still keep travelling straight while you move to one side, so it might just hit you in the face. This is essentially the Coriolis effect.

The video in Copper Knickers' post demonstrates it pretty well:


this is because it is a sudden acceleration. Does the earth suddently accelerate ?

Actually, it's constant acceleration. Even if the train is turning at a constant rate when you throw your sandwich up it won't turn along with the train.

Did you watch the video? It pretty much shows how a pendulum behaves at the poles. Assuming a frictionless bearing, there's no rotational force on the pendulum from the rotating base/earth.

Please go easy with the ad homs. They don't add anything to your argument and they make you look like a troll.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Foucault pendulum : My point of view
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2016, 12:21:21 PM »
The same is true of your train example. If the train turned, the pendulum wouldn't turn (about its vertical axis) with it. Have a look at this:
i didn't change my mind i came back to my original idea, and proved it with logic. You're saying that a ball in the air is independent from the movements of the train? that would mean if i launch my sandwich up in a moving train it should hit me in the face?

i'm deseperately trying to explain something so basic that everything inside a moving train follows the movements of the wagon. that shouldn't be too hard to understand?

Jeff

No. You are confusing linear and rotational motion.

In order to have rotational motion, it must be connected to a centre of rotation.

Throwing a sandwich in the air doesn't have that (at least not any decent one), so it will just conserve linear motion.

If you were on a train, facing forwards, you threw your sandwich in the air, and then the train sped up, your sandwich can hit you in the face.
If you were on a train, facing sideways, you threw your sandwich in the air and then the train turned a sharp corner, your sandwich can hit you in the face.
Even if you were turning a corner at a constant rate, with you facing in, if you throw your sandwich in the air it can hit you in the face.

If you were in a shed, rotating, holding a ball to make it rotate, without gravity, and then let it go, it would fly and hit the side of the shed.
It would not keep following the shed.

There are 3 cases where things follow the movement of the container:
1 - They are physically attached such that there is a physical contact point between them which allows them to accelerate with the container. This is the case for people on trains. This has to be a fairly solid attachment. If you are just relying on your feet and there is a sudden movement, you can easily fall over (making a much larger and stronger contact).
2 - They are tiny little particles which basically fill the container (i.e. gas). This results in a pressure differential which serves to accelerate the particles and keep it moving with the container.
3 - They have massive air resistance and thus in a similar manner to 2, a pressure differential builds up which accelerates them.

Do you notice how a pendulum doesn't match any.

For the simple case of near the pole, the momentum from Earth rotating is piratically nothing.
Or alternatively, we can discuss its velocity. Assuming it can swing out 2m, then the velocity is given by omega r.
Omega is roughly 15 degrees an hour, or 7.3E-05 radians a second. Times that by our 2m radius and we have an astonishing velocity of: 0.00015 m/s.
This will be akin to the small errors from not releasing it perfectly, I highly doubt it is going to affect it.

I think at that point all that has to be said on the matter has been said. The proof has been brung, and the demonstration is finished.
And you are yet to refute it, even thought I explained it quite clearly.
I do notice that you do seem to like ignoring some posts that show the error in your ways.
Why is that?

If you can't understand that, then ask for a brain at Christmas because i think you just don't want to understand, or you are plain stupid.
So I know what to get you for Christmas...